Is Racism about appearance?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by ElectricFetus, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Just for the sake of clarity in thought, let me speak to anyone who still believes in the mythical concept of race.

    If you're financially capable of doing so, and you have enough time on your hands, then please take a trip to Moscow, preferably during the summer, so that the temperatures are more easily tolerated than they would be during their harsh winters. If you don't have either the time or the money to make the trip, then indulge yourself by making the trip in your imagination, while still maintaining your knowledge of worldly cultures.

    When you get there, do some "man-in-the-street" interviews, with the help of a translator if you can't speak Russian. Ask your sample of the Moscow population what race they belong to. I think most of them will tell you that they belong to the Russian race, and if you ask politely, they'll give you a detailed explanation of what that means to them.

    These proud citizens of Moscow will then tell you, if asked, EXACTLY how that makes them different than any member of the Cossack race, the Tartar race, the Mongol race, and the Balkan race, all of whom are their geographic neighbors.

    Now let me ask you. Are these Muskovites all "white" people? If so, are the Cossacks, the Tartars, the Mongols, and the Balkans all "white" people as well? Then you will be disagreeing with all of these proud Russians, who believe just as strongly in their concept of race as you do in yours.

    Can you and the Russians both be right? No. But you could both be wrong if race is, indeed, a mythical concept, as I've been believing for most of my adult life. Color-blindness is the only racial idea that makes any real sense, and it's the only racial idea that can't contradict itself if you travel to various places in the world that have their own strange racial identities. At the end of the 21st century, most of the world will agree with me, too.

    Did you know that when Rawandans were being massacred in 1994, some of them believed that they were a different race than the others and that this was one of the biggest reasons for committing murder?

    Are you going to agree with them and call some of them one race and the others members of a different race? Or are you going to call all of them "black" and disagree with both groups, who by the way, are still fighting for racial superiority?

    Now the next question. Is President Obama a Hutu or is he a Tutsi?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 8, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member


  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. EmptySky Banned Banned

    There has been a concerted attempt by capitalists throughout the past century to integrate different races, sexualities and genders into the mainstream. Gay rights, black rights and women's rights are all part of the same cultural dynamic and it is profitable for my arguement to link them together.

    There is no such thing as 'truth' divorced form context.

    Darwin objected to slavery on the grounds of the suffering it caused, but that had no bearing on his belief in race, which was empirically derived, nor did it alter his belief that sub-races would eventually be destroyed, as they have been for millions of years.

    In giving us an approximate date of the creation of a socially contrived concept.

    And certainly, having books is a sure sign that you are an independent, free thinker. The Nazi's produced books as well as burnt them, but you need your devils so I won't deprive you.

    Ironically, a white liberal will often argue how wonderful Africa's history of 'orature' is, and how the written word is a symbol of white oppression, but for some strange reason this moral axiom is never applied to our own culture.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Are you claiming that before it was named in German, and that name translated into English, there was no such thing as racism in the US?

    No. Burning them is a reasonable sign that you are not.
    I have never heard anyone resembling a white liberal argue that the written word is a symbol of white oppression. Your inventions are quite extraordinary.

    White liberals tend to be the people spreading schools and libraries all over the place, talking about how education will make everything better, claiming literacy for girls would save the planet, that kind of stuff.
  8. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Nope. "White" is a racial construct that exists in US society. It doesn't really apply in Europe.

    But if those people immigrated to America, they'd all presumably end up "white."

    Yes. Each society gets to define its own social constructs, and they're all equally valid (within the context of the relevant society). Said another way, they're all equally invalid if transplanted into some other society without comparable constructs.

    There are no such races as "Russian, "Tartar," etc. in the US.

    It's only the genetic basis for race that is mythical. Race as such most certainly is real. The point is that it's a social construct and not a genetic one.

    Yes I did. What you don't seem to understand is that they are different races. If two groups of people within one society decide that they comprise different races, and then proceed to relate to one another on that basis, then two races is exactly what you have. That's all "races" are.

    That both groups would be "black" in the case that they were teleported to the US is irrelevant to that fact.

    Sure. I'd prefer it if they decided to be one race, but such is their cultural agency, which I have little choice but to respect (or, at least, aknowledge as such).

    No, that would be categorically wrong. "Black" is only a race within the context of US society. It doesn't apply to people in Africa.

    Now, if the groups in question moved to the United States, then I'd likely be correct in terming them "black," even over their own objections. I think it unlikely that US society is going to start adopting their racial conventions.

    President Obama is black. His father is from Kenya, and there are neither Hutu nor Tutsi there, so neither of those categories has any bearing on him. His father was a member of the Luo ethnic group.
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Indeed. See my earlier post. "White" and "negro" (the Spanish word for "black") were established by business leaders as a way to keep a supply of cheap/free labor for the farms. They allowed the Euro-American workers to believe that they were equal to the upper class, and superior to the Afro-American workers.
    I don't think that's true of the Mongols. The "Mongol hordes" don't exist any more but the Mongolians do, and they are basically the same people. Americans would call them "Orientals," not "white." Of course since the first wave of East Asian immigration 150 years ago, to build the railroads, "Orientals" have become respectable to Americans with racial prejudice, while Afro-Americans and Latinos are not.

    The Mongols spread far and wide and intermarried with every tribe they met and conquered. All of the Turkic peoples are of Mongol ancestry: the Turks themselves, the Kirghiz, the Kazakh, the Turkmen, the Uzbek, the Tatars, the Uighurs, the Azeri, the Chuvash, and many other ethnic groups in central and western Asia.
  10. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Oh, yeah, I missed that one. I was too busy addressing Benny's material about the various "white" Russian races.

    Another complication: the White Russians or, as we now know them, Belarussians!
  11. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    [Are Cossacks, Tartars, Mongols, and Balkans "white" people"?]

    Then you've just shown the contradiction that exists whenever someone tries to define "race". Each person who believes it will have his own individual understanding of it, which prevents any one definition from having a universal meaning throughout the world, which makes the whole concept meaningless. It's an individual idea, not one shared by a large enough group to be really meaningful. In contrast, the lack of a racial identity is something that every human being can eventually share. One world, one loving god, and one human race.

    [Can you and the Russians who claim a biological difference between themselves and the Cossacks, the Tartars, the Mongols, and the Balkans all be right?]

    A recent immigrant from Moscow would disagree with you, but he'd be just as wrong as you are. Race, defined by a set of biological standards that doesn't change if a person travels to other countries, is a myth. If the standards change from one country to the next, or even from one PART of a country to another part, then the racial identities are a figment of someone's individual imagination and are thus invalid as a universal concept.

    [Can you and the Russians both be right?]

    It's not even a social construct, because society is composed of millions of people with their own racial ideas, including those who still have 19th century ideas that compare some people unfavorably with animals. Race, defined as a universal biological distinction between human sub-groups, is a myth that will mostly disappear during this century due mostly to the increased exposure people will have to other people from other countries. "Mixed marriages" will be more common, and the children of those marriages will form the bridge from being called "mixed-race" to simply being called by their first names.

    [Did you know that when Rawandans were being massacred in 1994, they believed that they were two different races, and that this was the main reason for committing mass murder?]

    No, it's relevant because it negates any possible universal biological definition for the word "race", including any one individual "race". It's a myth because it exists only in people's minds, NOT in their bodies.

    [Are you going to agree with the Rawandans and call some of them one race and others a different race?]
    Then you have a contradiction in your own mind, actually TWO of them. Some of these Rawandans are both "black" and "Hutus". Others are both "black" and "Tutsis". Which is it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [Or are you going to call all of the Rawandans "black"?]

    That makes your racial definitions a figment of your own imagination, which proves my point. Race is a myth because it's not based on biological science, it's in people's MINDS, including yours.

    [Now to the next question. Is President Obama a Hutu or is he a Tutsi?]

    You mean, he's half-black. His father is "black", but his mother is "white". That combination produces milk chocolate, not dark chocolate.

    That's IF you believe in any consistent set of racial identities in the first place, which isn't possible. Race is a myth because it's not biological science, it's a figment of people's imaginations, it changes from one country to the next, and it will mostly disappear during this century.

    Mark my words on that disappearance of any and all racial definitions, and watch who the Obama girls have sex with when they grow up, along with the skin color of the children they have with these men. You'll see a dozen different shades of brown if you follow the bloodline far enough. Instead of a clear-cut distinction between "black" people and "white" people, you're going to have an awful lot of gray and an awful good argument for throwing away the racial definitions altogether.
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    It's not typically defined by individuals, but rather by societies.

    And yes, that does imply that none of the definitions are universal. A race is a social construct, and does not exist outside of the specific society that constructed it.

    Well, no. Concepts needs not be universal to be meaningful. The US definitions of things like "conservative" or "rich" or "beautiful" are also culture-specific and non-universal. But they still have plenty of force. The culture in question is a big one, with plenty of room for these constructs to play out and have real, widespread effects.

    It's a social construct, and affects everyone in the society in question in a meaningful way. You're talking about a society of hundreds of millions of people, here.

    No, I'd be correct in telling him to leave his old social constructs at home, just as I'm correct in telling you not to apply American social constructs to Russia.

    Yes, everyone already agrees that race is a social, and not genetic, construct. You leave the society in question, the construct can't follow you.

    Races are unquestionably invalid as universal concepts. But that doesn't remove any of their force - they don't draw their power from universality, but from a society that constructs them and empowers them. That some guy in Kenya isn't "black" doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with how black people relate to other Americans.

    That's never stopped a social construct before. In the first place, fairly broad consensus developes within societies as to the nature of these constructs - nobody in the US has much difficulty identifying the races of other Americans, quickly and by sight, despite whatever variations in opinion on the matter may exist.

    That's because social constructs have real force - those who oppose them are met with real resistance, and the construct is reinforced through that means.

    Again, everyone already agrees that genetic races are, indeed, mythical. But that doesn't mean that race doesn't exist - it just means race is a social construct.

    And as to exposure to immigrants: that's been occurring in the US for hundreds of years now, and has yet to put any noticeable dent in the saliency of race as a social construct. And the percentage of US residents who are immigrants is today far less than it was in the formative generations of our nation, let's not forget.

    Once again, negating the genetic conception of race is irrelevant - there isn't anyone who believes in that to begin with. I don't know who you think you're addressing with this stuff.

    And there are plenty of real, non-mythical things that exist only "in people's minds." This would be things like nations, languages, personality, will, etc. You relegate the mental world to "myth," and you've made a hash of humanity.

    In the first place, it's not in my own specific mind, it's in the social consciousness of the entire United States.

    In the second place, you've misread. Nobody in Africa is black (except the occasional American tourist). Nobody in the US is a Hutu or a Tutsi (except the occasional visitor).

    For about the 100th time: that only means the premise of a genetic basis for race is a myth. It doesn't make race itself a "myth." Social constructs are no more "mythical" than the nose on your face. All kinds of real, salient categories exist only within peoples' minds.

    No, there is no such race in the United States.

    Doesn't matter. In the first place, race is not a genetic phenomenon, so it doesn't matter what his parentage is. What matters is, basically, what he looks like. And he looks black, so he is.

    Neither do I. I've been explicit that race is not a universal construct. Why you think that makes any difference remains a mystery.

    Plenty of non-mythical entities are not based in biological science. They all still exhibit real force, in the real world.

    Nationality, for example. Or sect. Or political orientation.

    That sort of thing has been happening for hundreds of years now, in the US. And it has yet to make any dent in the saliency of race as a social construct in American society. All that will happen is that some percentage of those offspring will eventually come out white-looking enough to "pass," while the rest won't. We already have a huge range of skin colors and other features in the "black" population, and have for a long time. The only requirement is that there be sufficient markers for people to easily cue onto.
  13. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    [But if Mongols immigrated to America, they'd be called white.]
    Mongolia is physically located between Russia and China. Guess whose descendants the Mongol people are? That's right, they're descendants of BOTH COUNTRIES, which makes the Mongol people a mixed-race, if you want to use the 20th century term. Of course, this makes some people uncomfortable, since they're still living in the 19th century, where racial identities were much purer and where every person with dark brown skin was "black", no matter how many "white" people were in his bloodline, or how recently they were mixed into the "black" lineage.

    Right, Mr. President? You're not half-black, even though your mother is "white", you're "black", and your mother's skin color is not a good subject for public discussion, is it?

    TOO BAD, MR. PRESIDENT, let's start discussing your mother's skin color. And YOURS.
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  14. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    So, it would appear that this guys entire argument relies almost completely upon the idea that the increased blending of races over time invalidates the fact that there were any to begin with.

    Not only that, but any of us who do believe that there are biological differences still present within racial groups are not only ravening racists, but determined to transform him into one as well... to which, of course, he is completely immune as race is a mythical construct - notwithstanding the fact that he has to point to the blending of these apparently mythical races in order to make his... point.

    I'm convinced.
  15. Yellow Jacket Registered Senior Member


    OK, I admire your thinking that a man is just a man, that is true. But you cross a line you shouldn't. You may never take away a person's heritage, identity. I am "white", I am native american. You may not take my native american blood away from. I dare you to try. Although my skin is light skinned, I cherish my heritage, WHO I AM. You may not take my race away from me, no matter how hard you try. You can't do that to other races as well. We are not all robots. Our ethnic backgrounds help make us who we are. Most have pride in that. You may not sit here and try to take that away from us. It is wrong, simply plain just wrong. Your whole thinking starts to make me think you are a new kind of white supremicist in a twisted way. You think eventually we will all be white. Not ever going to happen. And you can't take away what one identifies with. You want everyone to identify with the white side of them. You remind me of the boy who is sitting in jail right now, breaking my son's nose and giving him 7 stitches and brouight on a nice bout of post concussion syndrome, all because he needed to identify with the white side of him. My son is multicultural and identifies with all three. You will not ever be able to look this kid in the face and convince him he isn't what he is, nor can you do the same to me or others here. Your thinking is way off line and I personally find it ignorant and offensive.

    The problem with your school of thought here, you nor anyone can pick and chose who a person can fall in love with or have a one night stand or whatever and procreate a child. There will continue to be people of all different races chosing their own race or another. And those people will continue to teach their children about their heritage, their culture. Unless you take away education, you can't stop people all over the world identifying with their race, culture and heritage. We will never see a complete break down and only white people walking the earth. It will just not simply happen the way you keep trying to convince us.

    I am speaking for all those who are more than one race. You may not sit here and try to take away other people's cultural and identity to prove your point. In all these thousands of years, with races intermingling, if your ideas were true, then there would only be white people roaming this earth and we wouldn't be sitting here listening to your ignorant statements, they would be proven and true. It hasn't happened nor will it happen in the future as you so desire. Wake up!!!

    And as far as your "inter-racial breeding" as you call it, you make it sound like we are dogs. When was the last time you bred? Disgusting statement. I wonder if you would have enough balls to sit in a room full of these inter racial breeders and make statements like this. Sometimes it's easy to sit behind a computer and say things that you normally wouldn't say in person. Don't forget, there are real humans on the other end of the computer reading your statements. You have no proof or facts that support and prove your racists remarks. If that was so, I wouldn't be here so annoyed. Yeah, I hate ignorance, I hate racism. You may claim you are not, put your words prove other wise. I will admit it, I am offended.

    Today I didn't bother looking up links and facts, they are wasted on you. The only proof is walk through the cities and see that what I speak is true. Thousands of years have passed and there all people who identify happily with thier race walking around. What you claim will not and is not.
  16. Yellow Jacket Registered Senior Member

    OMG!! ROFL!!!
    Does Benny realize how stupid the president would look if he stood up and said, "I am a white man!" The president never ever denied his mother or his "white" side. He identifies with the black man because he is black, looks black and it would be his ignorance to try to identify with only the white side of him.
  17. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    Races are like dog breeds, as I've said before. The same genetic rules apply, and the whole "breed" concept is only useful if you want to purify one type of dog. If you're an old-fashioned liberal-thinking person, and all you want is a pet for your kids, then any pooch will do. Likewise, if you're a single adult, and you're looking for a friend who may become something more later on, any human being will do. Skin color, hair texture, and the shape of someone's nose are simply unimportant. These things weren't important to Barak's parents.

    Just don't tell me that our current President is black, because his parents came from two different breeds.

    I'm speaking strictly biologically, you understand. When you mate a purebred cocker spaniel with a purebred beagle, you won't get another cocker spaniel, you'll get a mutt that looks a little bit like both of them, which is what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

    Let's move some of you out of the 19th century. Barak isn't "black", he's MIXED-RACE.
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    That's exactly what a "black" person is, supposing at least one of those parents is black as well.

    Strict biology has very little to do with race. Race is a primarily sociological phenomenon. Biology only plays a bit part by providing heritable markers that can be used for easy visual determination of race.

    There is no such race as "MIXED-RACE" in the United States. If there were, almost everyone would be in it. But there isn't, and so people are divided up into categories like "white" and "black" based on superficial features like skin color.

    Also there isn't nearly enough interbreeding going on to fundamentally challenge the salience of existing racial categories. Most of the people in each race end up marrying other people in that same race.
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    This isn't really accurate. Every analysis of Mongolian DNA that popped up on my Google search says the same thing: The majority of the modern Mongolian tribes are descended from the original Mongols of Genghis Khan's era. They were a people distinct from the Chinese, speaking a language of the Mongolic family that is not even related to Chinese, which belongs to the Sino-Tibetan family.

    They are also not descended from the Russians. There wasn't much of a Russian presence in Siberia back in those days. The nomadic and Neolithic tribes who still live there today comprised virtually the entire population then. Of course these Siberian tribes actually were and are related to the ancient Mongols and modern Mongolians.
    In the writing I edit I attempt to eliminate the racial term "black" and replace it with "African," "Afro-American," or whatever appropriate term fits the syntax.

    My reasoning is that if you are identified as a hyphenated American--an Afro-American, a Chinese-American, a Mexican-American, an Italian-American, an Arab-American--and you wake up one day deciding that you want to drop the hyphen and become one of us, all you've got to do is:
    • 1. Start speaking Standard American English, almost all the time and almost perfectly,
    • 2. Develop a taste for pizza,
    • 3. Learn enough about baseball to participate in a discussion,
    • 4. Stop socializing predominantly with groups of other people with the same hyphen.
    Sure, this might not work for you in some little shit-hole in Alabama, but it will work in most big cities.

    Whereas if you're identified as "black," that's something you can never change. Not only will you be "black" for the rest of your life (unless you hire Michael Jackson's surgeon), but so will your children, assuming you violate Rule #4 and marry someone who is also "black."

    My grandparents were Bohemian-Americans. (We call them "Czech" now because it's easier to spell and pronounce.) They couldn't speak a word of English. My mother's siblings all married other Bohemian-Americans and continued to identify themselves that way. But she decided to leave the ghetto and lose the hyphen. After a few years of living among unhyphenated Americans she lost her accent, married one of them, and became an unhyphenated American herself.

    It's a lot easier for an Afro-American to become a just plain American, than it is for a "black" American to become a "white" American.

    "Afro-American" and "African-American" actually became popular terms in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but for reasons I don't understand, both their people and my own people reverted to the term "black."
  20. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    [Just don't tell me that our current president is black, because his parents came from two different breeds.]
    Leave the 19th century behind. If a "black" woman, like either one of the Obama girls after she grows up, has sex with a "white" man, and those children grow up and have sex with a "white" person, and those children grow up and have sex with a "white" person, and those children grow up and have sex with a "white" person, etc.

    You just ran into the contradiction in your own argument. All I have to do is to hypothesize enough "white" people mixing into the "black" lineage, and PRESTO, you have a "white" person coming from a family with, as you assumed, at least one black parent. The only way out of this inevitable dilemma is to admit the existence of MIXED-RACE PEOPLE.

    [I'm speaking strictly biologically, here, when I mention the puppies of a cocker spaniel mating with a beagle.]
    Biology has EVERYTHING to do with facial features, skin color, hair texture, nose shapes, and other distinctions that you associate with race. All you need to do is to compare the two photos in this link. Barak and his mother have the same rounded chin, the same elongated face, the same narrow upper lip, the same cheekbones, and the same nose shape. His nose is just a bit wider, but it's basically the same shape and size, as you'd expect from a mother-son pair.

    You asked for this. Knowing the similarities between Barak and his mother, the visual determination of race is, indeed, easy. He's white. The photo pair proves it.

    [Let's move some of you out of the 19th century. Barak isn't black, he's "MIXED-RACE".]
    And why this is impossible? Every wave of immigrants during the 19th century created a new set of facial features and skin colors to blend into the existing US population. After this was done, the immigrants stopped being immigrants and became AMERICANS. This happens every single time, to every single immigrant group, no matter what they looked like when they got here. Move out of the 19th century.

    Only by people who haven't left the 19th century yet. For the rest of us, Barak is either mixed-race or, like Sidney Poitier in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?", he's just a man.

    Except that every time one of the Obama girls (or any other "black" girl) has sex with a "white" man, and gets pregnant by him, followed by more sex down the geneological line with other "white" people, there's a small but noticable COLOR CHANGE. Eventually, a "black" parent, defined by your own standards of genetic heredity, will have a "white" child, defined by your own standards of visual appearance.
    Last edited: May 12, 2010
  21. BennyF Registered Senior Member

    A person can change his racial identity within a day. All a "black" man has to do is to fly to any African country, where he'll be re-identified by whatever country or tribe his ancestors came from. They don't use the term "black" over there, remember?

    Similarly, a "white" man can simply fly to Russia, Egypt, Ireland, Brazil, and many other countries, none of which use the term "white". In a few short hours, these "white" men will be re-identified by every resident of these countries as an American.

    Race is a myth because there's no biological science behind it. It's entirely composed of imaginary classifications of groups of people who haven't moved out of the 19th century into the 20th, where many people are blends of various stock, producing a MIXTURE of bloodlines. If you add up all these mixtures, you get America, the melting pot, and that's a 21st century concept, one that's too advanced for some here to accept. By the end of this century, however, they'll be in the minority. Most of us will refer to people by their names, not by any mythical "race".
    Last edited: May 12, 2010
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    It was exactly the same in the 19th century - those who can "pass" as white are white; otherwise, they're black.

    I've never denied the existence of people who could pass. But that's an exceptional case, and anyway reinforces the point: if you look black, that's what you are, regardless of who your parents are.

    You would have to create such a category, not "admit" it. It does not exist, today, in the US. It's not a question of me deciding which categories to use: all those "mixed-race" people are still going to be treated as blacks by the rest of society (except for the tiny percentage that can pass as white, of course).

    So what? I have said explicitly that biology's role is limited to the provision of visual cues. That doesn't add up to a genetic basis for race. Two people could share every gene except for the ones related to the visual cues, and so be relegated to different races full of people with genomes much more dissimilar to their own.

    Visual determination of race is not conducted by comparing to pictures of parents. It's done, primarily, by assessing skin color. And Obama's skin makes him black.

    But none so new that they couldn't be included under "white."

    The various black "immigrants" didn't get included in that race, notice.

    It hasn't happened with immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, or the far east, or India, or Latin America, or the Pacific, or with the Natives. All of them are still held to be parts of separate races, despite having been here for a long time.

    It only works with immigrants from Europe, who already have similar light skin colors and certain other features in common. Which makes sense: the white race in the US was constructed in order to signify a shared European heritage.

    I don't have any standards of genetic heredity apart from visual appearance. I thought that was clear by now.

    Why you keep arguing at me as though I'm a proponent of genetic race is beyond me: I've explicitly disclaimed such like a dozen times in the past few posts.
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    That would be amongst themselves. Black Americans are still black Americans when they arrive in Africa - most have no idea what tribes their ancestors used to be in, nor is there any way for anyone involved to figure that out. They are not considered as long-lost members of African social groups; they are considered Americans.

    The person in question could change races if he actually immigrates to Africa and assimilates into a new identity. But that takes a lot more than a day.

Share This Page