Some people like to divide people into "black" people and "white" people, and sometimes other "races", too. Let's look at just one "race": black people. I am wondering how you all decide whether somebody is a black person or not. Is your definition just based on how they look, combined with gut feeling? Or do you use a definition based on genes, or something else? If you're using a gene-based definition, how many "black" ancestors does a person need to be black, by your definition? Some examples: Person A has one parent with white skin and one with black skin. Is A black or white? Person B has 3 grandparents with white skin and one with black skin. Is A black or white? Person C has 3 grandparents with black skin and one with white skin. Is C black or white? Or is all this grandparent/parent stuff irrelevant? Please tell me how to distinguish black people from white people, in case it is ever important for me to be able to do that.
SHouldn't it be for each person which ever skin color becomes more dominent then the other. For person B if "white becomes the dominent color then that person should be labled "white"
You should be asking the people who consider themselves black, when often they might be 1/8th black. I go by people's ancestry, and I can tell the difference between irish people, english people, kalahari people, nigerian people, japanese people, malaysian people and chinese people and etc etc etc. Ofcourse most people are mongrels, but I can usually tell basically what they're comprised of, I've accurately picked greek x israelite, maori x papua new guinean, and chinese x phillipino. I'm sure it's horribly "racist" and politically incorrect but I find it fun. I have a similar interest in dog breeds and the origins of mongrel dogs. With both dogs and humans I do find individuals where I'm just stumped, and I consider them mongrels. As for "blacks", it depends in the context, I do use it for different types but not because I don't know better but rather because I'm lazy. I'll refer to africans, aborigines and islanders as "black", they only need enough influence to have mild african, aborigine or islander features. It can just be an easy way to describe someone if there were lots of pure white people and one kind of black guy. I don't tend to call indian/pakistani people black, I'm more likely to call them "hindus", it's all a simple matter of communication to me. But ofcourse it's a big stupid massive deal to certain people.
"black" people (who are brown) have adapted to hot climates and if there decendants come from hot climates and continue to reproduce with other people from that origin usually they will have "black" attributes, same with "white" people (who are kinda light golden or pale creamy colour), my son/daughter, will be mixed race half st lucian half european/mix, he will have "white" and "black" features/anatomy, usually black peoples hair grows really slow, and white peoples hair grows really fast, and a mixed race persons hair will grow fast and be fuller benefiting from both sides of his parents genes, sometimes 2 people of "black oringin" can give birtht o a really light skinend child, i know alot of people like this, there skin will be lighter than a mixed race childs is, but have 2 dark skinned parents,
Ain't got nothin' to do with it! I can only say, James, that if you don't know, then you got a lot bigger problem than you know! And even more seriously, if you or anyone else does NOT know that a person is black by looking at them, then there's something wrong with you. Baron Max
?? This question makes a lot more sense if you're asking how to distinguish your average African American (i.e. negro or 'black') from a Dominican or a Cuban who are Latino/Hispanic but look black. But you can tell a black from a white as easily as you can a man from a woman (Tessie exluded), if you're speaking solely of race. So why do you need to distinguish a black person from a white person when its so ...well, obvious? I don’t understand how such marked differences in facial features, hair, general physiognomy etc. between the races can be wholly denied by anyone. Now if you're asking how you'd consider a person black culturally, why that's easy. Dr. Lou is a cultural black.
And here I thought for sure you would say something about me there... As to James's question: The differentiation between black, white, asian(yellow), arab/indian(brown), and native american(red) is pretty much just a matter of the visual elements. Of course, to me, these aren't really 'races' per se, but more along the lines of loose groupings. If asked to catagorize the people in your examples, I would treat it basically like ethnicity. A would be 1/2 black or 1/2 white. (I likes to call'em halfbreeds) B would would be 1/4 black, C would be 1/4 white. However, if I was asked to accurately describe some one it might be something more like 1/2 african, 1/4 german, 1/4 english ( on the halfbreed example) or something of the like. I think of it more along the lines they classify dogs. Hounds, terriers, sporting dogs, etc... These groups don't speak of the breed exactly, but give you a rough idea of some of the physical characteristics.
Black's such a large lump of people. There are all sorts of blacks, and I think due to the sensitivity of the subject and the fact that most negros are completely ignorant of their roots, we just call them all black. Nigerians, Ethiopians, and Moroccans all look different, but no one usually bothers to make the distinctions. Besides that, most Americans wouldn't know where to find Niger, Ethiopia or Morocco on a map; blacks doubly so.
I'm black? I better watch "coming to america" starring eddie murphy to learn about the essence of my people like gustav did.
Mephura: You, dear, are black only in proportion to your CD collection. *funeral grin* Around here we can say "breed" for groupings of canine but not race for grouping of humans. Wow. Mongol blood has a particular phenotype no matter where its found. Is it not a race? I in no way use 'race' to mean a pure group of people, you're all a nest of breeding mongrels. I use “race” to categorize one similar group from another (you’d do the same sepearating earth tones from pastels), is there something wrong with that? Roman: True and damn you for beating me to it. For example, I can always tell an Ethiopian or a Sudanese from an American black and here the foreign exchange students who are generally Kenyan suffer racism from their own 'kind'. However, they all share characteristics in common that they don't with Punky Brewster or Paris Hilton. That to me is race and you'd have to be blind or a softie liberal not to see that. And yes Dr. Lou is a cultural black. He's the Marky Mark of sciforums and spends his time rapping about animals being tortured. Word.
Mephura, Of course the same goes for whites. However, I read in mainstream literature references to Irish red hair, Scottish demeanor, Norwegian this, Germanic that, etc etc. I never see anything about the squatness of the black man's build attributable to his ancestors' days in the African Congo.
I keep wondering if James has been following this thread ....and can now tell who is a black by just lookin' at 'em? Baron Max
So, let's see what we have so far. It is interesting that people talk about things like "1/8th black" in this thread, when in practice they just label people black or white. I don't see anybody seeing somebody in the street and saying "That person looks 1/8th black." Dr Lou Natic says that black or white depends on your geographic origin, and that you can look black but not be black ("hindus"). EmptyForceOfChi goes on appearance and general "features". SoLiDUS goes on behaviour, which is interesting. Baron Max bases it solely on appearance. I wonder what he would say about the person with one white and one black parent. I guess it depends on how the person looks. gendanken agrees that it is all based on appearance ("facial features, hair, general physiognomy etc.") Mephura agrees, but seems to have a non-binary definition. (You can be "1/2 black".) Roman points out that "Nigerians, Ethiopians, and Moroccans all look different, but no one usually bothers to make the distinctions." So, I guess it's appearance again. So, I'm wondering if anybody thinks ancestry is relevant at all. Or do you all just classify people according to their superficial appearance?
One's ancestry typically manifests itself phenologically, so yes, appearance is really all we have to go on unless we could genotype the individuals. I do, sort of. Like "this person is really black, I didn't think lips came that big" or, "this person has very faint african traits– slightly nappy hair, sort of broad nose, larger than a white's butt, thick lips, etc. Oh, it turns out her mom's white."
Well, James, how many strangers on the street do you walk up to and ask, "Say, buddy, how many of your ancestors were black?" or "Hey, man, how many of your ancestors were white?" And if you can't or won't do that, then how in hell are you gonna' know anything about their ancestry? Guess? Prick 'em with a needle, then have DNA tests while they wait for you? I can see something like that coming up in conversation with good friends, but until you've met them and get to know them, what the fuck else can you do? (And you have to do something ...because if their black, they're probably out to ......oooops, can't say shit like that, can I?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
It is a difficult and complex situation to judge ethnic composition in people consisting of multiple 'races'. However, as Roman says, for those who are predominantly of a certain ethnic makeup, you can mostly (empirically speaking) determine the 'race' of the person. This situation is not permanent. The proportion of 'purebreds' to 'mixed' will change in the forthcoming centuries.
