|
Post by anodyne on Jan 24, 2006 19:08:11 GMT -5
Lol, I heard she was half Polish. I don't remember where I heard this but lets all place our bets
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 24, 2006 19:10:08 GMT -5
Do you have issues with AA's of other regions of the country? or do you notice people around you who do?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 19:29:33 GMT -5
English mother actually ;D Seems you are right. Well, at least it doesnt touch the main point "First black..." Her mother: South Africa had at least a correct category for those: www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.htmlAmericans seem to prefer a (pseudo-) religious manichaean approach to many things...
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:03:40 GMT -5
She is in neither, thats the point. Just imagine her dad being not really unmixed too this means she is more than 50 percent Europoid (!) and still runs in the "black" category, the same as is used for people like Whoopi Goldberg, Wesley Snipes and Subsaharan Africans - worst this is oftentimes equated with Negrid too - "black = Negrid". But after a look at her father, her father might be indeed a practically pure Negrid. Of course, then "race is just a construct", but not because races are not real, but because some people dont know what it is about, people like Halle Berry which seem to halucinate. I could try to understand it, as a ethno-socio-political construct if the admixture is a way back, but if its your own parent its just a way...what I'm mocking is not what she is but rather what she pretends to be, because thats absurd and typical. Best thing is some constructivist leftists use the same stupid argument for "Racism being still alive", because of the "one drop rule", though this is the most anti-European use of the rule ever thinkable, in a way rather racism against her Caucasoid heritage. Not that I would consider her white, but as I said, South Africa was more rational if its about such cases - at least in theory, whereas the US seems to construct a bad dream, like they always do. www.cultsirens.com/berry/berry.htmwww.nndb.com/people/487/000023418/And she makes even anti-white rants - must be schizophrenic and her mother which was partly responsible for that neurosis seems to be a problem case herself. www.projectrace.com/fromthedirector/archive/fromthedirector-032602.php
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 24, 2006 20:11:51 GMT -5
Agrippa, Halle Berry wouldn't be considered black by most Europeans? by people of different persuasions?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:16:22 GMT -5
Agrippa, Halle Berry wouldn't be considered black by most Europeans? by people of different persuasions? Simple put: She might be considered "black" by many in Europe too, but mainly those who dont know too much or like to generalise, most others would speak of a mulatta, at least those which know the term, its meaning and finally are not afraid of using it (some PC-leftists might, though they would ask: "and whats your other half", sooner or later). Concerning reality check: Sending her to Nigeria or Kongo and if she looks strange there black is a problematic category for her. I heard an interesting story of a half German mulatta which considered herself always black as a child, but then she came to her village in Africa and all people spotted with fingers at her while she was going alone around and shouting "white, white" because the older children didnt saw a white person live before... I think that says it all...
|
|
|
Post by alaina on Jan 24, 2006 20:17:30 GMT -5
I don't know how to put this in a more palatable manner, but so what?
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 24, 2006 20:26:45 GMT -5
It doesn't say it all because they know her background. If she wasn't very light skinned (you didn't say whether she was or not) and they weren't aware of her family background, they may not realize she's mixed. She may just appear foreign to them.
Where's the anti- white rant?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:33:37 GMT -5
It says...social construct? I think that anyone who cares about how another person racially self-identifies needs their head checked. Well, compare with a good source: www.britannica.com/eb/article-9399794That can be discussed too, but its reasonable, at least more reasonable than "black", whats ridiculous. Races are evolutionary tendencies, insofar they are objective, but the exact definition and borders are always subjective, insofar its always a construct no matter how true and useful a concept might be from as many perspectives as possible - but still there is a great difference between scientific and even pseudo-scientific definitions and individual "self-identification", which correlates usually though, if people aren't manipulated by an irrational environment. If a Nordic Swede claims to be a Bantu "black", that would be just a caricature. I mean someone can believe he is a bird too and jumping from the roof of a skyscraper without any equipment - sure, he can believe he is a bird and might self-identify himself with birds, but that doesnt make him one. Same if a person might think he is a dog or wolf, such people might have even existed. Sure that goes much further away from what we talk about above, but if you argue that way: Reality check is needed. People can imagine and halucinate many things, still there is a difference between imagination and being. Not all things are subjective, Constructivism is not always right. I find it equally ridiculous if a blond Nordic Swedish looking guy claims to be an Indian, makes anti-white rants and speaks about how "whites exploited his ancestors"...well, probably some of his ancestors, the others were white and just because its more fashionable being Indian he constructs his Indian identity even if his genes might be 75 % + European. Ok, he can identify as an ethnic Indian, but it becomes ridiculous when such a guy speaks about races...thats true for all such cases no matter between which groups and where. And finally most of this idiocies can be found in the USA...so the US-construct should be checked in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:38:41 GMT -5
They just saw her for the first time, thats the point. If she would have been a Negrid like her father, they wouldnt have done the same, thats crucial. Neither whites see her as white nor blacks as black, thats the point. And she learned her lesson in Africa...
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 24, 2006 20:44:05 GMT -5
You missed my point. I'm assuming, because I have no other information to go by, that these people were aware that one of their native sons married a white woman. It's not far fetched to think that he kept in touch with family in his homeland. The information would be known. I don't know much about the story and nor do I know if she was light skinned. When I say "foreign" I mean a Subsharan African not native to their area. Like a Greek in Sweden, for example... if you're talking about Europe.
A German of mixed race heritage is viewed as part German, or foreign? if he's viewed as being foreign then he may attach himself to his other ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:49:56 GMT -5
Thats what I meant before distinguishing between these "African American" term because there is no better one and "black" which implies more than just being coloured, but at least pred. Negrid. Ethnosocial identiy - one thing, real race another. F.e. former slaves call themselves at least in some areas "Arabs" or made own tribes of themselves inside the Arabian ethnocultural framework. Thats something more realistic.
Furthermore I understood what you meant, but it was really the surprise, she spoke about it even, she said they were excited because she was so special for them, since the children never saw a non-Negrid person live most likely.
I speak about social constructs mainly if the construct doesnt fit reality, whats the case if someone with 50+ percent Europid calls herself "black" though she is a mulatta. In Brazil they know the difference too usually, but this PC + political identity crap makes a rational approach more difficult in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 24, 2006 20:57:53 GMT -5
You mean, that's just your definition. It is, or at least was, the much more common definition. Britannica knew whats better, gossip rags and PC-organs might work with what they wanna see...
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jan 24, 2006 20:59:39 GMT -5
Agrippa, do you consider german tennis player Nicolas Kiefer, who is half german half french, to be a german? By the way, in Brazil a mulato would never in his life consider himself black, maybe that is why "african americans" go to Brazil and are shocked when they see that black mixed people dont consider themselves black. I actually think brazilians are more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by alaina on Jan 24, 2006 21:03:56 GMT -5
I actually think brazilians are more accurate. Why?
|
|