But not Barrack Obama or Tiger Woods.
But including Usain Bolt and OJ Simpson. :rolleyes:
The whole history of the US is one long argument about the definition of “black”* (one-drop? 1/4? 1/8?). Even today it’s used in multiple senses in the US. But, Shagnasty thinks we should all use his idiosyncratic definition of the word in a discussion about genetics.:rolleyes:
*Or whichever previously used social term to cover the same concept you want to use.
Sorry, I forgot to slow it down for you. Lemme look for small words.
Ex-girlfriend make claim about herself. Big claim! Say she famous writer! Say she write best-seller!
Ex-girlfriend not tell truth. She take small thing and make it big. Not famous writer!
You make claim about yourself. Big claim! Say you very smart! Say people have sex in high school gym! Say mama famous!
I think you do what ex-girlfriend do. I think you take small thing and make it big.
Big word now. ANALOGY. Two things are like each other. Not in all ways! Just in some ways! Tell about one thing to help explain another thing!
They can self-identify as black all they want but what I meant regarding them is that it is more correct to refer to them as biracial and multi-racial respectively because neither one is mostly black (ethnically). Obama was raised by his very white mother and her family. Tiger Woods even invented the term Cablinasian to describe his own ethnicity. It is a combination of the words caucasion, black, Indian (Native American) and Asian.
What about Michele? Is she a proper negress? Are Sasha and Malia black, or are they more correctly biracial, seeing as how their father is not black?
:rollfuckingeyes:
Under such a strict interpretation, is there a single black person in America then? All AfAms are multiracial in that sense.
Wrong. What you said is that you would tell us what phenotypic traits you could use to distinguish Brack Obama from a “real” Black person like Nelson Mandela.
And why is OJ Simpson not multi racial? Why is Usain Bolt not multi racial?
You are making racist arguments based on the performance of “Black” sports stars. How do you know *what *proportion of “ethnically” Black ancestry all these stars have in their ancestry?
And there has been contact direct between the horn of Africa and Sri Lanka for at least the past 5, 000 years. How do you know what proportion of “ethically” Black ancestry any given Sri Lankan has?
If you can’t answer those questions then how the fuck can you so loudly proclaim that Sri Lankans are not Black and OJ Simpson is Black?
And what the fuck is black (ethnically)? Is Nelson Mandela ethically Black? Is Malcom X? Lenny Henry? What the fuck is a Back ethnicity? Is it based on language? Nationality? Religion? All of those? None of them? In what sense are OJ Simpson, Nelson Mandela and Lenny Henry part of the same ethnicity? What ethnicity do they share that Barack Obama does not also share?
You really are just digging yourself deeper and deeper with this nonsense. Every single post makes you look like a bigger liar and a bigger dickhead.
I don’t know where you draw the fuzzy line (I would personally use >50% if it were up to me but it isn’t). Self-identifying works fine most of the time unless you are someone like Rachel Dolezal. Barack Obama could be more specific and say he is Lou but hardly anyone in the U.S. would know what that is so it defaults to ‘black’ just like it does for most people with any apparent sub-Saharan African ancestry. That is just a modern day variation on the ‘one drop’ rule which I would think most people would want to distance themselves from for obvious reasons but I guess not.
All people living in fucking *Africa *are multiracial in that sense.
It’s not like there hasn’t been a constant gene flow from Asia into Africa for the past 40, 000 years. Every single person living in Africa has some degree Asian ancestry.
It is entirely up to you? Don’t you get that? You invented this line. You told us that it existed. You told us that it has utility in distinguishing"real" black people from Sri Lankans.
We are asking you how you delineate “real” Black people using this standard that you, and you alone, invented and that you, and you alone, use.
You are the only person on the planet who denies that Barack Obama is Black. It’s your system that places him into a non-Black category. It is entirely up to you to tel us where the line is drawn.
So stop being a lying, weaseling racist and answer the questions about the system that you invented. The system that allows you, and you alone, to determine that Barack Obama is not Black.
I think the word is “quadroon”.
So Obama Sr also was not black?
He is free to self-identify as black if he chooses. However, his ancestry is well known so there no reason to assume anything in his case. I would call someone who is half Kenyan (Luo) and half white bi-racial especially if I was conveying information to someone unfamiliar with his background if that information was relevant.
The ancestry of most of the others you listed are well documented as well. If a substantial percentage of their ancestry is from sub-Saharan Africa, then they are black in American terminology. That is simply definitional for the common use of the term. They could be from any one of many sub-Saharan African populations that don’t have much in common with one another so there may be many different phenotypes that are largely unrelated but still fall under the umbrella term ‘black’.
As for Sri Lankans, here is the example you gave. They look like many other people on the Indian subcontinent probably because they are. Indigenous populations from the Indian subcontinent are not ‘black’ by definition in American terminology no matter how dark their skin is. I suppose they could have some African ancestry mixed in somewhere but, even if they do, it is not the predominate factor in determining their appearance. The people in that example would look much more out of place anywhere in Africa than they would on the streets of Mumbai.
It sounds arbitrary because the term we are discussing is itself arbitrary and its definition varies across time and place. If I really wanted to know someone’s ancestry for some reason, I wouldn’t rely on appearance at all except as a starting point. I would simply ask them, look it up or do a DNA test from a commercial service like AfricanAncestry.com
Is everyone here being deliberately obtuse on this point? Of course his father is black. People made a big deal about it during the first election. He is free to call himself black or white if he chooses because he is half of each. However, if I needed to describe his ‘race’ in a context where precision was important, I would refer to him as bi-racial or mixed race.
The only one being obtuse here is you, you racist dickfuck.
OK, so you’re basically saying biology doesn’t matter. That’s fine, just admit that an say you’ve settled on a completely arbitrary definition that doesn’t convey any meaningful biological information and let it go at that. Don’t try to pretend that it has anything to do with science.
That is what I have been saying this entire thread and the one that spawned it yet people keep bizarrely misinterpreting everything I wrote no matter how carefully I phrase it.
We are basically having a conversation about what the term “Black” refers to in American English in the most convoluted way possible. This whole thing started when I told Blake that some of his examples of ‘black’ people aren’t actually black in American terminology and he flipped his shit demanding a very precise definition of what ‘Black’ means when no such thing exists except for a few general rules. There are many different distinct populations that qualify as ‘black’ but they all originate in sub-Saharan Africa and not Sri Lanka or Australia at least in common American terminology. Apparently, many people freak out at the concept of fuzzy sets with arbitrary rules. I was just trying to describe what those are as they exist in real life, not promote any ideas of my own.
No, sweetie. You just really suck at communicating.
Dear god in heaven, I hope I never piss you off.