Stayin Alive: March 2005::
Why is that? Because everybody else has shut the fuck up and the specific history, that in the U.S. there is an official system of racial classification.
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_archive.htmlHOME |
So, why is racial classification in the USA so random and messed up? Why is a bi-racial person like Obama an African American? Do you get it? I don't get it!:okashii:
Here's an interesting post.
Race classification is random and meaningless.
1) Blonde-haired people from Spain and Portugal are Hispanic.
2) Everyone from the Americas except U.S. & Canada is also considered Hispanic. Except black people - if you're a black person from Brazil who moves to the U.S., then you're "African-American".
3) But if you're a white person from South Africa (of Dutch descent - the Boers were there in the 1600's) and you move to the U.S., you're not "African-American" - you're just a white guy.
4) If you're an Arab from North Africa who moves to the U.S., you're not "African-American" - you're a "Middle Eastern" guy who's not from the Middle East.
5) If you're a black guy whose family has been in the U.S. for 400 years, you're still an "African-American".
6) If your family is of 100% of Mayan descent and you move to the U.S. from Central America, they may still count you as "Hispanic". Or maybe "Native American". But still "non-white", although you're skin may be much lighter than many other people not considered "non-white", e.g., Pakistanis, Pacific Islanders, Austalian aborigines, etc.
7) If you're from India, Pakistan, or any of the primarily Muslim countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, you're not considered "Asian", even though all these countries are in Asia. The term "Asian" is usually reserved for those with Far East (oriental) features, except for Inuits, who are Native Americans.
None of it makes any sense, and keeping track of race differences just to make sure no one else is keeping track of race differences is counter-intuitive and just plain stupid. Let's stop trying to pigeon-hole everybody into the "right" cubby-hole term. How about if we just refer to nationalities?http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An5DO9EpFxQX_lstFHt9XU4jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid =20070926102858AAtBl5R
My high school was pretty diverse with different nationalities, but there was no racial categories like that! :souka:
In Japan, as a relatively homogeneous country with 98-99% of the population being Japanese, people do not try to differentiate between types of non-Japanese foreigners, most non-Japanese people, except familiar ones like Chinese and Koreans, fall into a single category of "foreigners", and I know some people feel insulted by the racially unconscious Japanese, but I don't think other racial classifications are any better, in my opinion.
I think there is now a box for " bi-racial " to accomodate continued rising inter-racial marriages.
I don't think it is right to call black people in the USA African American. Not every black person comes from, or came from Africa. The problem is that if you are even 1% black or 1% Native American (other minorities too), you can claim that you are a minority and get extra from us average "white" people. That has always frustrated me. We are all supposed to be created equal, but as it turns out some are more equal than others. I am from the USA and I don't get it either! I think we have to get past peoples heritage, skin color and just all be considered people. The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics::
look at the top-ranked contestants in the Miss USA 2005 beauty It is less clear, though, why hair and eye color diversified in Europe and not elsewhere.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_evolutione_eyes_among_nordics/P100HOME |
Talk:Melungeon/Archive1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia::
17 tri-racial. 18 Constant reverting and discourtesy. 19 Featured article nomination That is why the term only has currency in the real South.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Melungeon/Archive1HOME |
What I find interesting is that my "family" didn't immigrate to the USA until the early 1900's and they didn't call themselves "German American" or "Irish American" they just considered themselves American. They were happy to be able to become American, they learned the language, assimilated in, they didn't want to be different. They didn't teach their children their native languages, something though that my grandmother regretted.
Very interesting question diceke
I only learnt one thing; children and teenagers don't underline racial differences but their parents do so quite often. And then slowly it becomes we and they.
My adopted children are from India, so they are Dutch from Indian origin.
By the way, the South African whites were not only from Holland but also from France.
They were the French Huguenots, most of them stayed around Capetown. I lived almost 9 years in South Africa, in Johannesburg. Beautiful country but full of racial hatred. Nowhere else have I seen so much hate between several races, tribes, colours, cultures and so on. It is fearful and horrible.
So we know which Melvin we're talking about, without having to bring up family name and such. Its for our comfort. Really, if its only for one's comfort, its really not a bad thing, and its handy, the problem starts when people begin to distinguish and classify for the sake of distinguishing and classifying. Talk:Racial segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia::
Graham, why did you put in (and take out) the following? and Israeli-occupied The USA section on racial segregation is so long that it really does deserve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_segregationHOME |
Why do we have to classify people in the first place? What's the point, it just divides people.
*ahem*
The word science is derived from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) word scientia for knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), the nominal form of the verb scire, "to know". The Proto-Indo-European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root) (PIE) root that yields scire is *skei-, meaning to "cut, separate, or discern". Other words from the same root include Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) chyati, "he cuts off", Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) schizo, "I split" (hence English schism, schizophrenia), Latin scindo, "I split" (hence English rescind).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-0) From the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) to the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#cite_note-1) Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning.
The Japanese word "wakaru" has a very similar derivation.
It is in dividing the world in various ways that we come to understand it.
The term "African American" came into use because a lot of people (blacks and non-blacks) had a problem with the term "black."
But that attempt at political correctness has opened up a whole other can of worms.
Why do we have to classify people in the first place? What's the point, it just divides people.
 Red Hat's Rough Recovery From CFO Exit
 Windows Live Finds a New, Pre-installed Home |
