Originally Posted by sinjin

In the USofA, half black is black.

Who was the first black woman to win a Best Actress Oscar

No its not. In the US half castes are seemingly called black. Even though they obviously are not.
Obama isnt even an' African' American..he is mixed race
If race is whatever you want it to be then latinos can be called non whites if they want

Originally Posted by gansao

No its not. In the US half castes are seemingly called black. Even though they obviously are not.

Not just called.

Obama isnt even an' African' American..he is mixed race.

As are most African Americans.

If race is whatever you want it to be then latinos can be called non whites if they want

It's not whatever one wants it to be. I'm white and of mixed racial heritage.
Many Latinos(Hispanics) are non-white. Been over that. Having trouble following along?
Latino is not a race.

Originally Posted by sinjin

Not just called. .

Yes , just called

Originally Posted by sinjin

As are most African Americans..

Most are not half caste. It appears some ' African Americans' are not black.

Originally Posted by sinjin

It's not whatever one wants it to be. I'm white and I'm of mixed racial heritage. Many Latinos(Hispanics) are non-white. Been over that. Having trouble following along?
Latino is not a race. .

So Irish, English, French, Spanish, German and Native American are different races? Yes I am having trouble following your bs

Originally Posted by gansao

Yes , just called

President Obama never had the option to be "called" white.

Most are not half caste.

So how much more than half before one is "black"?

So Irish, English, French, Spanish, German and Native American are different races?

No, only the Native American part is of another race.

Yes I am having trouble following your bs

Maybe if you weren't both strident and ignorant it would be easier.

Originally Posted by sinjin

President Obama never had the option to be "called" white..

He had the option to be honest and deny that he was ' black'

Originally Posted by sinjin

So how much more than half before one is "black"?.

You are the one that arbitarily attributes race so you tell me

Originally Posted by sinjin

No, only the Native American part is of another race.
Maybe if you weren't both strident and ignorant it would be easier.

If one of your parents was Irish and the other was Native American you would be Native American would you? Or maybe yellow if you believe Jet lol

If you wasnt full of bs it would be easier

Originally Posted by gansao

He had the option to be honest and deny that he was ' black'

Still don't get it. If one's African heritage is detectable in one's appearance, one is black for all intents and purposes.

You are the one that arbitarily attributes race so you tell me.

Any detectable trace is as good as 100% black in the US. I did tell you.

If one of your parents was Irish and the other was Native American you would be Native American would you?

Our term from some time ago was "half-breed". Indians would accept you as Indian but whites not as white.

Or maybe yellow if you believe Jet lol

Native Americans are most closely related to Asians.

Originally Posted by jet57

The Semites speak the Arabic language; ie semetic languages. I did a college term paper on Lebanese culture, so it cracks me up when people say that Arabs are anti-semetic: they can't be . . .

And as far as I can tell; I think that blacks and Pacific Islanders make up the bushmen: look at their faces: they resemble Samoans actually. You'll note that there are very very black Indians who have European faciual features as well. I thnk that's because of early migrations that split, with some staying in Asia minor and going on down lower to the very hot dry climate.

The whole thing fascinates me.

Isn't irrelevant though? "How can arabs be anti-semitic?" because race is really culture, they aren't really opposed to that gene pool, they are opposed to them as a people regardless of their genetic make-up.

Originally Posted by sinjin

What point are you attempting to communicate? My national loyalty is to the USA but my cultural
identity is still coloured by my particular ethnic origin. Is that not the definition of "American" too?

Originally Posted by sinjin

I'm Irish, English, French, Spanish, German and Native American.
Possible more that I am not aware of. The ethnic specifics of wives are often lost to history.

The definition of American is someone who lives permanently in America, and unless you live permanently in the countries you are claiming (France, Irish, English, French, Germany) you are not those. You have perhaps been exposed through your parents to some culture from those places. And perhaps connected with those cultures when you were older because of it. That is not the same thing. The point I am trying to communicate is that I am annoyed by people who say things like that as if culture could be inherited through genes.

Originally Posted by jet57

Native Americans are Asian and come under the yellow race. And yes, bushmen then would come under black. I' mean that's according to this racial catalog.

Even within the stupidity of such an attempt to make a catalog; this is a truly pathetic attempt.

Originally Posted by jet57

It's even known now that in Africa during the time of the cradle of homo sapiens that land was lush and green and humid. (The profession escapes me) but scientists have found that with skin pigmentation, black skin is dark becasue the pigmnetaion shuts down the skins ability to absorb light. And becasue of the extreme heat of Africa that would makwe a great deal of sesne: look at the thick hair of Africans as well; to protect the head from the sun. Conversely, white people's pigmentation opens up in hte colder darker north to absorb light. The hair is lighter color, the eyes are as well. This then begs the question that beofre the great migration north, weren't the people perhaps of the Asian variety instead of black? I don't know if we'll ever find out. But wouldn't be an interesting find one way or the other?

Lol, science beyond you as well as history? The purpose of skin pigmentation is to prevent damage that radiation can do to cells, especially their DNA. In areas with constant strong sunlight, little cloud cover; and most importantly few clothes and no sunblock this would be a great advantage. As to your speculation, reality is the exact opposite; darker pigments absorb more light and get hotter while light pigments reflect more light and thus heat.

If 'white' people were truly white, they would be better off in Africa than 'black' people; but they aren't white coloured, they are more like transparent and that colour is simply the natural sub-dermal colour without much protective pigment.

Arguing about whether the president is black is useless until you agree on an objective definition for black; good luck there ;p

Originally Posted by Atlas

Isn't irrelevant though? "How can arabs be anti-semitic?" because race is really culture, they aren't really opposed to that gene pool, they are opposed to them as a people regardless of their genetic make-up.

They all have the same backgound and all come from the same place. So, it's a religious feud; nothing more.

Originally Posted by jet57

They all have the same backgound and all come from the same place. So, it's a religious feud; nothing more.

No, many Jews came from Europe, and Jews and Arabs in that area have always had slightly different culture. But, what's the difference between a racial holocaust, and a religous one? Seems as if they should be treated with the same seriousness. This feud is being fueled by radical Islamic clerics spewing hate on every communication medium, they are turning the divide of religon into a precieved divide of race. In Hitler era germany Jews were not radically different in culture, they were built up as evil and greedy inherently. The same motives that lead to the holocaust are leading to increasing hostility toward Israel.

Originally Posted by Atlas

No, many Jews came from Europe, and Jews and Arabs in that area have always had slightly different culture. But, what's the difference between a racial holocaust, and a religous one? Seems as if they should be treated with the same seriousness. This feud is being fueled by radical Islamic clerics spewing hate on every communication medium, they are turning the divide of religon into a precieved divide of race. In Hitler era germany Jews were not radically different in culture, they were built up as evil and greedy inherently. The same motives that lead to the holocaust are leading to increasing hostility toward Israel.

Europe wasn't around when the Semetic people began to form societies. And Jewish culture and religion was radically different from saxon German culture and religion.

Look; you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about here; you're really just making it up as you go along, and from the syntax that you use, I'm beginning to think you're a sock.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The definition of American is someone who lives permanently in America, and unless you live permanently in the countries you are claiming (France, Irish, English, French, Germany) you are not those. You have perhaps been exposed through your parents to some culture from those places. And perhaps connected with those cultures when you were older because of it. That is not the same thing. The point I am trying to communicate is that I am annoyed by people who say things like that as if culture could be inherited through genes.


Even within the stupidity of such an attempt to make a catalog; this is a truly pathetic attempt.


Lol, science beyond you as well as history? The purpose of skin pigmentation is to prevent damage that radiation can do to cells, especially their DNA. In areas with constant strong sunlight, little cloud cover; and most importantly few clothes and no sunblock this would be a great advantage. As to your speculation, reality is the exact opposite; darker pigments absorb more light and get hotter while light pigments reflect more light and thus heat.

If 'white' people were truly white, they would be better off in Africa than 'black' people; but they aren't white coloured, they are more like transparent and that colour is simply the natural sub-dermal colour without much protective pigment.

Arguing about whether the president is black is useless until you agree on an objective definition for black; good luck there ;p

That's okay; I just get my education on these matters directly for the mouths of PhD archeologists and geologists and college text books (these classe are required for my degree in history), so, you just keep balthering on.

Originally Posted by jet57

That's okay; I just get my education on these matters directly for the mouths of PhD archeologists and geologists and college text books (these classe are required for my degree in history), so, you just keep balthering on.

Oh, that means I am going to get to disprove PhD's and college textbooks as well as you? This might be more interesting than the standard fare. Alright, how does black skin keep one cooler?

Originally Posted by Freedom

Oh, that means I am going to get to disprove PhD's and college textbooks as well as you? This might be more interesting than the standard fare. Alright, how does black skin keep one cooler?

(chucle) what a maroon

Black skin doesn't keep one cooler. Black skin shuts off the penatration of too much light which upsets the balance of vitamines in the body and prevents burn to the skin.