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.
It's probably because of the "one-drop rule" that someone made up - if you have ANY level of black inside you, you are considered black just like someone who is pure black ancestry. EVEN if you are 99% white and 1% black.
A lot of people think that most black people are bad people, which is not true.
I'll add this one fact: Blacks have the highest average crime rate, but no black person has ever committed a serious crime such as a mass shooting.
Just because someone is black doesn't mean that they are bad people. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were once slaves back in the day and were treated and viewed negatively ever since?
I think it has to do with the fact the majority of black mixed people tend to look "black" as the black gene is dominant. I have never met a black mixed person who looks like their white or non-black parent. I have seen blaxicans and blasians who look completely black. The black gene tends to overpower all other races. They also usually inherit coarse curly hair as I have never met a black mixed person with naturally straight hair.
The above is the latest report about another shooting of innocent "white" people by someone identified as a "light skinned black male".
Why is it that people who are partly "black" and partly "white" are almost always identified, when race or color of skin is specified, as "black"? (Or at least this has been my observation.) It seems to me that this goes back to the 1800's when in some sections of the U.S., anyone with ANY black ancestry was considered black, period, and therefore often discriminated against.
And now, with so much racism still in existence, it seems that identifying someone who has done something wrong as black just fuels the hatred displayed by racists. This is highly evident on many current threads on City Data.
I think we should stop identifying people by skin color unless it is absolutely necessary -- such as when a description of a missing person is issued -- and then the person should only be described as "light skinned", "darker (or perhaps medium?) skinned", or "dark skinned", with the gender, color of hair and eyes, approximate height and weight, and description of clothing also given.
Of course, if someone wants to self-identify as "black", "white", "Latino", "Vietnamese", or whatever, that is fine -- but I just think that news agencies and law enforcement agencies should not arbitrarily assign any ancestry labels to people.
That is just my opinion, of course. What is yours?
I'm sure discrimination has a lot to do with it- although we could mistakenly think this is 'a thing of the past.' There are still places in the U.S., in 2015, where it's still 'alive and well.' The only real diff is in the past, it was legal.
Second, for-better-or-worse, the approach of 'identifying' a person by his/her physical appearance. One area where this was and is still clear: celebrities. Think, for example, of musicians in the past who were bi-racial or multi-racial, yet known to the public as 'black' or 'negro.' One who comes to mind: Ronnie Spector, lead singer of the Ronettes. Her mother was Cherokee and African-American, her father was Irish.
More recently, I read a magazine interview with an actress named Jasmine Guy. In the interview, she talked about how, as a child, whether or not she was allowed on public beaches depended on which parent she was with- white mother, black father.
And even the U.S. military was in it- my father, who was a medic in WW II, was livid over the practice of 'segregating blood'- white people could only receive blood transfusions from white people, and 'colored' people could only receive blood from 'colored' people.
So, even considering those few examples, I believe the current practice of identifying as mixed-race or multi-racial is positive- because individuals no longer have to deny part of who they are.
It's probably because of the "one-drop rule" that someone made up - if you have ANY level of black inside you, you are considered black just like someone who is pure black ancestry. EVEN if you are 99% white and 1% black.
Just because someone is black doesn't mean that they are bad people. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were once slaves back in the day and were treated and viewed negatively ever since?
I think that's exactly what led to the one drop rule: to justify slavery as it was practiced in the New World, blacks HAD to be seen as inherently inferior to whites. And so one drop of that "inferior" blood of course meant that the partially-black person had to be inferior, using the same logic we apply to such things as mixing spoiled milk with good milk. Adding even a drop of "bad" blood meant ALL the blood went bad. (And of course, it meant the mixed-race child could be legally enslaved.)
Quote:
I'll add this one fact: Blacks have the highest average crime rate, but no black person has ever committed a serious crime such as a mass shooting.
It's probably because of the "one-drop rule" that someone made up - if you have ANY level of black inside you, you are considered black just like someone who is pure black ancestry. EVEN if you are 99% white and 1% black.
A lot of people think that most black people are bad people, which is not true.
I'll add this one fact: Blacks have the highest average crime rate, but no black person has ever committed a serious crime such as a mass shooting.
Just because someone is black doesn't mean that they are bad people. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were once slaves back in the day and were treated and viewed negatively ever since?
Yes they have.The DC Beltway snipers, John Muhammed,and a young teen Lee Malvo killed 10 and injured 3. Elsewhere them shot 17. Hard to locate as they were shooting from the trunk of a car. Muhammed got death
sentence and now deceased. Lee was a minor and still in prison. Pretty much all the other serial and mass killers were white.
That might change when the Boomer generation is dead.
Remember that when Boomers were young (and some not-so-young at all), interracial marriage was illegal in 19 states and discouraged by the strongest social means everywhere it wasn't illegal. That was the case when I first started dating.
The white mothers of what are now called "biracial" children essentially lost their own "white cards." They were largely treated by society as though they were black and their children were treated by society as black. If society could determine that a person was any part black, that person was treated as black. That's what Boomers grew up with as "normal."
Remember that the Boomer Generation still controls American politics, commerce, and media, so don't expect it to change until the Boomer Generation is dead.
It's probably because of the "one-drop rule" that someone made up - if you have ANY level of black inside you, you are considered black just like someone who is pure black ancestry. EVEN if you are 99% white and 1% black.
A lot of people think that most black people are bad people, which is not true.
I'll add this one fact: Blacks have the highest average crime rate, but no black person has ever committed a serious crime such as a mass shooting.
Just because someone is black doesn't mean that they are bad people. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they were once slaves back in the day and were treated and viewed negatively ever since?
I'm not sure what it is about the Great Debates forum that seems to lure the low-information posters out of the woodwork, but here are the facts: Blacks have committed numerous mass shootings. Aaron Alexis(The Navy Yard shooting) being the most infamous of only recent memory. In fact, blacks are overrepresented in every single category of violent crime, including mass murder and serial killings. In most categories, grossly overrepresented.
Well it likely stems from old definition of a black person. That even if there is a single drop of a black blood in their veins, they are black. I think "negro" was the word used.
As I said before, it's not the "old version," it was the version Boomers learned as children was "normal," and Boomers still control politics, industry, and the media.
If the police are searching for someone or a child is missing or the public is being alerted about a serious criminal at large it makes sense to use effective descriptors to rule out people who don't fit the description....skin color is an identifiable trait. ''Light skinned black male'' rules out all women, white males and dark skinned males -- they won't be stopped or shot at. In any other situations I don't think it is helpful. Nor is it helpful or useful to label an alleged or convicted offender as a ''veteran'' or ''Iraq veteran'' -- something that you hear from time to time. So what? That isn't an identifiable trait.
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.
