quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.
this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.
It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point
Archeopteryx, I think you should stop arguing with Doug he agrees with you, this Indian man is not black, he's just trying to pass as black.
He wants you address the wrongness of trying to pass as black when you are not black
At the same time the problem in society is not only about skin color. If it was, he would have been treated in a similar way regardless if he was an Indian or African American. But now he was treated differently when he posed as a person with same skin color as himself, but with another cultural and ethnic background, and with another history in the US. So to regard it as ONLY skin color is to simplify matters.
The divides in society goes deeper than only skin color.
So he was maybe wrong, but he only took advantage of a system which discriminates people, even if they happen to have the same skin color.
I had a ready made answer for Doug, but it is rather meaningless to argue. It does not lead anywhere. We obviously have different views.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The people who allowed this Indian person to pass as black didn't do it because of any words he wrote, but because of how he looked.
this thread is about an Indian person in America passing themselves off as black and committing fraud.
It is about an Indian in the United States passing themselves off as black and how this has everything to do with skin color. Somehow you just keep trying to run from that and/or blame this obsession with skin color on black people like they created racism. That is my point
Archeopteryx, I think you should stop arguing with Doug he agrees with you, this Indian man is not black, he's just trying to pass as black.
He wants you address the wrongness of trying to pass as black when you are not black
At the same time the problem in society is not only about skin color. If it was, he would have been treated in a similar way regardless if he was an Indian or African American. But now he was treated differently when he posed as a person with same skin color as himself, but with another cultural and ethnic background, and with another history in the US. So to regard it as ONLY skin color is to simplify matters.
The divides in society goes deeper than only skin color.
So he was maybe wrong, but he only took advantage of a system which discriminates people, even if they happen to have the same skin color.
I had a ready made answer for Doug, but it is rather meaningless to argue. It does not lead anywhere. We obviously have different views.
You didn't answer anything for me because you missed th eobivous point that black people did not create this system. So trying to pin this on black people is the problem. I never said racism made sense or was logical, what I have been challenging you on is your attempt to blame this on black people. And also I am challenging your attempt to deny that that black skin color in Africa isn't similar to populations in India and other parts of the world to begin with as "black skin". That in itself doesn't justify racism in the US, but shows the fact that the core of it is based on skin color as the most obvious outward indicator that can be used to segregate Europeans from Africans. Because historically Indians were blocked from coming to America in the first place so the odds of a "black" person being of Indian descent when this racial system was put in place was pretty low. Also recall that in the era when America was established, the Dutch and British East and West India companies were at their height and both of them subjugated and enslaved Indians in India and promoted skin color based hierarchies in India and Asia. And fundamentally the problem here is you trying to put "logic" into a discussion of racism and colorism when there is no "logic" or "science" behind it, as a way to again attack black people for using the word black. Again, the whole issue here with this guy trying to "pass" as black is to blame black people for him not getting into University, as if black people put the racist system in place. Not only that, if you ask me this whole stunt was supported by whites because I don't see how this guy would actually pass as African American. These Asians have been used by whites to attack black people for racism while promoting Asians in their place, like they have done around the world. And Indians have a long history of siding with whites over blacks in various colonies around the world, including Uganda, South Africa, Kenya and the Caribbean.
posted
Yes, noone denies that racism is unfair, just as oppression in general. Prejudice and racism can be based on different parameters like skin color, but also religion and ethnicity as the case with the Jews in Europe who often had similar skin tones as the Europeans but still were persecuted through centuries, and where the culmination of the persecutions took place during WWII.
Afican Americans are of course free to use the word black about themselves but in many debates they try to impose that word on peoples who, may have dark skin but still do not identify as black, which seems rather ethnocentric or shall we call it colorcentric. The word is a word sprung out of oppression and it is also a word which diminish the diversity among humans. If African Americans want to call themselves with an outdated term is their problem but they (and others too) ought to abstain from using it for people who identify themselves in other ways.
It reminds me of an incident I saw on TV, a young woman from the Dominican Republic was sitting and talking with some African Americans. She said "Many Americans think I'm black (by this she meant African American)". Then she was mastered by several of those present who said "but you are black". She said she did not identify as black but as Dominican, but they insisted she was black. It didn't seem like they really understood each other. For her, the identity as a Dominican was the most important, for the others the skin color was the most important and with which they identified themselves, and also identified her.
So maybe the word black should be reserved only for those who identify as black, and avoided for people who don't identify that way. Because after all, black is a leftover colonial term that doesn't even represent what most people look like (except for a few who are almost literally black).
I do not defend Indians they also have their own biases like colorism, an outdated caste system, religious conflicts and also they took over the role as colonial power on for example the Andaman islands where they since the independence from the Brits continued to swamp those islands making the original inhabitants (Onge, Great Andamanese, Jarawas and Sentinelese) a small minority among hundreds of thousands Indians.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, noone denies that racism is unfair, just as oppression in general. Prejudice and racism can be based on different parameters like skin color, but also religion and ethnicity as the case with the Jews in Europe who often had similar skin tones as the Europeans but still were persecuted through centuries, and where the culmination of the persecutions took place during WWII.
Afican Americans are of course free to use the word black about themselves but in many debates they try to impose that word on peoples who, may have dark skin but still do not identify as black, which seems rather ethnocentric or shall we call it colorcentric. The word is a word sprung out of oppression and it is also a word which diminish the diversity among humans. If African Americans want to call themselves with an outdated term is their problem but they (and others too) ought to abstain from using it for people who identify themselves in other ways.
It reminds me of an incident I saw on TV, a young woman from the Dominican Republic was sitting and talking with some African Americans. She said "Many Americans think I'm black (by this she meant African American)". Then she was mastered by several of those present who said "but you are black". She said she did not identify as black but as Dominican, but they insisted she was black. It didn't seem like they really understood each other. For her, the identity as a Dominican was the most important, for the others the skin color was the most important and with which they identified themselves, and also identified her.
So maybe the word black should be reserved only for those who identify as black, and avoided for people who don't identify that way. Because after all, black is a leftover colonial term that doesn't even represent what most people look like (except for a few who are almost literally black).
I do not defend Indians they also have their own biases like colorism, an outdated caste system, religious conflicts and also they took over the role as colonial power on for example the Andaman islands where they since the independence from the Brits continued to swamp those islands making the original inhabitants (Onge, Great Andamanese, Jarawas and Sentinelese) a small minority among hundreds of thousands Indians.
The reason why this isn't about religion or anything else is because the obvious difference between European settlers and African slaves is skin color. So religion had nothing to do with it as the Africans were stripped of their languages, culture and religious practices. And this system started with the Spanish and Portuguese which is why the word for black used in America was Negro. But you refuse to admit that the system of skin color based racism did not come from black people in order to promote this lie that black people using the word black are spreading racism. That is a lie and simply you trying to promote historical falsehoods in order to slander black people and blame them for things they had nothing to do with. That is all you do on these threads, which is low key passive aggressive attacks on black people, as if everything is their fault and nobody else has any blame. According to you colorism starts with black people and nobody else. This s the nonsense I am talking about. So if there is anybody promoting colorism in America or in the study of history, it is black peoples fault, yet the whole entire history of Europeans using skin color to segregate populations into "races" for different treatment is somehow ignored by you. And this is why you created this thread, to claim that this Indian person didn't get into University somehow because of black people promoting racism. You claim to stand up in defense of people 's rights, but never the rights of black people. So the Egyptian government can be wrong as two left shoes, but somehow that gets a pass because black people caused them to be that way. As if the history of colorism in Egypt is not due to invasion and conquest but Africans calling themselves black. Then you claim that racism is bad and evil but then turn around and claim that i is black people's fault for promoting it? Like how is that? Again, refusing to admit that this issue is strictly an issue of skin color and that the people who created Egyptology did it to promote the ancient NIle Valley as being created by people with light skin who were NOT of African origin. And the facts that have been discussed at length on this forum contradicts that narrative and people like you are the ones who get offended because you believe those lies. So of course it isn't wrong for Europeans to promote those lies, it is the black Africans who stand up against those lies who are the problem. I don't know who you think you are kidding with this nonsense.
Ultimately the point you refuse to acknowledge and accept that the whole issue of blackness being seen as exclusive to Africa is due to the European concepts of racial hierarchies. And according to this hierarchies, black Africans are at the very bottom of the human evolutionary and social ladder. Therefore, other populations who also have black skin can be above black Africans in a European social hierarchy even if they have the same skin color. But as this thread shows,black skin has never been limited just to Africa, but that isn't the point. The point is EUorpeans having the power to define races and policies based on race in terms of social dynamics and benefits within society. And in that system they always promote white skin above all others with Europeans at the very top and other groups in between and black Africans on the bottom. And it is because of that idea that black Africans are on the very bottom of the human evolutionary tree, they reject the idea of the ancient Nile Valley being black. Because that contradicts the racial pyramid they have spent the last 500 years or more building for themselves. And many other populations have bought into that pyramid based on skin color even if they aren't seen as "white" like Europeans.
So please don't sit up here and pretend you didn't know this so you can argue that somehow it is a problem that came from black people.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason why this isn't about religion or anything else is because the obvious difference between European settlers and African slaves is skin color. So religion had nothing to do with it as the Africans were stripped of their languages, culture and religious practices.
That was not my point, my point was that oppression and even racism is not always a matter of skin color, it varies in different parts of the world and in different time periods. Sometimes ethnicity, culture, religion and social caste are the bases of oppression other times it can be skin color or other factors. Many times these factors are interwoven. As usual you see the world trough a simplified filter.
quote:And this system started with the Spanish and Portuguese which is why the word for black used in America was Negro. But you refuse to admit that the system of skin color based racism did not come from black people in order to promote this lie that black people using the word black are spreading racism.
I did not say that the system originated with black people, but still black people use terminology from that old system
quote:That is a lie and simply you trying to promote historical falsehoods in order to slander black people and blame them for things they had nothing to do with. That is all you do on these threads, which is low key passive aggressive attacks on black people.
Once again your paranoia shines trough. You can just not accept any criticism against the behaviour or thought processes of any African Americans. In your mind they seem beyond all criticism.
quote:According to you colorism starts with black people and nobody else. This s the nonsense I am talking about. So if there is anybody promoting colorism in America or in the study of history, it is black peoples fault, yet the whole entire history of Europeans using skin color to segregate populations into "races" for different treatment is somehow ignored by you.
We know that white people started to segregate people through color, but in TODAYS world some African American continue the colonialist thinking and terminology, and also show colonialist tendencies when they try to tell for example Egyptians or Native Americans who their ancestors were.
quote:And this is why you created this thread, to claim that this Indian person didn't get into University somehow because of black people promoting racism.
The purpose was to show that in the American system even people with the same skin color can be treated differently because of what ethnicity they are perceived to belong to. I did not say that African Americans invented the system. But it shows that there is several layers of divisiveness in the American society.
quote:So please don't sit up here and pretend you didn't know this so you can argue that somehow it is a problem that came from black people.
Black people are also to blame for promoting old racist terminology, and some of them also behave in a racist and colonialist way against other groups. You pretend like African Americans are only victims, as if they have no agency of their own.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: hat was not my point, my point was that oppression and even racism is not always a matter of skin color, it varies in different parts of the world and in different time periods. Sometimes ethnicity, culture, religion and social caste are the bases of oppression other times it can be skin color or other factors. Many times these factors are interwoven. As usual you see the world trough a simplified filter.
The point of this thread is about racism in America and the treatment of people based on skin color which YOU created. But of course you didn't create it to talk about that, you created it to low key passively aggressively blame black people for this Indian guy not getting into university. And I keep calling you out on it because you keep playing dumb about not knowing the history of racism in America. Then when I call you out, you decide to try and change the subject into religion and other forms of discrimination.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I did not say that the system originated with black people, but still black people use terminology from that old system
Here we go playing dumb again, because the literal words "black" and "white" are used on most job applications and college applications and is the basis for this Indian person passing "black". But again, you keep using this thread to not address the facts of historic racism but to somehow blame black people and more specifically attack the word black. And you keep attacking the word black because you know full well what it means and so does everybody else, but you like playing dumb about it. Literally black in reference to skin color does literally apply to people like those from India with tropically adapted skin tones. And that is fundamentally relevant to this thread that you opened, but you want to pretend that different populations cant have the same skin tones described with the same words. And this is why you object to the word black, when everybody knows exactly what it means and you continue to play dumb, including playing dumb about racism in the USA.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Once again your paranoia shines trough. You can just not accept any criticism against the behaviour or thought processes of any African Americans. In your mind they seem beyond all criticism.
There is no paranoia on my part on calling you out for blaming black people as if their usage of the word black as somehow the basis for racism. When literally the word black for people with tropically adapted skin tones has been used in India and Asia and Africa for thousands of years. The problem with you is you don't want to accept the history of black skin in human populations around the world. But instead of addressing the facts of skin color, such as the skin color of this Indian person allowing him to pass as African American, ie black, you would rather attack black people for the usage of the word black. As if all the problems with racism in the world and colorism starts with black people and their usage of these terms. Yet you avoid the fact that in India itself colorism is still rampant and black skin not seen as desirable among some in India, especially in Bollywood. But according to you this is all about the word black being used by African Americans as if anybody is confused about it and ultimately what it means in reference to skin color. Again, the only one pretending to be confused about it is you.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: We know that white people started to segregate people through color, but in TODAYS world some African American continue the colonialist thinking and terminology, and also show colonialist tendencies when they try to tell for example Egyptians or Native Americans who their ancestors were.
In TODAYS world, African Americans are not responsible for the history of race and racism on the part of white Europeans. There is no if, ands or buts about it. You continue to try and use this threads and others to blame black people as if Africans jumped off the boats from Africa forcing Europeans to call them blacks when they did not. And now you sit here and pretend that the word black is not a common term in English across all English colonies to refer to people with black skin in general language. All of this is you denying facts in order to promote propaganda against black people and to blame them for the problem and not the white Europeans that created it. And more specifically you are obsessed with African Americans using the word black to identify with ancient populations in and outside Africa based on skin color. Yet at the same time you have a whole thread you created showing a person from outside Africa doing just that, but you dont blame them and you don't address the facts of why they were even able to do it and get away with it due to having similar skin tones. No, your obsession is in trying to isolate African Americans so they cannot speak the truth on the history of humans and the presence of black skin among many populations in ancient times which is why you are attacking them for using the word black. All of this leads to you whining about black people using the word black as if somehow this is a problem when it isn't.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The purpose was to show that in the American system even people with the same skin color can be treated differently because of what ethnicity they are perceived to belong to. I did not say that African Americans invented the system. But it shows that there is several layers of divisiveness in the American society.
There is only one history of racism in the United States and it is based on skin color. The primary slave population in America came from Africa and therefore were the only "black people" in the country. And that is why "black" is used as a reference to African slaves and not specifically people from India. However, obviously there are and have always been black people in India and this case literally shows how they also have black skin. But Indians were never enslaved in the United States and the word black was not intended primarily to be used as a reference to them. At best, the word black in that context simply means person of African descent. That does not change the validity of the word black as a reference to skin color nor does it change the fact that black skin does not only exist in Africa, as this case blatantly shows. And obviously the Indian person who executed this fraud did it knowing these facts and that is the part you never seem to get, but you continue to try and blame black people for both his actions and the actions of the United States in the creation of racism.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Black people are also to blame for promoting old racist terminology, and some of them also behave in a racist and colonialist way against other groups. You pretend like African Americans are only victims, as if they have no agency of their own.
They are not and you simply are promoting anti black propaganda in trying to blame them for racism and colorism. Again, the American government codifies the words black and white through the categories on the US census. And both of those terms are the basis for their usage in terms of demographics in the United States, which includes any kind of application or questionnaire used by institutions. Which means that this Indian person checked the box "black" on his application to this University. Somehow you are trying to take all of that and blame it on black people, which I what I keep calling you out on because you keep doing it. What black people actually did in the 1960s was reject the use of the word "negro", which is Spanish for black, as a reference to African populations in the United States. But again, that does not change the point that this word and words like it have been used by Europeans and others in reference to Africans for thousands of years. Not to mention Africans and other populations outside of Africa have also been using terms like it for thousands of years in reference to black skin. And the only reason black people use it as a source of pride is specifically because 1) they were stripped of their language and history tied to specific African ethnic groups 2) to promote pride among African Americans for having black skin and not being inferior because of it. But you pretend to be dumb and not know this. And to sit up here and try and attack black people for the usage of the word black, specifically in the context of the history of racism in the United States is nothing but anti black propaganda.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here we go playing dumb again, because the literal words "black" and "white" are used on most job applications and college applications and is the basis for this Indian person passing "black".
Yes I understand that it is so in USA. Luckily most of the worlds population does not live in USA. Hopefully you keep it there.
quote:But again, you keep using this thread to not address the facts of historic racism but to somehow blame black people and more specifically attack the word black. And you keep attacking the word black because you know full well what it means and so does everybody else, but you like playing dumb about it. Literally black in reference to skin color does literally apply to people like those from India with tropically adapted skin tones. And that is fundamentally relevant to this thread that you opened, but you want to pretend that different populations cant have the same skin tones described with the same words. And this is why you object to the word black, when everybody knows exactly what it means and you continue to play dumb, including playing dumb about racism in the USA.
It is rather typical American arrogance trying to impose their terminology on other people and other peoples history, and there are people from other countries protesting about it. But such protests some Americans can not comprehend since they do not understand other cultures.
quote:There is no paranoia on my part on calling you out for blaming black people as if their usage of the word black as somehow the basis for racism. When literally the word black for people with tropically adapted skin tones has been used in India and Asia and Africa for thousands of years. The problem with you is you don't want to accept the history of black skin in human populations around the world. But instead of addressing the facts of skin color, such as the skin color of this Indian person allowing him to pass as African American, ie black, you would rather attack black people for the usage of the word black. As if all the problems with racism in the world and colorism starts with black people and their usage of these terms. Yet you avoid the fact that in India itself colorism is still rampant and black skin not seen as desirable among some in India, especially in Bollywood. But according to you this is all about the word black being used by African Americans as if anybody is confused about it and ultimately what it means in reference to skin color. Again, the only one pretending to be confused about it is you.
The problem with you is that you think that brown skin is black and that all brown skinned people are the same. Have you ever been outside USA and seen some of the both phenotypic and also cultural diversity that exists out there? Maybe you ought to go out travel some, so you can get away from your simplified USA world view.
No one says that racism only depends on African Americans using certain words, but it contributes to the division on people based on the most superficial of all criteria. Dividing people into black and white upholds the divide, and also it fails to acknowledge human diversity.
quote:In TODAYS world, African Americans are not responsible for the history of race and racism on the part of white Europeans. There is no if, ands or buts about it. You continue to try and use this threads and others to blame black people as if Africans jumped off the boats from Africa forcing Europeans to call them blacks when they did not. And now you sit here and pretend that the word black is not a common term in English across all English colonies to refer to people with black skin in general language. All of this is you denying facts in order to promote propaganda against black people and to blame them for the problem and not the white Europeans that created it. And more specifically you are obsessed with African Americans using the word black to identify with ancient populations in and outside Africa based on skin color. Yet at the same time you have a whole thread you created showing a person from outside Africa doing just that, but you dont blame them and you don't address the facts of why they were even able to do it and get away with it due to having similar skin tones. No, your obsession is in trying to isolate African Americans so they cannot speak the truth on the history of humans and the presence of black skin among many populations in ancient times which is why you are attacking them for using the word black. All of this leads to you whining about black people using the word black as if somehow this is a problem when it isn't.
In todays world some African Americans behave as racist as many European Americans or Europeans. I have whitnessed it both online and i real life.
quote:There is only one history of racism in the United States and it is based on skin color. The primary slave population in America came from Africa and therefore were the only "black people" in the country. And that is why "black" is used as a reference to African slaves and not specifically people from India. However, obviously there are and have always been black people in India and this case literally shows how they also have black skin. But Indians were never enslaved in the United States and the word black was not intended primarily to be used as a reference to them. At best, the word black in that context simply means person of African descent. That does not change the validity of the word black as a reference to skin color nor does it change the fact that black skin does not only exist in Africa, as this case blatantly shows. And obviously the Indian person who executed this fraud did it knowing these facts and that is the part you never seem to get, but you continue to try and blame black people for both his actions and the actions of the United States in the creation of racism.
There are also other divides in USA, divides according to class and ethnicity. Several other minorities have at different occasions met discrimination and racism, even if their skin color has been rather similar to the light skinned majority population.
Very few people have black skin. You must be color blind, or just brainwashed into an infantile way to see on human diversity.
You talk about black skin, it only exists among rather few peoples in the world.
Which of all these nuances are black?
quote:They are not and you simply are promoting anti black propaganda in trying to blame them for racism and colorism. Again, the American government codifies the words black and white through the categories on the US census. And both of those terms are the basis for their usage in terms of demographics in the United States, which includes any kind of application or questionnaire used by institutions. Which means that this Indian person checked the box "black" on his application to this University. Somehow you are trying to take all of that and blame it on black people, which I what I keep calling you out on because you keep doing it. What black people actually did in the 1960s was reject the use of the word "negro", which is Spanish for black, as a reference to African populations in the United States. But again, that does not change the point that this word and words like it have been used by Europeans and others in reference to Africans for thousands of years. Not to mention Africans and other populations outside of Africa have also been using terms like it for thousands of years in reference to black skin. And the only reason black people use it as a source of pride is specifically because 1) they were stripped of their language and history tied to specific African ethnic groups 2) to promote pride among African Americans for having black skin and not being inferior because of it. But you pretend to be dumb and not know this. And to sit up here and try and attack black people for the usage of the word black, specifically in the context of the history of racism in the United States is nothing but anti black propaganda.
Of course there are African Americans who behave in a racist way, both online and in real life. To deny that is to put ones head in the sand and pretend that all African Americans are saints.
The fact that US government codifies words like Black and White is no argument for using these simplified terms, and even try to use them concerning people in other countries, or to people who do not use simple color labels to identify themselves.
These terms are not used in all countries where they try to see more nuances than in the sometimes rather infantile American culture.
Sometimes I really wonder if you ever been outside USA.
You seem to think I dislike African Americans, but I do not, I do not dislike normal African Americans, I mostly dislike the fools online who goes on and on about how black this or that ancient culture was, or that this or that population are not the original population in this or that place, instead those places were inhabited by some mysterious "black" race which often are not to bee seen anymore. In the process they do not hesitate to insult other peoples. But I never see you call out such behaviour. And I have not seen you calling out anti white or anti Native behaviour here on ES either. You just complain and whine when someone criticizes the behaviour of some African Americans. Seems very one sided.
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Government agency)
The IBGE surveys the color or race of the Brazilian population based on self-declaration. According to data from the National Household Sample Survey - Continuous PNAD 2022,
42.8% of Brazilians declared themselves as white,
45.3% as brown
10.6% as black.
Mixed-race/Pardo-Brazilians Main article: Pardo Brazilians The Pardos can be a mixture of Europeans, Levantine, Crypto-Jews or Anusim, Africans, Amerindians, Roma and Asians. Brazil does not have a category for multiracial people, but a Pardo (brown) one, which may include caboclos, mulatos, cafuzos (local ethnonyms for people of noticeable mixed European and Amerindian, African and European, and Amerindian and African descent, i.e., mestizos, mulattoes and zambos, respectively), the multiracial result of their intermixing (despite most of European and African Brazilians possessing some degree of race-mixing, since brownness in Brazil is a matter of phenotype) and assimilated, westernized indigenous people.[74][75]
The Pardos make up 43.13% or 82.3 million people of Brazil's population. Multiracial Brazilians live in the entire territory of Brazil. Although, according to DNA resources, most Brazilians possess some degree of mixed-race ancestry, less than 45% of the country's population classified themselves as being part of this group due to phenotype.[76]
The caboclo or mestiço population, those whose ancestry is Native and European, revolves around 43 million people or 21% of the population. Genetic studies conducted by the geneticist Sergio D.J. Pena of the Federal University of Minas Gerais have shown that the caboclo population is made of individuals whose DNA ranges from 70% to 90% European (mostly Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French or Italian 1500s to 1700s male settlers) with the remaining percentage spanning different Indigenous markers.
Similar DNA tests showed that people self-classified as mulatto or European and African mix, span from 62% to 83% European (mostly descendants of Portuguese, Dutch and French settlers during the colonial period in the Northeast). The pardo category in Brazil also includes 800 thousand Roma people, most of them coming from Portugal but also different countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Eurasians can also be classified as pardo. The majority of them consisting of Ainoko or Hafu, individuals of Japanese and European ancestry.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many countries seem to have some system of classifying people, some like USA, Brazil, South Africa and Cuba still go by color/race, which is a rather superficial way to classify people. Some go by ethnicity, language and nationality. Some go by religion.
It is interesting that most of the old colonial powers (except the United Kingdom) seem to have abandoned it. So the countries that are said to have invented racism are among those who abandoned the system of racial classification.
Many of these countries colonies have also abandoned classifying people by race, but many still classify through ethnicity and sometimes language.
India do not register by race either, even if caste, colorism and religious divides still exist there.
So it seems that the habit of registering people by skin color is in decline. Maybe it will one day go away completely.
quote:France France has not counted individuals by race or ethnicity since at least 1978, when a law was passed that prevented individuals from being enumerated by these categories without their consent or a state committee waiver. The reasons for this are that many French people consider asking people about race and ethnicity to be a contradiction of their principle of equality and equal treatment for all French people. Also, there is a desire to avoid repeating what Vichy France did in regards to its Jewish population and to prevent the National Front from getting more popularity. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his administration supported and proposed counting French people by race and ethnicity. Due to criticism, however, this proposal was never implemented, and as of 2013 former French President Francois Hollande opposes enumerating people by race and ethnicity.
quote:Portugal Census in Portugal do not include a question regarding individuals ethnic or racial background. A question of this kind was recommended to be included for the first time for the 2021 census ("Censos 2021"),which sparked some controversy. The question was ultimately not included, although a question about religion was included. A questionnaire regarding ethnicity was planned by the Instituto Nacional de Estatística for late 2021.
Egypt who is the talking point in many threads do not register by race or ethnicity.
posted
Why are you guys still arguing about this?? I thought it was made clear that Indians like Mindy Kaling and her brother would also be called 'black' or rather kalu in their ancestral country of India. In America the only reason they call themselves "brown" because 'black' is typically reserved for those of African descent yet their complexions are no different from say Nigerians.
These labels ARE completely arbitrary and are based solely on relation to others. I think it was in 1812 that U.S. laws began implementing the labels 'white' and 'black' starting in Virginia because of the fact that there were black peoples, most but not all of whom were slaves, and had to be distinguished from the white slaves that also existed at the time.
In Europe there was no label of "white" for the same obvious reason why there was no label of "black" in Africa. The label of one depended on the other. The label of "brown" is used today as a 'medium' between these two extremes, but even that fails to convey what a person's complexion truly looks like as the example of the Kaling siblings.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and labels also vary over time. As in Sweden where I live. In the viking age dark skinned people were called "blamadr" (blue men), or "svartur" (black). Then labels like "Moor" or "Morian" started to get used. In the 17th century the word "neger" (Negro) started to get used. Interestingly enough free Africans living in Sweden often were called "morian" in the 18th and early 19th centuries centuries, while slaves in the colony Saint-Barthélemy were called "negroes".
Roma peoples were sometimes called "black", sometimes "dark"
Today "Negro" are nearly not used anymore. Some use black, but also brown and dark skinned are used. Or more more commonly ethnicity names like Afro-Swede, African, African American, Somali and so on. An old word is "black head" which can be anyone with black hair.
When a person looks angry we sometimes call it "mörk" (dark).
As you say it is no real consistency in the name use.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It was Tukuler who informed me that sometime around the 18th century a pope at that time (I forgot who) not only banned slavery, especially on blacks who converted to Catholicism under the Spanish, Portuguese, and French empires, but he also decreed that the label "negro" should only be used to describe black objects not people and the latter should be called "Moro". Of course, unfortunately, not everybody abided by that concession of courtesy.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes I understand that it is so in USA. Luckily most of the worlds population does not live in USA. Hopefully you keep it there.
Yet the point again is YOU created this thread specifically talking about the United States and how an Indian person passed themselves off as black. And you keep trying to spin the history of racism based on skin color in the United States(not to mention elsewhere), into somehow being black peoples fault. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand why I am calling you out on this when you specifically created this thread specifically to talk about the USA. Now you want to claim that you don't live in the USA and don't want to discuss something in a thread you created to focus on "race" in the United States. All because I called you out on your nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is rather typical American arrogance trying to impose their terminology on other people and other peoples history, and there are people from other countries protesting about it. But such protests some Americans can not comprehend since they do not understand other cultures.
Again, YOU created this thread to somehow or someway blame black people for the issue of an Indian person passing themselves off as black and you want to claim this is about arrogance? It is about race based on skin color which is the fact of historic racism in the colonized world. You keep denying this and trying to pretend this is something that came from black people when it isn't. The facts of the article you posted shows this clearly but you refuse to acknowledge this came from Europeans and instead continue to act like this is a problem that came from black people. Again, if this guy was able to pass as black after checking the box for black on the university application, it was mostly due to white Europeans going along with his fraudulent actions, primarily based on skin color. Again, the point being that black skin has always been a description of skin colors for tropically adapted people, which includes both Indians, Africans and others. The fact that you object to this is the problem because you want to pretend that somehow skin color in different parts of the world have different "characteristics" when in reality they don't. Tropically adapted people all over the world have very similar features, including skin color for the same reasons, which is due to environmental adaptation. The issue is you acting like this isn't scientific fact and somehow simply an issue of racial labels promoting confusion when that is not the case. But you are deliberately doing this to attack black people using the word black because you want to pretend that black skin outside of Africa is different from black skin in Africa and therefore not something that African Americans should not discuss as part of the history of European colonization and racial hierarchies.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The problem with you is that you think that brown skin is black and that all brown skinned people are the same. Have you ever been outside USA and seen some of the both phenotypic and also cultural diversity that exists out there? Maybe you ought to go out travel some, so you can get away from your simplified USA world view.
Again, YOU created this thread to discuss how and why an Indian person could pass as black in the USA and then proceed to whine and complain about black people as if THEY created the problem, when the reality is they did not. You still continue to deny the fact that racism was based on skin color in most colonial societies and when this very article shows the fact that everybody, from the white European admission officials, to the Indian person themselves all were using skin color as the basis of this identification as "black" based on the University application. What I am saying is you made this thread and introduced the article in order to downplay the ultimate meaning of it in order to twist the facts into something to use in attacking black people. Just like the whole point of this Indian guy even trying to pass as black in the first place was to try and blame black people for him not getting into University. All of it is explicitly designed as anti black propaganda and nothing else.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: No one says that racism only depends on African Americans using certain words, but it contributes to the division on people based on the most superficial of all criteria. Dividing people into black and white upholds the divide, and also it fails to acknowledge human diversity.
Again, in the article that YOU posted, there is no evidence that the University admission officials who accepted this person as black were African Americans. Yet you keep sitting here using this as some excuse to attack black people when they had nothing to do with creating these racial categories or the history of racial segregation which made such categories required on university applications in the first place. This is my point. You keep acting like this is something that came from black people denying diversity when that has absolutely nothing to do with how and why racism exists in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ]In todays world some African Americans behave as racist as many European Americans or Europeans. I have whitnessed it both online and i real life.
And there it is. You basically are admitting that your whole purpose for creating this thread is to say that black people are the racists and the reason that this Indian person didn't get into University. And that has been why I keep calling you out on your passive aggressive nonsense because you know this Indian guy was committing fraud and using his fraud as a tool to attack black people when you created this thread to begin with. Like I said, black people did not create the history of racism in the United States, they did not create the racial categories and did not create segregation, but according to you, it is black people who are the racists even as they are not the ones who stopped this Indian guy from coming to America nor are they responsible from getting into University. As if you forgot the entire history of black people having to fight for all the rights of non Europeans, like this Indian person, to not be discriminated against. Those are the facts. All you are doing is pushing propaganda.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: There are also other divides in USA, divides according to class and ethnicity. Several other minorities have at different occasions met discrimination and racism, even if their skin color has been rather similar to the light skinned majority population.
But you created this thread specifically to talk about race in America and no place else. So why do you keep repeating this nonsense when someone addresses the topic you created as if you didn't intend to actually discuss the topic itself? Who are you even kidding here? If you didn't intend to discuss race in the USA, why did you create the thread, other than to promote black people as the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Very few people have black skin. You must be color blind, or just brainwashed into an infantile way to see on human diversity.
You talk about black skin, it only exists among rather few peoples in the world.
And that fact was always understood for thousands of years by people using the word black and similar terminologies. It has absolutely nothing to do with this Indian person who came to America and specifically decided to use the check box "black" on his university application and specifically committed fraud to pass himself off as "black". Does that mean he didn't understand that black doesn't literally mean black? Why do you keep introducing something that is irrelevant to the point that black was used in the USA to segregate Africans from Europeans based on a one drop rule. These facts have been told to you numerous times yet you keep ignoring them because you are determined to somehow turn this into a discussion of how black people are the racists and the origin of skin color based racism.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Which of all these nuances are black?
Obviously this brown skinned Indian went to a University and passed himself off as black. And the university accepted him and his decision to call himself black. Why are you continuing to ignore the obvious that "black" in the United States has always been as a broad label to refer to people of African ancestry based on skin color. You keep being told this and keep acting like you don't understand when the facts are obvious. And the kicker is the Indian person also understood that this label is based on skin color which applies to people with brown skin complexion. The very article itself blatantly shows this, yet you keep trying to somehow act like YOU don't understand this is about skin color based racism to segregate Africans from Europeans. That is the history of racism and the use of such labels in the United States, which means that people are not confused about "black" not being a single skin color but a range of colors. You keep playing dumb about this when you know better but are doing so in order to again try and twist this into blaming black people for the issue. Nowhere do you blame the University for not calling this guy out on fraud or do you blame the Indian person for committing the fraud to begin with. The only people at fault in your view is black people, to the point where you even deny the One drop rule in the USA and in order to pretend that white people didn't understand that black people weren't literally black, again trying to play dumb. And to go even further, a lot of these same "North Africans" would also be categorized as black using the one drop rule if it wasn't explicitly stated in the census demographic categories that North Africans are white or caucasian. And this is ultimately the contradiction that is at the core of all the whinng and complaining where Europeans will arbitrarily change their definitions of labels to suit their own agendas, including calling black Ethiopians caucasian as if they also aren't black. But you don't want to address this because again, you want to pretend this hypocrisy in the usages of racial labels starts with black people.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Of course there are African Americans who behave in a racist way, both online and in real life. To deny that is to put ones head in the sand and pretend that all African Americans are saints.
The fact that US government codifies words like Black and White is no argument for using these simplified terms, and even try to use them concerning people in other countries, or to people who do not use simple color labels to identify themselves.
Again, you keep introducing black people as the blame for racism in the USA and arguing that the reason why this Indian guy had to commit fraud to get into university is black people. That is the point. You created this thread specifically to talk about race in the United States in order to ignore the facts and simply blame black people and promote anti black propaganda. And you keep playing this passive aggressive role like you are dumb and don't know the history of the USA and how it works. That is why you keep trying to go back and forth with me knowing what you are saying is irrelevant to the topic itself.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: These terms are not used in all countries where they try to see more nuances than in the sometimes rather infantile American culture.
Sometimes I really wonder if you ever been outside USA.
But YOU created this thread to talk about race in the USA, so why are you now trying to deny it and act like that isn't what you did? This is is what I mean about you pretending to be dumb to promote this passive aggressive propaganda against black people.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You seem to think I dislike African Americans, but I do not, I do not dislike normal African Americans, I mostly dislike the fools online who goes on and on about how black this or that ancient culture was, or that this or that population are not the original population in this or that place, instead those places were inhabited by some mysterious "black" race which often are not to bee seen anymore. In the process they do not hesitate to insult other peoples. But I never see you call out such behaviour. And I have not seen you calling out anti white or anti Native behaviour here on ES either. You just complain and whine when someone criticizes the behaviour of some African Americans. Seems very one sided.
But again, YOU created this thread to specifically talk about race in the United States,using a case of an Indian person deliberately committing fraud in trying to pretend to be black. But the only people that you keep calling out as the problem is black people, not white Europeans running the university, not white European colonists who enslaved Africans and created these racial concepts and not the Indian guy who committed fraud. Therefore you seem to be overly obsessed about black people using the word black because you have an agenda and this isn't an honest discussion about race in general or even skin color, it is just you promoting propaganda against African Americans for challenging actual racists on racism.
Case in point, instead of addressing the topic at hand, which YOU created, you proceed to refer to some random youtuber discussing something totally irrelevant to the thread you created. That person isn't on the thread and we are not talking about the Nile Valley, but it just exposes you as only being concerned about black people in America identifying with people with black skin outside of America and that is the reason why you are so upset about them using the word black. And you are so obsessed with that you cannot even have an honest discussion about race in America in a thread YOU created because you only created it to promote propaganda against black people.
quote:Yet the point again is YOU created this thread specifically talking about the United States and how an Indian person passed themselves off as black. And you keep trying to spin the history of racism based on skin color in the United States(not to mention elsewhere), into somehow being black peoples fault. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand why I am calling you out on this when you specifically created this thread specifically to talk about the USA. Now you want to claim that you don't live in the USA and don't want to discuss something in a thread you created to focus on "race" in the United States. All because I called you out on your nonsense.
Yes I created the thread showing how flawed the American perceptions of race and color are in general. The point is also that everyone seems to accept these racial divisions and labels and continue perpetuing them, both "black" and "white" people. Also many Americans seem to propagate for them to be used in other parts of the world, or for people in ancient times.
Luckily it is not so bad where I live. Even the old colonial powers in Europe (except the Brits) are turning away from officially register people by race or skin color. Maybe USA will follow suit also, 100 years from now or so.
quote:Again, YOU created this thread to somehow or someway blame black people for the issue of an Indian person passing themselves off as black and you want to claim this is about arrogance? It is about race based on skin color which is the fact of historic racism in the colonized world. You keep denying this and trying to pretend this is something that came from black people when it isn't. The facts of the article you posted shows this clearly but you refuse to acknowledge this came from Europeans and instead continue to act like this is a problem that came from black people. Again, if this guy was able to pass as black after checking the box for black on the university application, it was mostly due to white Europeans going along with his fraudulent actions, primarily based on skin color. Again, the point being that black skin has always been a description of skin colors for tropically adapted people, which includes both Indians, Africans and others. The fact that you object to this is the problem because you want to pretend that somehow skin color in different parts of the world have different "characteristics" when in reality they don't. Tropically adapted people all over the world have very similar features, including skin color for the same reasons, which is due to environmental adaptation. The issue is you acting like this isn't scientific fact and somehow simply an issue of racial labels promoting confusion when that is not the case. But you are deliberately doing this to attack black people using the word black because you want to pretend that black skin outside of Africa is different from black skin in Africa and therefore not something that African Americans should not discuss as part of the history of European colonization and racial hierarchies.
Well, Black people are not innocent, they also use those labels. Just look at all those who want to black paint every ancient civilisation, from the Olmecs to ancient China. These people are a nuisance on social media, and you can hardly blame "white" people for their behaviour.
Whites invented these systems, but many blacks play along. If they want to get away from these hierarchies they should not try to apply them on other people who many times identify in other ways.
quote:Again, YOU created this thread to discuss how and why an Indian person could pass as black in the USA and then proceed to whine and complain about black people as if THEY created the problem, when the reality is they did not. You still continue to deny the fact that racism was based on skin color in most colonial societies and when this very article shows the fact that everybody, from the white European admission officials, to the Indian person themselves all were using skin color as the basis of this identification as "black" based on the University application. What I am saying is you made this thread and introduced the article in order to downplay the ultimate meaning of it in order to twist the facts into something to use in attacking black people. Just like the whole point of this Indian guy even trying to pass as black in the first place was to try and blame black people for him not getting into University. All of it is explicitly designed as anti black propaganda and nothing else.
I sometimes compare with other countries which do not have such a simplified system to label people. Seems time for USA to maybe try to find a better system.
And as long as blacks go along with the system and try to impose it on other groups, they are not innocent to the confusion either.
I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some have adopted racist American values and use them as a weapon on other peoples. There are enough many such people on the net, harassing Egyptians, Native Americans and others. One can not entirely blame that on white people, some African Americans also perpetuate their own kind of racism.
Again, I never hear you whine over threads here on ES which are clearly anti white, where people are called cave men, nazis and similar. And also, have you ever protested against a thread which want to claim ancient Americans as Africans, or Olmecs as Mande or similar? You just whine when someone criticizes African Americans.
I saw you came whining in my Afrocentrism thread too, but I did not swallow that bait and instead ignored your post.
This thread I created just shows the arbitrariness of the American way of viewing color and race, where a dark skinned man can pretend to be another dark skinned man, but one (the Indian) is called brown, while the other (the African American) is called black. It just shows that skin color is only a part of the problem, there are also other divisions in the American society.
I do not only blame black people, but they are also complicit in upholding the divisions in society.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
An interesting question is which is more beneficial in American society, being Indian or African American? By pretending to be African American, he achieved his goal of being accepted into medical school. So in that case, being African American was an advantage. But he also says that outside of the educational situation he was treated worse when people thought he was African American. So there it was to his disadvantage.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I sometimes compare with other countries which do not have such a simplified system to label people. Seems time for USA to maybe try to find a better system.
And as long as blacks go along with the system and try to impose it on other groups, they are not innocent to the confusion either.
I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some have adopted racist American values and use them as a weapon on other peoples. There are enough many such people on the net, harassing Egyptians, Native Americans and others. One can not entirely blame that on white people, some African Americans also perpetuate their own kind of racism.
You can't make a consistent argument like this. You can't say the US has an over-simplified system to label people and "maybe try to find a better system" and simultaneously use the very terms you are saying are over-simplified>>
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: as long as blacks go along with the system...
I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some...
I'm not saying I never use the terms "white" or "black" out of convenience but if you make a post saying those words are over-simplified it doesn't make sense to simultaneously use them in the same post
thus in making such an argument you should be using "African American, Indian American, European American" etc. not "black" or "white"
or in reference to skin "dark skinned" or "light skinned"
"black" and "white" are political terms in American usage (and British)
So if the conversation is not is not in the modern context then avoiding those terms avoids (to an extent) the political element
Thus if "black" isn't mentioned when discussing Vijay Chokal-Ingam it avoids a lot of semantic dispute over what "black" means. To say he faked being black is not specific enough. He faked being African American
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are right, better to use African American and Indian. And concerning skin color "dark skinned" or "dark brown". Then the label "black" can be avoided.
I also use the labels out of convenience sometimes, or I just fall into old habits. But if "black" or "white" can be avoided in this, and similar, discussions it would be a step forward.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Tukuler is correct. The only ones making an issue about the label 'black' are negrophobes like Antalas. Notice nobody questions the label of 'white'. Yet people with chocolate dark complexions are no longer black but 'brown'.
By that judgment then these Nigerian women below are 'brown' as well.
If the same colors had been on something else than people, the colors of these women would have been seen as brown. Black is more of a social construct or political designation than purely descriptive (except a few peoples who are more or less black in color).
Literally speaking they are brown, even if they are called Black
If seen only as colors one can see it here
And the label Black can be problematic also to some people who are called black by others but do not want to be called that themselves.
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.
Tsri, Kwesi, 2015: Africans are not black: why the use of the term ‘black’ for Africans should be abandoned African Identities
But in the end it is maybe up to the individual how he/she identifies, as a color, or as an ethnicity, nationality or in another way.
When it regards labelling ancient peoples, the debate will probably continue since they can not choose what they are called.
It's as I said before, Color labels like 'black' and 'white' are what are known as hyperbolic labels that is exaggerations of what the true color is. Thus 'black' people are not truly black in color the same way 'white' people are not truly white. Both labels are ones of contrast indeed opposites and so are interdependent on each other. As such 'black' identity is based on 'white' identity and so forth.
How many people are aware that during Apartheid South Africa, Indians were just as much discriminated as the native Bantu?? Even Mohandas Ghandi was not allowed to ride in the train cart reserved for whites and when asked why, the train worker told him "because you're black".
How many Indians have been called "black", even though they're not African. Even dark-skinned Indians in the subcontinent are discriminated against by their lighter-skinned fellows and are called "kalu", meaning 'black'.
If these Veddahs (Sri-Lankan Aboriginals) came to America they would claim "brown" status too if they realized "black" was reserved for people of African descent.
Yet there are Africans just as dark who don't want the "black" label because they view it as demeaning and one reserved for those black American descendants of slaves!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the use of the word black and which contexts it is used in varies. And some dislike to be called black even if they often are labeled that way by others as the conversation I talked about earlier where a Dominican woman talked with some African Americans and said that "Here in USA many think that I am black". Then some of the AA:s told her "But you ARE black", but she said "No, I am not black, I am a Dominican".
Interestingly enough about Indians in South Africa: they did not always go well together with the dark skinned ("black") African population. Even Gandhi expressed negative opinions about Africans while he lived there. The systems of discrimination in South Africa was also rather sinister with some called "black", others "colored". And the Japanese was called white, or even "honorary white".
Also South Africa had laws to hinder interracial relationships and marriages, which USA also had (in some states until 1967).
Still today there are people in both South Africa and USA who frown on the thought of marrying a person of another race. Also here in Europe there exist such people.
Seems cats are less discriminating
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet the point again is YOU created this thread specifically talking about the United States and how an Indian person passed themselves off as black. And you keep trying to spin the history of racism based on skin color in the United States(not to mention elsewhere), into somehow being black peoples fault. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand why I am calling you out on this when you specifically created this thread specifically to talk about the USA. Now you want to claim that you don't live in the USA and don't want to discuss something in a thread you created to focus on "race" in the United States. All because I called you out on your nonsense.
Yes I created the thread showing how flawed the American perceptions of race and color are in general. The point is also that everyone seems to accept these racial divisions and labels and continue perpetuing them, both "black" and "white" people. Also many Americans seem to propagate for them to be used in other parts of the world, or for people in ancient times.
You created this thread again as a passive aggressive attack on black people by trying to claim that is the African Americans who created racism based on skin color in the United States and everywhere else. And this is why I am calling you out on it because you keep trying to play dumb about the history of conquest, theft, oppression and slavery as part of European colonial expansion and how skin color is important to maintaining European domination.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Luckily it is not so bad where I live. Even the old colonial powers in Europe (except the Brits) are turning away from officially register people by race or skin color. Maybe USA will follow suit also, 100 years from now or so.
Again running away from the fact that the root of racist ideologies originated in Europe in order to pretend that somehow it is the blacks (and other groups) outside Europe that created racism, not the European colonists and settlers.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, Black people are not innocent, they also use those labels. Just look at all those who want to black paint every ancient civilisation, from the Olmecs to ancient China. These people are a nuisance on social media, and you can hardly blame "white" people for their behaviour.
And here you are again trying so hard to blame black people for racism of Europeans acting like you don't know that the only reason African Americans used the word "black" is because it is a better term than "Negro". And the only reason they used "black" is because they didn't want to use "African" because their African identity had been stripped from them by Europeans during slavery. And they were forced to identify as "Negro" because Europeans used their skin color as a marker of slave status which goes back to the Spanish and Portuguese racial caste systems. But of course you keep skipping over all of that knowing full well that Africans in Africa don't simply identify as "black" as opposed to the ethnic group they belong to or language they speak. But you keep trying to spout this nonsense that somehow that Africans coming off the slave ships were demanding to be called "Negro" or "black" when they weren't. You keep saying it and you keep being wrong and this is why I keep calling you out on it.
quote: Senator Harry Reid apologized for his comment, made before the 2008 election, that Barack Obama could win in part because he was a "light skinned" African-American with "no Negro dialect." Reid, who is resisting calls for his resignation, described the gaffe as a "poor choice of words." When did the word Negro become socially unacceptable?
It started its decline in 1966 and was totally uncouth by the mid-1980s. The turning point came when Stokely Carmichael coined the phrase black power at a 1966 rally in Mississippi. Until then, Negro was how most black Americans described themselves. But in Carmichael's speeches and in his landmark 1967 book, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America, he persuasively argued that the term implied black inferiority. Among black activists, Negro soon became shorthand for a member of the establishment. Prominent black publications like Ebony switched from Negro to black at the end of the decade, and the masses soon followed. According to a 1968 Newsweek poll, more than two-thirds of black Americans still preferred Negro, but black had become the majority preference by 1974. Both the Associated Press and the New York Times abandoned Negro in the 1970s, and by the mid-1980s, even the most hidebound institutions, like the U.S. Supreme Court, had largely stopped using Negro.
Yes, there is no true difference between "negro" and "black" as they both mean the same thing, but the point was for African Americans to define themselves as opposed to being defined by others. But changing labels is not changing the system itself and the discrimination against people based on skin color which is the core problem. And you keep trying to avoid that in order to focus on the semantics of words so you an pretend it is a problem with black people using the word black and not racism itself.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Whites invented these systems, but many blacks play along. If they want to get away from these hierarchies they should not try to apply them on other people who many times identify in other ways.
Racism was enforced by violence in all cases, by Europeans, but according to you it is black people who are the problem, not the Europeans that created all these atrocities to maintain this system based on skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I sometimes compare with other countries which do not have such a simplified system to label people. Seems time for USA to maybe try to find a better system.
No, you are trying to pretend that racism did not originate in Europe and only originated with no European populations. Your point is obvious and you are proving my point the more you keep talking.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And as long as blacks go along with the system and try to impose it on other groups, they are not innocent to the confusion either.
There you go again, acting like black people who fought the civil rights movement to gain justice for all victims of racism were imposing injustice on somebody else. As if the civil rights movement was a fight for black people to spread injustice on other people. Again, acting like the racism based on skin color did not originate in Europe and European society. You aren't fooling anybody with your passive aggressive tone.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not say that Black people invented racism, but some have adopted racist American values and use them as a weapon on other peoples. There are enough many such people on the net, harassing Egyptians, Native Americans and others. One can not entirely blame that on white people, some African Americans also perpetuate their own kind of racism.
Again, YOU created this thread about an Indian person who committed fraud to pass as "black" and according to you the whole problem is black people. Black people do not run the university he applied to and black people did not create the application process and black people did not accept his admission as a "black" student. But, you refuse to address these facts which YOU created a thread about, but instead want to blame all of this on black people, not the racism of Europeans and not the fraud of this Indian person. Not to mention the whole point of this fraud was to try and blame black people for Affirmative Action as if somehow black people were trying to get something for nothing. Again, you knew this when you created the thread and are simply playing dumb like you didn't know this in the first place, which is why you wont address those points that are the topic of the thread and instead just continue to go on and on about how this is a "black" problem.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Again, I never hear you whine over threads here on ES which are clearly anti white, where people are called cave men, nazis and similar. And also, have you ever protested against a thread which want to claim ancient Americans as Africans, or Olmecs as Mande or similar? You just whine when someone criticizes African Americans.
YOU created this thread to whine about the word "black" and "black people" not me. So you need to ask yourself why you are so obsessed with "black" people and what they think to the point of trying to argue that racism is their fault and not those of your native Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I saw you came whining in my Afrocentrism thread too, but I did not swallow that bait and instead ignored your post.
This thread I created just shows the arbitrariness of the American way of viewing color and race, where a dark skinned man can pretend to be another dark skinned man, but one (the Indian) is called brown, while the other (the African American) is called black. It just shows that skin color is only a part of the problem, there are also other divisions in the American society.
I do not only blame black people, but they are also complicit in upholding the divisions in society.
This thread shows that racism is based on skin color and your refusal to accept that because you want to make it seem that "black people" are the problem instead of racism as created by Europeans based on skin color. It is obvious to everybody involved in the topic of the thread that the issue is skin color, but you refuse to address that because all you want to do is whine about black people using the word black. You make no sense and are just passive aggressive trolling.
And to the point of the thread, this guy ultimately dropped out of Medical School admitting he wasn't really cut out for it. Yet you aren't calling him out for that fraud, but trying to pretend this is an issue of black people:
quote: Most of my friends were supportive, although for the longest time they saw it as a fraternity joke, that is until I got wait-listed at the Washington University School of Medicine. A few, including my girlfriend, disapproved. It made no difference to me because I was a man on a mission. She and I eventually broke up.
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.
And it certainly wasn’t a cake walk being a black applicant. I had to pass through a long and arduous admissions process that was typical for a medical-school applicant. But in the end I achieved my goal.
I got into the St. Louis University School of Medicine.
Once in med school, I relaxed a bit because it was easy to blend in. With 150 students, nobody ever asked me any questions about my race, probably because medical school was just too hectic.
After two years and a lot of soul searching I realized I just wasn’t cut out to be a doctor. I dropped out of medical school for many reasons, but not being black was not one of them.
Even if I never became a doctor, at least my sister did: on television.
The whole point of this stunt was to say that by pretending to be black he got accepted to University with lower qualifications and that this is why he wasn't able to get into university. So he was trying to attack affirmative action. And other places have called him out on the misleading story as well:
quote: The claim was part of a publicity campaign for a forthcoming book, Almost Black, in which Chokal-Ingam says he will use his experience to attack the validity of affirmative action. The centerpiece of this campaign is an image that suggests that Chokal-Ingam applied to med school twice: once as an Indian-American named Vijay (rejected), and once as a black applicant named Jojo (accepted).
Nearly every media outlet that wrote about the stunt prominently featured the graphic, yet very few addressed whether Chokal-Ingam had applied twice, and some erroneously concluded that he had.
But Chokal-Ingam told BuzzFeed News he only applied to med school once, and only as a black applicant. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also confirmed that they did not have an application on file with Chokal-Ingham's real first name.
"Unfortunately, you're right," Chokal-Ingham told BuzzFeed News when asked if he had only applied under one identity. "I am one person, I'm not two people, so I can't actually apply twice."
Chokal-Ingam said he did not believe the image was misleading, because the rest of the material on his website shows that he only applied once.
It would have likely been impossible for Chokal-Ingham to apply twice under two different identities, as the image suggests. Both the AAMC, which handles the centralized med school application, and individual med schools verify the identities of applicants at several steps in the process, according to AAMC officials and med school admissions officers interviewed by BuzzFeed News. AAMC also investigates any discrepancies it finds in separate applications from the same person.
Chokal-Ingam says that, as a junior in college, he came to believe he was unlikely to get into med school unless he took advantage of affirmative action by posing as a black man. So he shaved his head, trimmed his eyebrows, and identified as black in his MCAT exam and his school applications. He applied to more than 20 schools and was rejected by all but one, St. Louis University School of Medicine.
In Chokal-Ingam's view, the fact that he got into St. Louis and received interviews at other schools is proof that he got into med school because of his purported race. But the fact that he only applied once means this was an experiment without a control: There is no way of knowing whether Chokal-Ingam would have been rejected had he applied without falsifying his race.
There is some statistical evidence suggesting discrimination against Asian-American applicants to elite schools. At the same time, black students have always been greatly underrepresented in med schools. Just over 6% of medical school enrollees are black, according to the latest data from AAMC.
So this is the story you created the thread to talk about, but somehow you only see fit to want to whine about "black" people being "black".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You created this thread again as a passive aggressive attack on black people by trying to claim that is the African Americans who created racism based on skin color in the United States and everywhere else. And this is why I am calling you out on it because you keep trying to play dumb about the history of conquest, theft, oppression and slavery as part of European colonial expansion and how skin color is important to maintaining European domination.
I did not say that African Americans created racism, but some of them perpetuate it and accept colonial labels on themselves and other peoples. Maybe time to abandon colonial labels and colonial thinking?
quote:And here you are again trying so hard to blame black people for racism of Europeans acting like you don't know that the only reason African Americans used the word "black" is because it is a better term than "Negro". And the only reason they used "black" is because they didn't want to use "African" because their African identity had been stripped from them by Europeans during slavery. And they were forced to identify as "Negro" because Europeans used their skin color as a marker of slave status which goes back to the Spanish and Portuguese racial caste systems. But of course you keep skipping over all of that knowing full well that Africans in Africa don't simply identify as "black" as opposed to the ethnic group they belong to or language they speak. But you keep trying to spout this nonsense that somehow that Africans coming off the slave ships were demanding to be called "Negro" or "black" when they weren't. You keep saying it and you keep being wrong and this is why I keep calling you out on it.
African Americans can call themselves "black" if they like, it is their problems. But they should abstain calling other peoples black who do not identify as such. To do so is a sign of colonial mentality.
quote:Yes, there is no true difference between "negro" and "black" as they both mean the same thing, but the point was for African Americans to define themselves as opposed to being defined by others. But changing labels is not changing the system itself and the discrimination against people based on skin color which is the core problem. And you keep trying to avoid that in order to focus on the semantics of words so you an pretend it is a problem with black people using the word black and not racism itself.
As I said, African Americans ought to stop imposing the black label on other, ancient or present, peoples (at least if those peoples do not define themselves or their ancestors as black). If they want to call themselves an outdated colonial label it is their problem.
quote:Racism was enforced by violence in all cases, by Europeans, but according to you it is black people who are the problem, not the Europeans that created all these atrocities to maintain this system based on skin color.
Now many European countries move away from that system. But if Americans do not want to develop it is their problem.
Racism was in many ways upheld longer time in USA than in many European countries. Among other they had antiquated laws against interracial marriages, laws that many European countries not seen. Here in Sweden we did not have such laws even in the time the first Africans came to Sweden in the 18th century.
quote:YOU created this thread to whine about the word "black" and "black people" not me. So you need to ask yourself why you are so obsessed with "black" people and what they think to the point of trying to argue that racism is their fault and not those of your native Europe.
No one force you to troll this thread, you can leave it, then you do not have to bother.
The point of this thread is to show that people can have the same color and still be treated differently, ie skin color is not the only thing that divides USA, there are other rifts in society too. But it is maybe easier to focus on the "black and white" problem instead of analyzing the society in a deeper and more comprehensive way.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic