posted
The term "Black" sometimes seems arbitrary, and more political than descriptive in todays world.
Here is one example. This is an Indian guy who pretended to be "Black" to gain admission to med school. In the left picture he is Indian, and in the right picture he is Black, even if he is darker in the left picture. He also told that he was treated very differently when people thought he was Black (ie African American) than when he was an Indian.
posted
The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion. Humans ever identified themselves simply based on that as opposed to language, culture, family and so forth. It was only in the colonial era when Europeans began colonizing the globe that such terms came into dominance as a reference to large numbers of people under the guise of "race". And this only applied primarily to those people such as Africans who were enslaved in the Americas and native populations. For example populations in the Americas never used the term "Indian" as that term was applied by Europeans thinking they were in India. The term "Negro" came to be used for all Africans enslaved in the Americas no matter their ethnic or linguistic identity. This was especially true in North America where slaves were stripped of their original ethnic identity, language and culture. As part of trying to reclaim their identity in the Americas, many Africans began to use the term "black". But in reality that is no better than "Negro" and does nothing to identify a language or culture.
So it is not that "black" or "white" are arbitrary, it is that these terms were used to distinguish European colonizers from their slaves and conquered natives. That is the basis of "race" in the colonial era, which is used on census forms. Indian is not a race, but a national identity and within India there are many different ethnic identities and cultures. And obviously, many Indians are indeed black in terms of skin color due to be tropically adapted people similar to many Africans. This is why this person could pass themselves off as a person of African descent in America by cutting their hair.
The problem for people of African descent in America is that they refuse to call themselves Africans as opposed to just "black". Black doesn't mean anything. There is no "black land" that black people come from. It is purely an identity based on a superficial characteristic and not a reference to any specific historical culture, language, continent, geographical region or ethnic identity.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also tells something about society, and the history of race relations in USA that he got treated so very differently when people thought he was an African American compared with how he was treated when he was considered an Indian. Same color but different treatment.
quote: What I wasn’t prepared for was the startling change in the way people treated the “black” me. People became suspicious, even hostile. Walking to class one morning, a lone female student ran into a snowy field to avoid me.
One evening I was driving my shiny red Toyota 4Runner truck slightly under the speed limit. A cop pulled me over and seemed irritated, bluntly asking how I could afford such an expensive car.
One morning I went to the grocery store I’d frequented for three years to buy some junk food to tamp down a hellacious frat-party hangover. I made my purchase and headed to the door when suddenly their security guard stepped in my way and accused me of shoplifting. I protested so he threw me to the floor and rifled through my bag.
Nothing remotely like this had ever happened when I was just another Indian doctor’s son. Walking in a black man’s shoes dimmed much of the youthful enthusiasm I’d had about my deception.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
So wait you are surprised? As if America and most colonial societies, by the very nature of their existence, have not been treating people differently based on perceived notions of race? And just when exactly did these overtly racist societies become so open to diversity? Because the way you say it makes it seem that this always was the case, when it wasn't. Case in point look at the historic treatment of Africans, Indians and others in the Western hemisphere.
Not to mention that the original article is nothing but apologetic discourse from a group of people who have openly aligned themselves with colonial powers for better treatment over Africans and indigenous people. Why would he go through all of that to pretend not to know the history and ongoing continuing struggle against racism in Western society?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So wait you are surprised? As if America and most colonial societies, by the very nature of their existence, have not been treating people differently based on perceived notions of race? And just when exactly did these overtly racist societies become so open to diversity? Because the way you say it makes it seem that this always was the case, when it wasn't. Case in point look at the historic treatment of Africans, Indians and others in the Western hemisphere.
Not to mention that the original article is nothing but apologetic discourse from a group of people who have openly aligned themselves with colonial powers for better treatment over Africans and indigenous people. Why would he go through all of that to pretend not to know the history and ongoing continuing struggle against racism in Western society?
Thank you for posting this. I was going to say something like this but I decided not to because I felt it would be a waste of time. At this point I'm convinced people like arch intentionally ignore the 400 year history of this country in order to push their own false narratives.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The interesting in this context is that not only skin color is determining how Indians respective African Americans are treated, but it is more about history of race relations concerning these specific groups.
It is also interesting the different ways African immigrants and African Americans relate to, and perceive the majority society.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The interesting in this context is that not only skin color is determining how Indians respective African Americans are treated, but it is more about history of race relations concerning these specific groups.
It is also interesting the different ways African immigrants and African Americans relate to, and perceive the majority society.
That man doesn't even look black, I clocked him as Indian immediately just by looking at the picture. Also, its weird that someone from Sweden is so engrossed in race relations in the US.
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).
You contantly post on this website about civilizations that you have no roots in though. Let me guess, it's ok if you do it because you are white?
You and antalas have some of the most backward logic I have ever witnessed.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well in my case because I have personal contacts among the descendants of some of those civilisations. Also I have been in some of those places. When it comes to America I even have relatives there (many Swedes have).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Is there a rule saying that people can only discuss civilizations if they have been there, have "personal contacts" or know supposed descendants of that civilization? Who made that rule?
Another case of "I'm white and I say so".
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I have a problem with people who obsess over what black people say or do, and try to control what black people say or do. In this case, you just happen to be white.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
And we can't help you with deal with the inner problems you have that stem from your unfounded opinions:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Maybe as weird as Black Americans are so engrossed in Egypts past without themselves having any roots in Egypt (many have not even been in Egypt, or have any relatives or other connections there).
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, someone thought it strange that a Swede was "engrossed" in racial problems in USA, I just said it is not more strange than some Black Americans obsessing over Egyptian history and which race ancient Egyptians were. We all have our interests, weird or not.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I'm not here to tell people what they can or cannot talk about. But you definitely have a problem with black americans claiming to be anything other than the descendants of "west african" slaves. You've made that clear.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, someone thought it strange that a Swede was "engrossed" in racial problems in USA, I just said it is not more strange than some Black Americans obsessing over Egyptian history and which race ancient Egyptians were. We all have our interests, weird or not.
Egypt shares the continent of Africa, that is part of African heritage. No matter what you think I find it strange that a swede seems to think that looking at Egypt or Africa is something he can do, but African Americans should only look at west Africa for there heritage.
Not only does the hieroglyph for face match the face of many African Americans, theres NO HIEROGLPH OF A WHITE PERSON FOR FACE. the country of egypt is inside Africa so why does a white man who has nothing to do with Egypt think he has a right to tell African Americans what they can and cannot educate themselves about.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).
Reminds of the film Mississippi Masala about a young Black American man in love with an Indian girl, and the resistance met by her parents. Mississippi Masala
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, someone thought it strange that a Swede was "engrossed" in racial problems in USA, I just said it is not more strange than some Black Americans obsessing over Egyptian history and which race ancient Egyptians were. We all have our interests, weird or not.
Egypt shares the continent of Africa, that is part of African heritage. No matter what you think I find it strange that a swede seems to think that looking at Egypt or Africa is something he can do, but African Americans should only look at west Africa for there heritage.
Not only does the hieroglyph for face match the face of many African Americans, theres NO HIEROGLPH OF A WHITE PERSON FOR FACE. the country of egypt is inside Africa so why does a white man who has nothing to do with Egypt think he has a right to tell African Americans what they can and cannot educate themselves about.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, they have rather similar skin tones, but still they seem to be treated differently, at least in USA.
And many Indians seem reluctant to marry African Americans. It is not always people of the same skin tone gets along.
Okay… and so why is a Swedish man or woman talking about who’s marrying who between two different cultures and races they are not a part of?
Is it that boring in Sweden to where you had to bring up this irrelevant topic? And I mean that in the least disrespectful way possible, like what compelled you to make this thread? You just trying to stir the pot hoping to wake something up for entertainment?
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me personally, I have relatives in America which creates a certain interest. I also have friends who are in interracial relationships, and I have myself been in such relationship so this is a question that interests me some.
Many Swedes have relatives in America (and in other countries too), many Swedes travel a lot, and not so few Swedes marry people from other cultures, countries and "races". We are not so isolated as we once were.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: For me personally, I have relatives in America which creates a certain interest. I also have friends who are in interracial relationships, and I have myself been in such relationship so this is a question that interests me some.
Many Swedes have relatives in America (and in other countries too), many Swedes travel a lot, and not so few Swedes marry people from other cultures, countries and "races". We are not so isolated as we once were.
Nobody cares, NEXT! Your types are obsessed with race, but then you'll be screaming about people always bringing up race or the "race card". A hit dog will always holler.
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe you don´t care, but there can be others who are interested in these questions. I write about what I want as long it does not go against the rules of this forum.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Black' in America is often identified with African ancestry. Of course 'black' in and of itself is a skin color instead of 'Black American' which implies a specific ethnic group or ancestry.
As those here have already shown there are black skinned Indians and the word for such in India is kalu which means 'black'. There are also black peoples indigenous to Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands. Does this mean they are they are the same as Africans or African Americans?? Of course not.
In fact, I remember we had the discussion about Gypsies here and how they too were labeled as 'black' and even mistaken for Egyptians hence the name 'Gypsy' even though they are originally from India.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an interesting phenomena in itself that people with skin tones who often are different shades of brown are called Black (just a few of them are literally black). In other contexts we seldom use the word black for brown things, like in the example I showed in a thread with a black and brown cat. In such a case we call the brown cat brown and the literally black cat for black. And that goes for many other things also at least in our modern world. It has been discussed much how the ancient Greeks called other people and what those color designations really means. That can make one wonder what color the ancient Greeks would have called this cat:
In another article an African proposes that the term Black for Africans should be abandoned
quote: This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.
About Romes, at least here where I live they are not called black anymore, but the word is still used for Africans and African Americans. Indians are not often referred to as black but just "Indians". They can also be called "dark skinned" or "brown". Seems that designations can vary depending on language and culture.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).
^Snowbunnies declaring their love for noble black men^
Is this the reason the white race may be a mere fragment of our imagination in the near future?
I think those videos need to be thoroughly analysed. A cultural anthropologist is necesssary for full decipherment IMO.
Maybe Robert Sepher's expertise is necessary?? I can't even begin to fathom what his analysis of that data would be??? I can only surmise his summary would be "rather odd".
Posts: 200 | From: Nibiru | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robert Sepher? Isn´t he into pale VRIL girls?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Back on track again:
Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The term "Black" sometimes seems arbitrary, and more political than descriptive in todays world.
Here is one example. This is an Indian guy who pretended to be "Black" to gain admission to med school. In the left picture he is Indian, and in the right picture he is Black, even if he is darker in the left picture. He also told that he was treated very differently when people thought he was Black (ie African American) than when he was an Indian.
^ What's funny is that the guy who is Mindy Kaling's brother, just shaved his head. As if hair texture determines whether one is black or not. What about Africans who have loose wavy hair texture?
The point is that the label of 'black' is based on skin color.
Mindy Kaling herself
Roma (Gypsy) women from Spain also of South Asian ancestry.
So yes 'black' and 'Indian' are two different things but that doesn't mean one is exclusive of the other. The same way with 'black' and 'African'. Not all Africans are black as Maghrebi like Antalas shows not to mention white South Afrikaaners.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One point with the article and with the OP is that the guy did not change color but when people thought he was African American he was treated differently from when he was thought to be an Indian. So it seems skin color alone does not determine how one is treated, it is also a matter of perceived race, or ethnicity. Racial hierarchies and ethnic hierarchies are not based solely on skin color.
These hierarchies can sometimes be complicated and are often historically determined, as with the Romes, in many European countries Romes are treated worse than Indians even if many Indians are darker and even if Romes and Indians have similar origin.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black is a descriptor of skin color, yes (even if brown would be more correct in most cases) but also a social label. Some people are called black in our society while the same label are not designated to others. Some people self identify as black, while others do not do that. Some are even rejecting that label, even if they have the same skin tone as others who are labeled (or identify) as black.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
And some believe that Black and White are oversimplified categories which carry a lot of historical baggage and should be abandoned.
quote: This article argues that the use of the terms ‘black’ and ‘white’ as human categories, together with the symbolic use of these terms, help to sustain the perception of Africans as inferior, because their categorical use was accompanied by a long-standing set of conceptual relationships that used the terms symbolically to connote a range of bad and good traits, respectively. This set of associations creates an underlying semantic system that normalised the assumed superiority of those labelled white and the assumed inferiority of those labelled black. The use of this dichotomy as a human categorising device cannot be separated from its symbolic use. It is therefore incumbent on egalitarians to abandon either the symbolic or the categorical use of the dichotomy. I argue that abandoning the categorical use is the preferable option because the negative symbolism of the term ‘black’ is deeply embedded in the English language and in Christianity.
posted
^ Just to show how ridiculously subjective the label of 'black' is, Indians like Mandy Kaling and her brother call themselves "brown" to distinguish themselves from Americans of African descent, yet if they went to India they and other Indians of their complexion would be called "kalu" (blacks).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and many seems to follow the old labels from the days of racial biology where Indians and North Africans were classified as Brown, other Africans as Black. In Asia Andamanese people are Black but not Indians. Melanesians are considered Black but not Indonesians and so on.
Here is one example of the old labels
Lothrop Stoddard's "Distribution of the primary races", from 1920. He divided people into White, Yellow, Brown, Black and Amerindian. These classifications varied but often "Black" people were at the bottom of these hierarchies
Much of the 2020 U.S. census reflects the view of Americans. It reflects the most common usage in America. Although they do switch certain things sometimes, or add or take away things in an attempt to satisfy as may people as possible with this form. Obviously some of these categorization some people might argue with but I want to stick here to the topic "blacks" and "Indians", these categories . Ideally skin color would not be used on the census
and if it was to be used it should not be attached to ethnic nationalities
So if someone insisted on color categorizing people those skin color box should be entirely separate with no examples of ethnic groups. A color chart would not have any of these suggested nationality biases on who is black (but better yet not have any colors on the census, that is dumb as hell)
Notice for instance how there are no color boxes attached to Chinese, Japanese and Koreans and many others. It says at the top one can mark more than one box So if somebody checks Chinese or Japanese or Korean and if they are as light as a European will they also pick "white"?? Probably not because that "white" box has examples next to it and none are East Asian and Asians don't like to identify as colors anyway In the same way someone who checks "Asian Indian" who might have very dark skin is not likely to pick "black" in addition to "Asian Indian" and if we look the list of examples for the "black" box none are Asian
Now all of this is kind of stupid but it does reflect the way vast majority of Americans think.
For instance the average American is not going to call this person "black" >>
Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam
The average American perceives "black" as meaning someone with dark skin who has one or more other physical traits they perceive as common to Africans that are not only dark skin.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny is that the guy who is Mindy Kaling's brother, just shaved his head. As if hair texture determines whether one is black or not. What about Africans who have loose wavy hair texture?
Simply bringing up Africans implies that to most Americans perceive "black" as a person of African descent not just anyone with dark skin and likewise in the census above all the examples they give for "black" are either of Africans or people of the African diaspora, AAs, Jamaicans. etc
And whether or not we agree with categories this is current word usage of the term "black" by most Americans and in many European countries
But Doug and Djehuti's definition of a black person is anybody with dark skin (although never providing a method of determining who is dark skinned and who is not)
I'm not saying that is better or worse but it is clearly not how most Americans use the word
Most Americans would point to some traits common in Africans that are not just dark skin. And they would say that for somebody to be "black" the person should have one or more of these other traits to begin to regard the person as black.
That's why when you look at the census above the categories "black" and "white" don't stand alone, they have examples and those examples have geographical regional limitations
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: the label of 'black' is based on skin color.
Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam
quote:I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, joined the University of Chicago’s Organization of Black Students (a black friend ran it, knew my scam and got me in) and began applying to medical schools as a black man. I transposed my middle name with my first name and became Jojo, the African-American applicant...
According to Doug and Djehuti, Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam is black and if he picked "Asian Indian" on the census but did not also pick "black" he is simply in denial, he is black.
So without even commenting on if he is "black" or not all of these deceptive things he did demonstrate that the average American does not perceive black people as simply "anybody with dark skin" And affirmative action programs do not categorize people by skin alone (if at all) Thus since most Americans use the word "black" to mean a dark skinned person of African or African diaspora descant he was compelled to use these little tricks and gimmicks beyond being about dark which he already has.
It is possible that his medical school application did have a check box for "black" or was it "African American" I'm not sure. If it said "African American" than Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam should have titled his book "Almost African American" and we would not have to even bother with what these ambiguous terms "white" and "black" should mean
2016
However in the thread topic article he wrote he says
I was always in a state of terror that I would be found out. During one interview at Case Western Reserve University, I was confronted by a black doctor and admissions committee member. He barraged me with questions about my family and personal background. I said that my family came from Nigeria. It was technically correct because my Indian parents had lived in Nigeria before moving to the United States.
Finally he said, eyes cold, in more of a question than a statement, “I read your application. It says you’re black.” I nodded.
Finally he said, eyes cold, in more of a question than a statement, “I read your application. It says you’re black.” I nodded.
This means even if the application said "African American" one of these admissions interviewers asked him if he was black
-And if this admissions interviewer who Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam describes as black himself asked Vijay “I read your application. It says you’re black.”
then
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: the label of 'black' is based on skin color.
^^ then obviously this black person did not agree with Doug or Djehuti, otherwise he would not have to make that remark. He would have simply looked at Vijay, seen the dark skin, determined he was black with his eyeballs and not have to say anything, But that is not how America works
short video of Vijay Jojo Chokal-Ingam 2015, when the story hit the media
Interesting video about Indians having a reluctance to marry Black people (maybe they do not very often marry white people either, but I have seen a couple of cases).
^Snowbunnies declaring their love for noble black men^
Is this the reason the white race may be a mere fragment of our imagination in the near future?
I think those videos need to be thoroughly analysed. A cultural anthropologist is necesssary for full decipherment IMO.
Maybe Robert Sepher's expertise is necessary?? I can't even begin to fathom what his analysis of that data would be??? I can only surmise his summary would be "rather odd".
Why are you linking twitter accounts that have an obsession with cuckolding white men. Bizarre...
Massive *side eye*...
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Mindy's brother has a similar look as Professor Griff from Public Enemy.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The term black is a reference to a color and in this case skin complexion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: the label of 'black' is based on skin color.
She does not say he's not dark enough to be black (and look who's talking)
She said Indian doesn't mean black by implication she would probably say African does mean black. So it's highly likely she would also say the darker Vijay here is not black either and Vijay himself says he's not black, that was something he faked (he claims)
Millions of Americans might say this some might not
Black is whatever you want it to mean and in different situations you can use the meaning that best supports your argument
However, if instead of "Black"
you use
Dark skinned
or
Of African Ancestry
Each of those are also subjective but they are not as vague as "black' but some people prefer the vagueness because it has more flexibility in argumentation
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
you people are fighting for Black not to be used because it goes back to God.
Your openly showing your bias and claiming that brown is better when its not better its a man breathed word that takes people away from God.
The Holy Bible has Black, red, yellow and white. These are colors that God breathed and makes sense and has the human race identify as
No matter what you say, this guy is Black
compare to this person.
thats his skin color, theres no need for gymnastic with the skin color of him compared with others.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
They are 3 Black People and there color Goes back to God, not to Man made brown
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Also, its weird that someone from Sweden is so engrossed in race relations in the US.
Printer-friendly view of this topic