That is a gypsy kid. Orleander is right, you are/considered what you look like. Obama looks like a Kenyan, if you ever watched marathons... Edit: Hm, he is actually Kenyan...
I think a person adapts as well as the inside as the outside to a culture. So if a person is born (does not matter if he is white,black,latin,asian) in Spain, he looks spanish. So one can make a difference between a: - spanish japanese - american japanese They will look quite different. So are Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, black americans
You didn't say much because unlike Japan or Spain, America is a mixed culture... Obama with Kenyans: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Which one is the white kid in the picture?
Kenyan long distance runners: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
''You didn't say much because unlike Japan or Spain, America is a mixed culture...'' Now, you are suggesting that because America is a mixed culture, there is no such thing as an American Culture :bugeye:
Obama's grandparents Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! His mother Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nope. I am suggestion that you can say "you look like a Japanese" because Japan is pretty homogen, but if you say "you look like an American", it could be pretty much anything. (except the white fat stereotype)
He probably has sligthly more white in his genes than black assuming his black side got dilluted with whites a bit. By the way what do you not understand in this thread? You seem to think people can be only black or white and nothing in between...
There is no white person. There is a lighter skinned black guy, but no white person. Rashida Jones is white, even though her Dad is Quincy Jones. Its how you look, not who your parents are. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh boy. What I was refering to is in case if on his black side his great-great-somebody was white, that would make the black side less than 50%, thus he would be let's say 52-48 or something. Got it?
Rashida jones is black, and hot. Certainly if obama is black rashida jones is. Anyway, I don't agree with calling half breeds black or white. That gives strength to "race doesn't exist" arguments. They're like "see? You don't know, what are they? No one knows, that proves race doesn't exist", it doesn't matter to them that they make no sense. She and obama are a mixture of black and white. Other people are showing indians, spics, dune goons, and saying "black or white?", when it's neither. Black means of african descent, white means of north/western european descent. Other people are whatever they are, they don't come into "black/white discussions". I'd rather say "negro" than "black" but that was deemed offensive when some passively racist liberal douche decided negros were so shit that the word negro was an insult. I don't think negros are shit so I can't swallow that concept. Boris becker's kids are the creepiest children I've ever seen. Not because they are half negro, but because boris becker is an orange tinted albino freak.
Caucasoid =/= white (not directed at anyone, just a misconception I've seen floating about on this thread).
All that's in this thread is a bunch of arbitrary distinctions, made arbitrarily, about something that no-one appears to be able to define other than in extremely vague language, called "race". Or what "white" or "black" means to the average joe. You don't know what "race" is do you? Is "culture" maybe a better yardstick? Personally I think coloured skin is much more "interesting" than the pasty, freckly old "uncoloured" variety. P.S. Did you know that the taxonomy of H. sapiens based on dentition, gives two main groups (Sundadonts and Sinodonts)? Dentition is usually given a high status as a taxonomic classifier. Race is bogus, it's just tribal variation because of geography and climate.
I think the hardest one now is Mexican/Cuban/Puerto Rican/Honduran, etc. Depends on where you live. In TX, the person may be Mexican, and in Florida, they are Cuban. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The whole caucasoid/negroid/mongolid paradigm was abandoned by most anthropologists many decades ago because the migration of large populations, especially in the last millennium, has obliterated the clear distinctions that would permit the assignment of most ethnic groups to one of those three categories. The discovery of DNA permitted the actual detailed analysis of ancestry and only reinforced the confusion. What are the people of Mexico or Peru? Their Spanish ancestry makes them caucasoid but their Aztec or Inca ancestry makes them mongoloid. Every individual has a different ratio so you can't say the people as a whole are predominantly one or the other. How about the Turks? The Ottomans started out as a Mongol tribe, but they intermarried with everyone they met on their journey and by the time they reached what is now Turkey they were more Indian, Persian, Palestinian, Azeri, Tajik, Lebanese, Assyrian and Arab (all caucasoid peoples) than Mongol. But if out of academic interest you're curious as to the classification of the Arabs under this obsolete system, they were (grudgingly) admitted as caucasians. All of the Semitic tribes were, although the most unrepentant racists of the era threw up their hands and refused to classify many ethnicities--such as the Semitic Jews--as anything but "mongrel." The European anthropologists were just as reluctant to admit the people of India to their little caucasian club, but when linguists discovered that Sanskrit, Latin and Greek are obviously descended from the same root language it was difficult to deny the relationships of the peoples. Amusingly, they had no problem accepting the Finns and Hungarians, who speak non-Indo-European languages with many striking similarities to Turkish, and are quite possibly descended from Mongolic tribes. This illustrates why the caucasoid/negroid/mongoloid paradigm has fallen into disrepute. When the Arabs occupied North Africa they intermarried with the people who were already living there. They speak Arabic and retain a dominant Arab culture, and are considered by themselves, other Arabs, and other people, to be Arabs. The fact that any individual may have a greater or lesser degree of African ancestry is unimportant to anyone but an anthropologist or a researcher of genetically inherited susceptibility to diseases. I recommend that the terms "white" and "black" should be consigned to the same scrap heap as "caucasian" and "negro." The color of a person's skin correlates very poorly with his ancestry, and even less with his own character. It makes more sense to classify people according to the culture they identify with, e.g. "African-American," "Euro-American," "Mexican-American," "Chinese-American," "Arab-American." A person can change his culture. Speaking unaccented English, eating hamburgers, watching baseball games, etc., is enough to remove the hyphen from anyone's identity and rename him simply "American," and if it's not quite attainable for him it certainly will be for his children. But when a person is "black," it doesn't matter where he goes, what he does, or how he relates to his country. He will always be "black" and so will his children. Even if his children look "white" to other "black" people.
"First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse... For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004)." My ass: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This dude thought he was black when: "(DNA)These tests use contemporary people sampled from certain parts of the world as references to determine the likely proportion of ancestry for any given individual. In a recent Public Service Broadcasting (PBS) programme on the subject of genetic ancestry testing the academic Henry Louis Gates: "wasn’t thrilled with the results (it turns out that 50 percent of his ancestors are likely European)" Also: "For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003)[87] found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. " Damn, was I right again? So if Obama's African heritage is average (maybe or maybe not), then his black side could be only about 80% black and that would make Obama 60% white (or at least non-African) and 40% black, thus his black side would be dilluted, as I noted earlier. Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
Can what? Can make a decision about an arbitrary distinction based on skin colour and certain other features? Why do they, is it because they can, or because they think it might be "important"?
