Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do understand that race at it's core, is a social construct but that doesn't change the fact that someone can have a racist ideology. The ideology of race is real. Racism can be practiced and even institutionalized. It's been already proven that the Caucasian race doesn't exist as I have already explained that in a similar thread about the Berbers of North Africa, so I'm not going to talk about that again on this specific thread topic. I personally don't like applying racial terms to continents like Black Africa or White Europe as they sound ridiculous. You on the other hand appear to be very obsessed with race.
Sigh race as defined in America has elements of a social construct for example a slight admixture of African blood makes one Black. There is no basis in science for that classification. However there ARE different races in the world.
Again you keep applying American cultural norms about race and applying them to the wider world. This is why your posts are riddled with glaring falsehoods.
Good lord... It really seems that a lot of people are hell-bent on finding racial discrimination and bigotry behind everything these days. FTR, I have heard some pretty mean-spirited and creative racial epithets in my time, but not once can I include "sub-Saharan" among them. The term is a geographical one referring to the lands south of the Sahara desert. I cannot even begin to fathom why this term would be considered offensive, unless you are one of those people that beat the bushes and look under rocks for reasons to reasons to play the race card. This behaviour has become so tiresome in recent years that I truly wonder why anyone takes it seriously anymore. It's not like there is any intellectual value in finger-pointing, after all.
Agreed. I'm Black but I find folks like GWphilly tiresome. Their insistence on debating issues based on emotion as opposed to facts are maddening. It's hard for someone like myself who is very rational and analytical to make sense of them.
Agreed. I'm Black but I find folks like GWphilly tiresome. Their insistence on debating issues based on emotion as opposed to facts are maddening. It's hard for someone like myself who is very rational and analytical to make sense of them.
Some of you posters on this thread are actually the ones who are clearly over emotional and are extremely close minded. I have already proved my point time as to why that specific geographical term carries with it racial connotations. The fact remains that none of you have been able to prove me wrong on that, the only thing some of you have been able to do is just nitpick about things that have nothing to do with my original point. Even still I was able to prove some of those posters wrong on those topics as well. It clearly evident as to which posters are clearly overly emotional on this thread.
By the way, why do you feel the need to announce to everyone that your Black right before you said "I find folks like GWphilly tiresome". All you had to say was "I find folks like GWphilly tiresome" instead of saying " I'm Black but I find folks like GWphilly tiresome". Who are you trying to impress? Seems like your the one that's actually obsess with race.
By the way, why do you feel the need to announce to everyone that your Black right before you said "I find folks like GWphilly tiresome". All you had to say was "I find folks like GWphilly tiresome" instead of saying " I'm Black but I find folks like GWphilly tiresome". Who are you trying to impress? Seems like your the one that's actually obsess with race.
The answer is that even thoughtful Blacks are coming forward to say they are offended, insulted and embarrassed by your fixation on an imaginary slight, and that nothing you have said is seen by Blacks as being relevant in the slightest to any "racial" issues.
The answer is that even thoughtful Blacks are coming forward to say they are offended, insulted and embarrassed by your fixation on an imaginary slight, and that nothing you have said is seen by Blacks as being relevant in the slightest to any "racial" issues.
Nice attempt to try and stick up for him but he was the one who said the comment and I would like to hear his response to that since he was the one that actually said it.
Its has a historically ignorant definition usually racist that assumed black could not cross the sahara despite the numerous black empires built in the desert like egypt, nubia, mali, wagadu, kanem-bornu etc. Its a pc way of saying black africa. which again is racist because it assumes there is a non-black africa. It'd be tantamount to saying white europe (north west europe) as a way to designate people from the clean white countries like the lowlands. And "dirty white" europe as Christoph Meiners the German anthropologist who invented the concept of caucasian refered to east, southern europe. I can see why blacks get angry at the term. I don't see anyone calling Germany and France white europe.
The Indian Sub-Continent is not and was never considered a distinct racial group the same way Sub-Saharan Africans are considered.
Wrong - Indians and Chinese consider each other to be different races, and people of their ancestries in the US are considered to be different races by the US Census Bureau. The Himalayas have been a cultural, demographic, economic and racial dividing line throughout history.
Wrong - Indians and Chinese consider each other to be different races, and people of their ancestries in the US are considered to be different races by the US Census Bureau. The Himalayas have been a cultural, demographic, economic and racial dividing line throughout history.
Please come correct the next time you decide to debate me. Just some words of advice.
When talking about the Greeks and Romans, even though we know they're 'different' from Nordics or Celtics, Eurocentric-types never go out of their way to separate them. We tend to lump all European accomplishment in one bucket.
I suppose it's possible that some "Eurocentric types" do that but any scholar of geography or history, or even anyone with a cursory knowledge of either subject, would have to be pretty dense to fail to notice the huge cultural, linguistic, and historical differences between the various regions of Europe. The alps, a geological feature that was a formidable natural barrier (kind of like the Sahara?), was a major dividing line. People north of the alps were called "barbarians" by Greeks and Romans and considered to be culturally inferior.
I don't know where this notion that no one notices European differences came from. There are all kinds of ways Europeans are categorized - Eastern/Western, Mediterranean/Northern, Romance/Germanic/Slavic, Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, etc. There are people who say only the Nordics are fit to run the EU. There are people who use terms like PIIGS - economic with racial undertones. My Italian-American grandparents remember a time not too long ago when Italian-Americans were not considered "White" in the United States.
Quote:
Despite the obvious differences, scholars don't seem to be as willing to point out Italian and Greek cultural primacy over the more barbaric Celtic, Nordic and Germanic groups from antiquity through the Middle Ages.
Everyone who studies the subject is willing to point this out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
