Why is there a misconception online blacks and Indians (india) can't date or marry
Options
Comments
-
FatterThanKat wrote: »
look there is a ? big difference between east indians and other asians americans usually recognize that and call them east indians. hell india is so big and it's culture so distinct that it's people don't deserve to be lumped in with east asia.
and "American indians" are now usually called native americans or first nations people.
So after a couple hundred years some of the nation has shifted away from the word. Talk about an authority on the issue.
-
FatterThanKat wrote: »FatterThanKat wrote: »
look there is a ? big difference between east indians and other asians americans usually recognize that and call them east indians. hell india is so big and it's culture so distinct that it's people don't deserve to be lumped in with east asia.
and "American indians" are now usually called native americans or first nations people.
So after a couple hundred years some of the nation has shifted away from the word. Talk about an authority on the issue.
what a stupid ? post that makes no ? sense. -
Equally as idiotic as your Americentric view of who's opinion regarding race and ethnic classification is valid
But not quite as moronic as your "Homosexuality comes from White atheists" argument.
Never go full ? . -
FatterThanKat wrote: »Equally as idiotic as your Americentric view of who's opinion regarding race and ethnic classification is valid
But not quite as moronic as your "Homosexuality comes from White atheists" argument.
Never go full ? .
would you just shut the ? up. Race is mostly social creation anyway so any classification given by any society is valid i happen to think that the american view on the distinction between east indians and say for example JAPANESE MAKES more sense. if this is jewpac ? you you ? loving ? .
And my argument was never "homosexuality come from white atheists" it was white people are more prone to be homosexuals when they are atheist.
-
If race is a subjective social construction relative to each society without much if any objective evidence then how is it valid at all?
-
FatterThanKat wrote: »If race is a subjective social construction relative to each society without much if any objective evidence then how is it valid at all?
Race is a social reality that's how it's valid. -
...k you win that round. I can't even argue against that.
But if you deem these racial ideologies as valid then you would also have to do the same for the unjust and frequently ignorant practices they often justify. -
FatterThanKat wrote: »...k you win that round. I can't even argue against that.
But if you deem these racial ideologies as valid then you would also have to do the same for the unjust and frequently ignorant practices they often justify.
I believe in only one racial ideology and it's pan-africanism of the garveyite type. All that other ? is negative ? to me. -
somehow i think that while it might be unlikely, we could maybe find those things happening (especially "light as a Pakistani or an Arab," which seems easy)U will never seen an Indian with blue eyes or blonde hair or as light as a Pakistani or an Arab
more people probably use the term "Indian" than you think... but i agree the term is trending out. although you also have older-school guys like Russell Means who favor the "American Indian" label, so there's that as well.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Very few people frequently refer to Native Americans as "Indians" anymore and like zombie implies even those people call them "American Indians."
honestly, when you break it down like THAT, it seems easier to label people.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Anyway, its silly to try an place the "race" of various groups. The bad science on which race is based only identified 3 races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. There is no way all the different people in the world fall neatly in three groups like that.
-
FatterThanKat wrote: »...k you win that round. I can't even argue against that.
But if you deem these racial ideologies as valid then you would also have to do the same for the unjust and frequently ignorant practices they often justify.
I believe in only one racial ideology and it's pan-africanism of the garveyite type. All that other ? is negative ? to me.
Well I would ideally like to disregard race altogether and use the multi-intelligences theory to measure and rank people. Does this make my view more valid than yours if it is accepted more in a particular region?
I would think not. As such if I were some racist ? who thought racial hierarchy went Asians->white->blacks->Natives it also should not be considered valid simply because a certain region practices it.
I can't refute your argument that social ranking is a reality, but I refuse to believe they are valid or meaningful because they are in practice -
Well from first hand experience I've dated Pakistanis & Indians, and they've all told me that we can never be together because their parents will never accept them marrying a Black person. ? I've even had a few of their fathers literally try to ? me. My weakness is them Pakistanis & Indian guhhhhs
Yeah, Indians and Pakistanis are both very ? about their daughters dating outside the race, especially when it comes to Blacks and Hispanics. Asians in general are like this. -
honestly, when you break it down like THAT, it seems easier to label people.
How so? There are people out there who don't fit neatly into any of those classifications and most groups have people with phenotypic traits more inline with members of the other groups than within their own groups. For instance, how would you classify Arabs? America classifies them as Caucasians, but clearly they are different from the standard Caucasoid model.
-
what i'm saying is, when you have three broad (and thus relatively inclusive groups), it should be easier to assign whoever you're discussing --let's say Arabs-- to one of those groups. are they archetypical Caucasoids? perhaps not, but if your other choices are Negroid and Mongoloid...The Lonious Monk wrote: »How so? There are people out there who don't fit neatly into any of those classifications and most groups have people with phenotypic traits more inline with members of the other groups than within their own groups.
also, the MAJOR problem with those groups is their awful names
i believe the ruling i made on this was "white people"The Lonious Monk wrote: »For instance, how would you classify Arabs? America classifies them as Caucasians, but clearly they are different from the standard Caucasoid model.
-
I have an East Indian that married into my family with my cousin and her family threatened to disown her and write her out the will. She married my cousin and now talks with her family, but they didn't have a wedding because they knew the Indian side wouldn't show up.
On another note:
It's no surprise. This is what I used to argue with Dominicans in the Dominican over and gave up. They would say they were mixed with African, White, and Native American. I'd say black americans are too, but the Dominicans wouldn't believe it. The only difference is the preference for their mulatto and black race went for the whitest looking and so they kept a lighter look of black; whereas in America the mulattoes and blacks went to black. Most of the time a light skin Af. Am is with a dark Skin Af. Am. Most of the time in the Dominican A light skin is with a light skin. Facts are facts, and the fact is I'm black. Everyone doesn't see it the same and races real quick to be anything but black. The most and I'll repeat that the most that I can give to somebody's argument: someone saying they aren't black and obviously are black-- is that if you are 60% black or more then you're black. If you're only 40% black or less then you are that you are. Otherwise, we can all call out some great grandfather who was white or Seminole Native American....... but keep in mind that if that family ain't with you and influencing you then they are not my family. Influence of culture and life--along with color of skin is how I am identified; therefore that person 60% or more is black.
It's crazy how the definition of black is changing. I wonder why and to whose benefit.
About 30% of black Americans who take DNA tests to determine their African lineage prove to be descended from Europeans on their father's side, says Rick Kittles, scientific director of African Ancestry, a Washington, D.C., company that began offering the tests in 2003. Almost all black Americans whom Kittles has tested descended from African women, he says.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-02-01-dna-african-americans_x.htm
* A median proportion of European ancestry in African-Americans of 18.5 percent, with large variation among individuals.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1802162/clarifying_african_africanamerican_ancestry/
-
what i'm saying is, when you have three broad (and thus relatively inclusive groups), it should be easier to assign whoever you're discussing --let's say Arabs-- to one of those groups. are they archetypical Caucasoids? perhaps not, but if your other choices are Negroid and Mongoloid...The Lonious Monk wrote: »How so? There are people out there who don't fit neatly into any of those classifications and most groups have people with phenotypic traits more inline with members of the other groups than within their own groups.
also, the MAJOR problem with those groups is their awful names
i believe the ruling i made on this was "white people"The Lonious Monk wrote: »For instance, how would you classify Arabs? America classifies them as Caucasians, but clearly they are different from the standard Caucasoid model.
I get what you're saying. The problem is those classifications have rules associated with them. When you have a group like Arabs or Latinos that really have a mixture of many different traits, putting them into one of those groups means arbitrarily picking and choosing which rules you want to follow. Look at Arabs. Phenotypically, they share traits with all three "racial groups." Marking them as Caucasoids is simply a matter of acknowledging the things they share with Caucasians and ignoring the things they don't.
-
what i'm saying is, when you have three broad (and thus relatively inclusive groups), it should be easier to assign whoever you're discussing --let's say Arabs-- to one of those groups. are they archetypical Caucasoids? perhaps not, but if your other choices are Negroid and Mongoloid...The Lonious Monk wrote: »How so? There are people out there who don't fit neatly into any of those classifications and most groups have people with phenotypic traits more inline with members of the other groups than within their own groups.
also, the MAJOR problem with those groups is their awful names
i believe the ruling i made on this was "white people"The Lonious Monk wrote: »For instance, how would you classify Arabs? America classifies them as Caucasians, but clearly they are different from the standard Caucasoid model.
Why do you blanket Arabs as White people? Arabs are mixed with all races.....some are clearly White, but the avg Arab is relatively tan skin. You can spot a White guy or woman a mile away, but an Arab is more complex then just "White". I don't know any Arabs that consider themselves White..... -
pause here for a moment: Latino is not a race; it's an ethnic group that includes all of the above. anyway...The Lonious Monk wrote: »I get what you're saying. The problem is those classifications have rules associated with them. When you have a group like Arabs or Latinos-
marking them as Caucasoids is really just saying "this is the best fit." i mean, we can probably find traits from group A in group B all the time.The Lonious Monk wrote: »-that really have a mixture of many different traits, putting them into one of those groups means arbitrarily picking and choosing which rules you want to follow. Look at Arabs. Phenotypically, they share traits with all three "racial groups." Marking them as Caucasoids is simply a matter of acknowledging the things they share with Caucasians and ignoring the things they don't.
"relatively tan skin" is not enough to free you from being on the white team. but since people like to argue about this stuff, it's best if someone just makes a call on it. so here we are!kingblaze84 wrote: »Why do you blanket Arabs as White people? Arabs are mixed with all races.....some are clearly White, but the avg Arab is relatively tan skin.
also, to be fair, there are non-Arab groups that get lumped in with Arabs one way or another. they don't count. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Your weakness is stupidity if you'd put up with that kinda ? just for some ? .
lol i was mad young and lovestruck. live and you learn
-
I noticed that theres a lot of hate for east Indians on this site I don't know what goes on in your cities. growing up in Miami a lot of my friends in middle school and high school were coolies and east Indians. they were pretty cool so what's the problem?
-
Lamilton3000 wrote: »I noticed that theres a lot of hate for east Indians on this site I don't know what goes on in your cities. growing up in Miami a lot of my friends in middle school and high school were coolies and east Indians. they were pretty cool so what's the problem?
Name an ethnic group that doesn't get shots fired at it on the IC.
It's open season -
Lamilton3000 wrote: »I noticed that theres a lot of hate for east Indians on this site I don't know what goes on in your cities. growing up in Miami a lot of my friends in middle school and high school were coolies and east Indians. they were pretty cool so what's the problem?
One of my best friends in my freshman year of high school was named Ray and he was Indian. He was cool as hell, very smart and I went to his house several times. I never sensed racism from his parents but the stories are still out there when it comes to their daughters.....its hard to pretend what's being said here is mostly wrong but I agree most Indians seem cool (as long as their daughters are not involved)
