quote:Originally posted by argyle104: The Explorer wrote:
quote: It is presumably meant to imply genetic exchange between two populations with distinctive genetic structures and which have otherwise been separated for some time prior to this exchange. In genetic jargon, this is referred to as "gene flow".
Then by that case, what population in the entire world has not had gene flow, since all it would take is for someone of one group to have a child by someone of another group. The Japanese could be the most "admixed" group on the planet. Why is there no obsession with them or any other group of non-African people.
Which in turn begs the question: what is the obsession with needing Africans both inside and outside of Africa to be the recipient of all of this "admixture"?
It's an interesting point. But I think people call it "admixed" only in the case when two different so called "races" mix. So if you have a Japanese person and a Korean mix it's different groups but not considered admixture in that sense.
But that's only if you believe that race exists. If you don't then a term like "black people" is invalid.
Or you can call people according to continent, for example "European" or "Africa", the words are geographic but they can also be used in racial contexts.
For example think of a few sentences where people are discussing admixtures between black and white people. Now just substitute African for black and European for white. In a lot of cases the intent of the person making the statements is the exactly the same by context. That's regardless of whether the person is right or wrong.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor Lyarnese tsk, tsk, tsk Try as you might, you just can't get that Jello in your head to vibrate at the same frequency.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Compassion MK, compassion. I suspect that Lioness is one of those "Conflicted" types. Can't "Pass" for White, but don't want to be Black.
We need to show those poor people, all the compassion and understanding that we can. I'm not religious, but this would probably be a good time for brother King to step in with assurances that God loves her anyway.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: The psychological things I've noticed with regards to the need to have Africans/African Americans be mixed:
There are several reasons that apply to different types of people as to why they not only want but need to believe in this mythology.
1. You have the white race loons who want to claim that everything in Africa is a result of them, which in turn boosts their self-esteem.
2. You have those who believe in a racial hierarchy based on race typology. Thus they create a fictional history for each typology no matter how delusional.
3. You have those that need to have certain individuals or groups of people to be "mixed", their psychological well being depends on it. These types of people are usually entertainment flunkies.
4. You have those who engage in eyeball morality and social status. If they think a person looks good or has certain so called "features" they like, then that person is supposed to be treated well and have a higher social status. The people with this mentality could not possibly accept that someone whom they thought looked good could be a slave. The people with this mindset also tend to be entertainment flunkies.
not a bad point we have to separate psychology from facts
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
But that's only if you believe that race exists. If you don't then a term like "black people" is invalid.
It may be subjective, but it is not invalid. It is like saying, if someone were to call the sky "blue", it is invalid; does it make sense to say that?
Because it is subjective, it is avoided by researches as much as it's possible. Terms like "darkly pigmented", "moderately pigmented", "lightly pigmented" or "depigmented" may be used instead, because they carry less social baggage than the absolute color descriptives used in casual conversation and are alluding to melanin levels.
quote: Or you can call people according to continent, for example "European" or "Africa", the words are geographic but they can also be used in racial contexts.
For example think of a few sentences where people are discussing admixtures between black and white people. Now just substitute African for black and European for white. In a lot of cases the intent of the person making the statements is the exactly the same by context. That's regardless of whether the person is right or wrong.
That may be so, but acknowledging gene flow between populations that were previously separated by geographical barriers for a considerable amount of time, is not tantamount to advocating "race". It's just a matter of fact.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
But that's only if you believe that race exists. If you don't then a term like "black people" is invalid.
It may be subjective, but it is not invalid. It is like saying, if someone were to call the sky "blue", it is invalid; does it make sense to say that?
Because it is subjective, it is avoided by researches as much as it's possible. Terms like "darkly pigmented", "moderately pigmented", "lightly pigmented" or "depigmented" may be used instead, because they carry less social baggage than the absolute color descriptives used in casual conversation and are alluding to melanin levels.
Calling a person who is brown "black" is clearly a racial categorization. It's like calling the sky green. It's avoided by researchers because in many cases the persons are brown not black.
^^^they are clearly brown
^^^^nearly black, yes he could be called black or brown
^^^^^ brown
^^^brown nearly black, could be called black
If what I said is not true then the usage of "black" is racial. Either that or call them all brown.
posted
The most common use of terms like white, black, yellow is to denote perceived common heritage in the West
How does your colorful way of describing people take this into account?
What useful applications\advantages does it have over the old way of grouping people?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re-read my post and see why your talk about "Chinese calling themselves yellow" is just a strawman
Why are you running from my questions? You brought the topic up with your picture spams and color indications LOL
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Re-read my post and see why your talk about "Chinese calling themselves yellow" is just a strawman
Why are you running from my questions? You brought the topic up with your picture spams and color indications LOL
you have not been following the thread. My pictures were for Explorer not you. The obvious point that "black" is racial when applied to a brown person. So this thing about "application" is a kalonji straw man. I never said it was supposed to have an application other than to make a point about why researchers avoid the term "black"
I'm not saying racial categorization is wrong but argyle is making some interesting points, seemingly from a "there is no such thing as race" perspective and if you really want to go there the terms "black" "white" and "yellow" become invalid inaccurate stereotype terminology. I used to argue along the lines sometimes and now argyles , annoying as he is, is making me reconsider.
The usual problem we have is that white people promoted racial categorization but go into a "there is no race" mode only when it's convenient for them.
That may be true. The term "black" can also can have political value rather than scientific value. These two thing get mixed up all the time, the political with the scientific.
But it's apart from the innate truth or untruth about the validity of these concepts.
So when we start talking about black power all of the sudden other people say black doesn't exist.
I see that point but still feel mixing it with science is a problem.
There can also may be ways of using a"there is no race" argument to political advantage that could be untapped. That takes some creative thinking
Getting back to argyle's point if a Zulu has a child with with a Khosian, a Tuareg with a Masai -but they don't call that "mixed"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You said "black" is unscientific and that Researchers don't use the term
Do they make in-population distinctions between black and brown?
It seems like you're high jacking scientific arguments to give your arguments authority when in reality, they don't back you at all
you're right kalonji scientists avoid using the terms "black" and "white" which are inaccurate
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: what looks like black to you is different only in pigment concentration from what you call brown
right again, while scientists might not use the term brown either it is entirely accurate whereas black is not accurate. Therefore if someone were to insist on using color to classify people there are no black people only brown.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: At the end of the day, "black" and "white" may suffer from inconsistent use, but your suggestions about assigning everyone a color is simply garbage
Complete and utter garbage
You say that "assigning everyone a color is simply garbage" Then you say that there are no black people they are just darker brown people. Then after having established an accurate color, the color brown instead of applying your revelation that "black" and "white" are garbage terms you imply that they are useful just "inconstantly" useful
it's not adding up kalonji, your inconsistent logic is all over the place
It's like Explorer said we can't deny the sky is blue, just like we are brown. If that's no good for science for some reason other terms can be used. However as you have shown, it's still accurate in terms of color while "black" and "white" are antiquated silliness
quote:right again, while scientists might not use the term brown either it is entirely accurate whereas black is not accurate. Therefore if someone were to insist on using color to classify people there are no black people only brown.
It's accurate, but it serves no purpose other than wanting to be ''right''
Do you even know what the purpose is for grouping things? Accurateness of a given title is subordinate to making clusters that correlate with a given worldly phenomenon. If you give priority to accurate titles such as ''black'' and ''brown'', you're robbing yourself of the possibility to make useful distinctions and describe these ''worldly phenomenon'', as there are rarely ''black'' and ''brown'' cultural, lineage distinctions. There however, may be dark brown and light brown cultural distinctions, e.g. paper brown bag test, but even this is best understood as a phenomena occurring within ''dark skinned peoples'', rather than a phenomena that occurs along every color gradient of brown.
Non-scientific ''Black'' and ''White'' correlate with many things, such as culture, lineage etc, even though no one is factually ''black'' or ''white''.
Black and brown are accurate in terms of visual perception, but they correlate with absolutely nothing. Apparently, you don't even know the use of grouping things and making distinctions.
It is for these convenient reasons, of which normal thinking person are aware, that a layman uses these terms, not because the terms are ''racial''.
To conclude: it doesn't matter what name I give to my sons (black, white, yellow), as long as I can distinguish between the two (purpose). Your classifications of every color gradient are the equivalent of giving every bodypart of the two sons a name that is accurate in terms of desribing organ function, but how does that help you when you want to summon or describe either one of the two sons?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Non-scientific ''Black'' and ''White'' correlate with many things, such as culture, lineage etc, even though no one is factually ''black'' or ''white''.
Black and brown are accurate in terms of visual perception, but they correlate with absolutely nothing."
that's a false statement. Brown is a factual description of skin color and it correlates 100%
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
It is for these convenient reasons, of which normal thinking person are aware, that a layman uses these terms, not because the terms are ''racial''.
"Black" and "white" are racial terms, it's obvious you are in a state of denial on this.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Your classifications of every color gradient are the equivalent of giving every bodypart of the two sons a name that is accurate in terms of describing organ function, but how does that help you when you want to summon or describe either one of the two sons?
My classification is much broader, there are only brown skinned people, no black.
So it's the opposite of what you are saying about every gradient.
I only included people who look nearly black because if you say everybody is brown then somebody posts somebody with very dark skin. I give credit to that, they look "black" but are in fact brown. A mainstream cultural convention of the present time in history says that there are black and brown people. But it doesn't get applied in a manner that is consistent. It's gets applied with other factors in a racial way. That's two categories not some million gradients straw man you are suggesting me saying. In fact the whole line of your argument supports brown exists only and that it is more accurate to say the below people are brown rather than one being black the other brown.
The above people are brown. The term "brown" correlates 100% to a phenotypical trait they have brown colored skin. It is scientifically provable with a color color spectrometer. And yes color of various things is sometimes discussed in anthropology. They are brown not exactly the same type of brown but they are brown not green or black. They are not a lighter shade of black because a lighter shade of black is called gray, not with the reddish and yellow parts of certain browns. The variety of browns is wide like people. The color black varies little if at all. Same thing with white.
If anyone were to say first man is "black" and second man is "brown", the term "black" is being used as a racial term.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Why do you insist on visiting this forum, day after day, while refusing to use your brain?
Your not-so-secret agenda has been doomed from the start, yet in spite of your witnessing it's demise you continue trying to salvage the broken pieces of a lost cause.
Ask yourself; Why are those people brown, and why are others pink? There is a REAL scientific answer. I suggest you step off your dunce stool and begin utilizing that little brain.
quote:that's a false statement. Brown is a factual description of skin color and it correlates 100%
With what? Do you even know what ‘’to correlate’’ means? No one says ‘’… correlates 100%’’, lol, one says ‘’… correlates a 100% with ….’’
quote:"Black" and "white" are racial terms, it's obvious you are in a state of denial on this.
No word is restricted to mean a single thing People use terms for what they mean, and words may have multiple applications, which is the exact reason why ‘’blacks’’ is used so inconsistent:
Universal grouping: Aboriginals Black African Americans, Elamites, Dravidians etc. Continental grouping: African Americans, Africans Lioness grouping: Only people like Edi Amin Cultural identity grouping: President Clinton, Eminem on the opposite camp people with overtly ‘’white’’ mannerisms may also be called ‘’white’’, despite skin color. One drop grouping Obama, Halle Berry (and her child, in her mind)
An indication of the multiple usages of the term ‘’black’’ lies in the fact that ones Africanness might be stripped from him because a perceived inability to qualify as either of the above groupings. Of the above groupings, only the ‘’Continental’’, and the ‘’One drop’’ grouping can be interpreted as ‘’racial’’ terms. Notice that I said interpreted, because even that may not hold up, as some people see the ‘’continental’’ grouping as varieties of the entire human race. You have no way of discerning who uses the term in a racial manner, because you don’t have ESP. Besides, ‘’brown’’ is already used as a racial description by Mexicans, hence, their ‘’black’’ and the ‘’brown’’ to distinguish between Africans Americans and Mexicans. There goes your garbage notion that only ‘’black’’ can constitute a racial term.
quote:My classification is much broader, there are only brown skinned people, no black. So it's the opposite of what you are saying about every gradient.
If you give up on color gradients, and content that there is only brown, because the scientific study of pigment says so, you’re still incapable of making worthwhile distinctions, because you’ll simply include everyone. Get a clue, woman. Your color gradient HAS to be at work here, whether you say it is, or not. How would else would you include the pinkish, the pasty and the tanned? And if you’re going to denounce that there can’t factually be a ‘’Black’’ because of the study of human pigment, you’re undermining your own premise that every color should be ascribed in the most accurate way, because our eyes still see ‘’black’’ when they see people like Mugabe. As I said and suspected earlier, your model is even worse than the model you attempt to criticize. As notified above, I’ve already noticed some inconsistencies, just like the ‘’black’’ groupings. So it suffers from the same inconsistencies, AND it is useless in terms of application. The only use it has is being a know it all.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
People use terms for what they mean, and words may have multiple applications, which is the exact reason why ‘’blacks’’ is used so inconsistent:
Black Universal grouping: Aboriginals Black African Americans, Elamites, Dravidians etc.
^^^what is this? You use the word "universal" then you list some random terms with no explanation as to what links these terms. The word "aboriginal" means "native" and could apply to any continent, then you have the word "African" in there which is a particular continent, then you have black in there which makes no sense because you don't use the same word being defined in it's own definition. There is no logical consistency to this list or explanation for grouping these terms together
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Black Continental grouping: African Americans, Africans
now you are talking about two different continents. Where's the consistency? You said this is a continental definition that means one continent. If you want to go by continent there is a word for Africa It's African and Africans. problem solved. To then mention of the word "black" is a color not a location.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Black Cultural identity grouping: President Clinton, Eminem on the opposite camp people with overtly ‘’white’’ mannerisms may also be called ‘’white’’, despite skin color.
this is irrelevant, the topic is does black exist. If you say "black culture" that already assumes "black" exists by one of the previous (erroneous) definitions and then applies it to the behavior of alleged black people.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: One drop grouping Obama, Halle Berry (and her child, in her mind)
this is also irrelevant. The one drop rule is also based on one of the previous (erroneous) definitions and then applies it to racial mixing situation and states that the definition still holds true in "mixtures" with another "race"
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You have no way of discerning who uses the term in a racial manner, because you don’t have ESP.
As I have shown the usages are all innately racial despite the intent of the person saying it. If someone is eating a banana and says they are eating an apple it's still a banana. I do have ESP.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Besides, ‘’brown’’ is already used as a racial description by Mexicans, hence, their ‘’black’’ and the ‘’brown’’ to distinguish between Africans Americans and Mexicans. There goes your garbage notion that only ‘’black’’ can constitute a racial term.
Hence a racial term is added in unnecessarily. If you wanted to distinguish between Mexicans and African Americans you do it by saying "Mexicans" and "African Americans" Obviously they are both brown colored as you agreed on. Therefore you can use color to distinguish them. Now if you want to mess around and insert an a word indicating a different and inaccurately applied color, black, that is racial. If you want to distinguish between Mexicans and African Americans you do it by saying "Mexicans" and "African Americans"
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If you give up on color gradients, and content that there is only brown, because the scientific study of pigment says so, you’re still incapable of making worthwhile distinctions, because you’ll simply include everyone.
The distinctions to be made are not very worthwhile. The only value is mentioning "light skin" or "dark skin" is relative to sunlight intensity in different climates, the connection, the adaptation to particular environments. Anything further than that is a racial concept
Once you start talking about a color in broad groupings, separate colors it's racial. That is referring to skin. These other definitions are built on top of that skin color premise. It's a physical attribute. "Dark" and "light" are variations of the same color. It's all melanin at various levels. As well dark skin is only dark on the top most layer.
If you had two sports teams, the blue team and the green team, or two tribes the green tribe and the blue tribe maybe they wear blue or green shirts or blue or green feathers. It would not be racial because it's not a physical attribute of the person that has been stereotyped.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
People use terms for what they mean, and words may have multiple applications, which is the exact reason why ‘’blacks’’ is used so inconsistent:
Universal grouping: Aboriginals Black African Americans, Elamites, Dravidians etc.
^^^what is this? You use the word "universal" then you list some random terms
You don't know wat these groups have in common?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Continental grouping: African Americans, Africans
now you are talking about two different continents.
Africans and African Americans are two different continents? Heheh, if I were you I would starting reading what you write before posting it, because al these stupid things make you appear really, really dumb. Both African Americans and Africans have a whole plethora of things in common that originated on that continent, regardless of where they live, hence a continental grouping.
I know what your problem is. You have a brain deficit that obstructs you from seeing the reason behind things, lol. I know this because you always look at the superficial stuff, you never seem to derive deeper meaning behind things. Case in point: you think the name of a title has higher priority than the entity that that title represents, which is why you have hangups about the word ''black'' that have nothing to do with why most people discard it. And now you can't focus the grey matter in your head on why I would say ''continental grouping'', another example of a title that you have trouble with.. It's hard for you because the (irrelevant) titles are distracting you from seeing what they denote (relevant), don't they?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: then you have black in there which makes no sense because you don't use the same word being defined in it's own definition.
^Another example of how dumb you make yourself look Nowhere did I give a definition of anything.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Black Cultural identity grouping: President Clinton, Eminem on the opposite camp people with overtly ‘’white’’ mannerisms may also be called ‘’white’’, despite skin color.
this is irrelevant,
Oh, it's VERY relevant Especially since I listed the groupings, to point out that there is no consistent application of the world ''black'' to be able to say that everytime one says ''black'', it is meant in a racial way.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:If you say "black culture" that already assumes "black" exists by one of the previous (erroneous) definitions and then applies it to the behavior of alleged black people.
I have no idea how what you just said here applies to the fact that there is not a single application of ''black'' to say everytime ''black'' is used, it is racial.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: One drop grouping Obama, Halle Berry (and her child, in her mind)
this is also irrelevant. The one drop rule is also based on one of the previous (erroneous) definitions and then applies it to racial mixing blablabla
Ahahahaha Lioness, what is your IQ? What in living hell prompted you to correct me with that explanation after I give you several applications of the word ''black''?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You have no way of discerning who uses the term in a racial manner, because you don’t have ESP.
As I have shown the usages are all innately racial despite the intent of the person saying it.
Can you please point me to it? I seem to have missed it laughing my way through replying to the weirdest post in ES history.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Besides, ‘’brown’’ is already used as a racial description by Mexicans, hence, their ‘’black’’ and the ‘’brown’’ to distinguish between Africans Americans and Mexicans. There goes your garbage notion that only ‘’black’’ can constitute a racial term.
Hence a racial term is added in unnecessarily. If you wanted to distinguish between Mexicans and African Americans you do it by saying "Mexicans" and "African Americans"
^This is why you shouldn't drop out of the third grade kids. A total none-response. Please people, I urge you re-read my part, and then read hers, and ask yourself the question: is this lady sane..?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: If you had two sports teams, the blue team and the green team, or two tribes the green tribe and the blue tribe maybe they wear blue or green shirts or blue or green feathers. It would not be racial because it's not a physical attribute of the person that has been stereotyped.
Thanks for letting us know that you don't know what race means, after you was so generous to let us know that you don't know what ''to correlate'' means.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
On correction, I meant "cannot" not can in the following
_________________________
... a racial term is added in unnecessarily. If you wanted to distinguish between Mexicans and African Americans you do it by saying "Mexicans" and "African Americans" Obviously they are both brown colored as you agreed on. Therefore you -cannot- use a color term to distinguish them. Now if you want to mess around and insert an a word indicating a different, inaccurately applied color, black, that is racial. If you want to distinguish between Mexicans and African Americans you do it by saying "Mexicans" and "African Americans" going into one's "black" the other's "brown" is nonsense ___________________________
Either call them both what they are, brown
or recognize that defining people by using color words is racial, all are the same color some just darker or lighter than others.
One day we will drop this nonsense
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:On correction, I meant "cannot" not can in the following
(...)
Either call them both what they are, brown
She is dumb enough to revise her omission of a word, as if that changes anything, and then continue with her straw men.
Makes me wonder what the percentage of words is that get through to you. Can you read this now? LOL
Race means that there are vast genetic mutations that imply hundreds of millenia of divergence underlying traits of two given populations. You said yourself that skin color is an adaption that is superficial. How can grouping people based on color therefore be racial?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most people don't have race in mind when they're talking about white and black, even if they say they do. Half of the people in the US who mention ''race'' or differences between black and white believe the world is 6000 years old. Your hallucinating.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Race means that there are vast genetic mutations that imply hundreds of millenia of divergence underlying traits of two given populations. You said yourself that skin color is an adaption that is superficial. How can grouping people based on color therefore be racial?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most people don't have race in mind when they're talking about white and black, even if they say they do.
Now you've made a clear point instead of that nonsense about groupings.
Now I'm going to have to revise my point because of this.
I had been thinking of it in the beginning and should have said it in the first place.
Using the term "white" or "black" is innately racist. (rather than racial)
Even if the person applies the term to themselves and likes it.
If the above definition of "race" is valid it means that racism is when you indicate something like skin color and imply it means race vast genetic mutations that imply hundreds of millenia of divergence. So we have race and we have racism two different things.
Europeans brought in the concept that skin color is the same thing and they brought in words that aren't even precise, "white" and "black"
These terms are racist not racial.
Thank you for pointing this out.
A Chinese person living in America would never call themselves a yellow person.
They keep their roots
We drop the African and replace it with "black"
unknowingly we have been tricked by accepting the color system "black" and "white" into severing our roots.
So the first thing the Chinese American person says is that they are Chinese. Try calling them "yellow" and see if they like or accept it. And that's not accurate either. Multi millions of then don't even have a yellowish tone to their skin.
But first thing we say is we are a color. We just love being a color.
You have to realize what we are missing.
"White" and "black" are the completely assimilated terms. So even though black had been associated with bad things in the past it has a certain exclusivity to it.
Psychologically only certain Americans are considered the pure Americans, the ones with the color names only "black" and "white" and we have bought into that exclusivity. The more we accept "black" The more it validates that there must be an opposite, "white". Do other Americans like Pakistanis and Mexicans when you ask them who they are say they are "brown" people?
NO
"white" and "black" is a color based racist illusion.
Any definition you come up with is just elaboration built on these terms that refer to skin color
and it is a way to separate brown skin people into a false separate group "black"
We like it because we want to be separate, have our own unique identity.
But it is the wrong way of doing it.
"African American" was the proper thing to do. But it hasn't stuck or simply "African"
Saying you are "black" is reactionary. It's saying has my skin color is dark and there's nothing wrong with it.
But it' is accepting the skin color context and that is a mistake.
The first thing to come out of our mouths is I'm African
or
African American
Just like a Chinese American says and retains their roots.
This Egypt thing is a step toward the right continent. But it's still not who most of us directly come from. "African" would be more accurate because that covers all the West African countries were most of us come from.
What if somebody wants to be fully assimilated. Fine then just call yourself "American"
Drop this skin color stereotype identification system.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You soap-box types are such ass-holes. If you don't like Black, be whatever you like. But if you are going to identify yourself geographically, you might want to remember something - White people are Africans too. Ass-hole!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Phenotypically speaking there are pinks, but no whites.
White is a term of class. In the dictionary and in etymology, "white" implies nobility and sovereignty. That is who the original black man is. Ausar the perfect black, lord of whiteness.
It is the original Muur who was and is yet white by colour of class not phenotye.
Europeans and their descendants are pink in skin colour, yet insist on being called whites. Why? - Steve Biko
Know thyself!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAOH @ Lyingass with her desperately pleading and futile argument against the label of 'black'. What part of Explorer's argument do you not understand? Color labels like 'black' are subjective and are used for very darkly pigmented populations while moderately pigmented populations are the ones who get the label of 'brown' etc.
quote:
The blackphobic lyingass may not like it but ALL of the people above would be labeled black due to heavy pigmentation.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LMAOH @ Lioness with her desperately pleading and futile argument against the label of 'black'. What part of Explorer's argument do you not understand? Color labels like 'black' are subjective and are used for very darkly pigmented populations while moderately pigmented populations are the ones who get the label of 'brown' etc.
Djehuti you are wrong as the above illustrates, stop making up b.s.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LMAOH @ Lyingass with her desperately pleading and futile argument against the label of 'black'. What part of Explorer's argument do you not understand? Color labels like 'black' are subjective and are used for very darkly pigmented populations while moderately pigmented populations are the ones who get the label of 'brown' etc.
Printer-friendly view of this topic