IC Discussion: Colorism in the black community
Options
Comments
-
Everyone is black to yall lmao
-
At the end of the day history repeats itself unless there is new change in action and course.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people. -
To be pro-Black does not mean to be anti-white or anti-every non-black race.
To be pro-Black means to be anti-white supremacy. To be proud of your race. To love your race.
It is really that simple.
http://blackmillennials.com/2015/04/06/interracial-politics-of-pro-blackness/ -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people.
So your response to research backed conclusions is "? " and that's based on what? Your own personal prejudice.
I've never seen a West African person with blue eyes. So what. That's why mutations are what they are. The might only be expressed for one out of every million people, but they are still there. That's the whole point. All human diversity comes from Sub Saharan Africa, so you saying that the total sum of phenotypes expressed in Sub Saharan Africa is basically saying "all of humanity." -
To be pro-Black does not mean to be anti-white or anti-every non-black race.
To be pro-Black means to be anti-white supremacy. To be proud of your race. To love your race.
It is really that simple.
http://blackmillennials.com/2015/04/06/interracial-politics-of-pro-blackness/
That is including everyone isn't it?
I'll stick with Dr. John Henrik Clarke on this one. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Scientifically Race doesn't exist strictly but we really aren't talking strictly as and science now are we???? If You ? and silly ? can continue with this weak egalitarian nonsense like I said earlier black people will be slaves forever. You idiots are in here denying the very existence of blacks
I'm not denying the existence of Blacks. I'm denying that there is some kind of universal and clear cut definition of what a black person is. Something like that doesn't exist. I live in America. America has it's definition of what "black" is, but that's not necessarily the same thing as what you'll find elsewhere. On top of that not all people in America even subscribe to what is typically designated as black my American standards. Case in point, you dudes are coming in here saying biracial people are not black, but in America they were without question until relatively recently.What is that ? doing on that horse!!!!!!
But but race doesn't exist
Get that ? off that horse and hang him now!!!!!
But but but race doesn't exist
You're defeating your own ? argument. If getting that kind of treatment is the barometer for blackness then you can sit here and say biracial people aren't black since most of them get treated that very same way.
? you and your ? sophistry.
It's the treatment I meant to highlight it was your clear denial of that treatment to a class of people who genetically look similar, share the same history and come from the same continent.
But but race doesn't exist to you because the differences between whites and blacks don't meet the scientific definitions.... Niggs foh -
Edit: Took the two seconds to google it.
Zimbabwean Boy
Boy from Sierra Leone
-
To be pro-Black does not mean to be anti-white or anti-every non-black race.
To be pro-Black means to be anti-white supremacy. To be proud of your race. To love your race.
It is really that simple.
http://blackmillennials.com/2015/04/06/interracial-politics-of-pro-blackness/
U Love your race but not enough to procreate with someone of your race lol
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Scientifically Race doesn't exist strictly but we really aren't talking strictly as and science now are we???? If You ? and silly ? can continue with this weak egalitarian nonsense like I said earlier black people will be slaves forever. You idiots are in here denying the very existence of blacks
I'm not denying the existence of Blacks. I'm denying that there is some kind of universal and clear cut definition of what a black person is. Something like that doesn't exist. I live in America. America has it's definition of what "black" is, but that's not necessarily the same thing as what you'll find elsewhere. On top of that not all people in America even subscribe to what is typically designated as black my American standards. Case in point, you dudes are coming in here saying biracial people are not black, but in America they were without question until relatively recently.What is that ? doing on that horse!!!!!!
But but race doesn't exist
Get that ? off that horse and hang him now!!!!!
But but but race doesn't exist
You're defeating your own ? argument. If getting that kind of treatment is the barometer for blackness then you can sit here and say biracial people aren't black since most of them get treated that very same way.
? you and your ? sophistry.
It's the treatment I meant to highlight it was your clear denial of that treatment to a class of people who genetically look similar, share the same history and come from the same continent.
But but race doesn't exist to you because the differences between whites and blacks don't meet the scientific definitions.... Niggs foh
You're not even arguing against me. I've said that race exists as a cultural and societal construct. I said it doesn't exist biologically, so you trying to use ? pseudoscience and fancy terms like phenotype to defend your arbitrary delineation of who is black and isn't is stupid. Again, you're point out the bad treatment that blacks receive to prove that "black" as far as America is concerned is real. I agree with that. The point I'm making is that you and others are drawing lines like saying "such and such is half white so he's not black" which ignores the fact that many of those people are submitted to the same treatment that you believe proves blackness exists. That's an irreconcilable contradiction. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Scientifically Race doesn't exist strictly but we really aren't talking strictly as and science now are we???? If You ? and silly ? can continue with this weak egalitarian nonsense like I said earlier black people will be slaves forever. You idiots are in here denying the very existence of blacks
I'm not denying the existence of Blacks. I'm denying that there is some kind of universal and clear cut definition of what a black person is. Something like that doesn't exist. I live in America. America has it's definition of what "black" is, but that's not necessarily the same thing as what you'll find elsewhere. On top of that not all people in America even subscribe to what is typically designated as black my American standards. Case in point, you dudes are coming in here saying biracial people are not black, but in America they were without question until relatively recently.What is that ? doing on that horse!!!!!!
But but race doesn't exist
Get that ? off that horse and hang him now!!!!!
But but but race doesn't exist
You're defeating your own ? argument. If getting that kind of treatment is the barometer for blackness then you can sit here and say biracial people aren't black since most of them get treated that very same way.
? you and your ? sophistry.
It's the treatment I meant to highlight it was your clear denial of that treatment to a class of people who genetically look similar, share the same history and come from the same continent.
But but race doesn't exist to you because the differences between whites and blacks don't meet the scientific definitions.... Niggs foh
You're not even arguing against me. I've said that race exists as a cultural and societal construct. I said it doesn't exist biologically, so you trying to use ? pseudoscience and fancy terms like phenotype to defend your arbitrary delineation of who is black and isn't is stupid. Again, you're point out the bad treatment that blacks receive to prove that "black" as far as America is concerned is real. I agree with that. The point I'm making is that you and others are drawing lines like saying "such and such is half white so he's not black" which ignores the fact that many of those people are submitted to the same treatment that you believe proves blackness exists. That's an irreconcilable contradiction.
Do you believe that people who are mixed and people who are black are treated the same and have the same experiences? -
Do you believe that people who are mixed and people who are black are treated the same and have the same experiences?
I think lighter skin blacks get better treatment than darker skin blacks. However, lighters skin and darker skin do not always fall along black vs mixed lines. My brother and I are mixed, but we're darker than my first cousins who are pure black. Which of us do you think gets preferential treatment?
-
As heated as this topic became it was needed
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people.
So your response to research backed conclusions is "? " and that's based on what? Your own personal prejudice.
I've never seen a West African person with blue eyes. So what. That's why mutations are what they are. The might only be expressed for one out of every million people, but they are still there. That's the whole point. All human diversity comes from Sub Saharan Africa, so you saying that the total sum of phenotypes expressed in Sub Saharan Africa is basically saying "all of humanity."
I don't really understand your point that every phenotype is represented among indigenous sub-saharan African people (or something like that, tell me if I'm misquoting you). This seems to imply that there are indigenous sub-saharan Africans with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin (who aren't albinos). Or am I misunderstanding something?
If I'm not mistaken the mutation that causes blue eyes probably occurred in Europe or the Middle East around 6 thousands years ago, I could be way off. I've never seen West Africans with blue eyes but there are some with green eyes. -
But this isn't a conversation about eugenics though...
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people.
So your response to research backed conclusions is "? " and that's based on what? Your own personal prejudice.
I've never seen a West African person with blue eyes. So what. That's why mutations are what they are. The might only be expressed for one out of every million people, but they are still there. That's the whole point. All human diversity comes from Sub Saharan Africa, so you saying that the total sum of phenotypes expressed in Sub Saharan Africa is basically saying "all of humanity."
I don't really understand your point that every phenotype is represented among indigenous sub-saharan African people (or something like that, tell me if I'm misquoting you). This seems to imply that there are indigenous sub-saharan Africans with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin (who aren't albinos). Or am I misunderstanding something?
If I'm not mistaken the mutation that causes blue eyes probably occurred in Europe or the Middle East around 6 thousands years ago, I could be way off. I've never seen West Africans with blue eyes but there are some with green eyes.
@zzombie said that the Black race is defined by the phenotypes found in Sub Saharan Africa. I pointed out that all phenotypes can be found in Sub Saharan Africa. Yes, there are non albino blue eyed Sub Saharan Africans, I posted two examples a few posts earlier.
You guys are mistaking the origin of a mutation for when that mutation starts to be commonly expressed in a population. No, blue eyes is not common among sub saharan Africans, but it does happen. -
I disagree.I'm denying that there is some kind of universal and clear cut definition of what a black person is.
I think if this ? goes anywhere in the world
He'd be considered black.
The problem is these same universally accepted negros create offspring that looks like this:And yall dont know what to do with yall selves especially when u love to label.
Pretty sure she gets a different race everywhere she goes. -
I haven't read all the Fuckery, I am on Pg 30.
But it appears that true colors are showing, pun intended.
The Agenda being pushed almost feels like a "pure blood" ideology... Slippery slope.
Its not a pure blood agenda,or ideology. Its about drawing the line in the sand.
Muthfuckas in here talking about," being blk has no labels " ...wtf???
"What does blk look like?"... Really?
Then we wonder why the rest of the world look at us less than animals?
Cause a peguin is not gonna ask a peguins, what a peguin looks like... it knows what's a ? peguin, and it knows when it sees a seal, its time to run.
the cops know exactly what blks look like.so do whts and latinos who call us monkeys. So do the arabs, asians, and indians. they know exactly what, black look like... every body but blacks .
It's like , with all this racial stuff going on, Instead of blks being more aware and alert. ? get dumber n ? . Something must be in the water.
In spirit, this is a valid argument.
The problem is that it only operates flawlessly when viewing the issue in generalized, broad strokes... In theory... it doesn't take into account the millions of unique scenarios that contradict this logic.
Do you see that Colorism (in the sense that some people are "less black" than others, and therefore outsiders) is an unintended consequence of this rhetoric?
Where do you think Light Skinned people come from?
How light skinned do you have to be to not be considered "Black" anymore?
Do you think lighter Skinned Blacks are exempt from the systemic racism we face?
What about individuals that you may not believe to be "black" while others do ... Are they exempt?
You say the line regarding who is black is easily drawn, but who draws it?
Why can't we work together to fight the issues that face us... Why do we have to ostricize our own kind to do so?
Everything in your comment outside of the bolded does not draw a direct correlation to the issue of Colorism and Identity... They are systemic issues with a myriad of root causes.
We all know What colorism is . But how can a person be in the convo, if they dont even look a part of the race????
For example, Indians range from pale to dark . But they all know what an indian is . They know who looks indian, and who don't.
No mistaking...
Which leads me to another example, @ayebaebae . She's very Light skinned, yet she Looks black as hell, not in complexion, but her features. Fore head, nose, lips, cheeks, ? structure. ...
I dont see how any body can mistaken her for being anything other than blk. Even if she's mixxed, her blk features are too pronounced to not see her as blk, just like J.Cole. or Steph Curry.
However if i say she's not blk
That's not colorism...
Somebody has to draw a line in the sand. All this blk has no label ? is stupid , cause we're the most marginalised group on the planet.
Identity is essential. -
We all know What colorism is . But how can a person be in the convo, if they dont even look a part of the race????
For example, Indians range from pale to dark . But they all know what an indian is . They know who looks indian, and who don't.
No mistaking...
Which leads me to another example, @ayebaebae . She's very Light skinned, yet she Looks black as hell, not in complexion, but her features. Fore head, nose, lips, cheeks, ? structure. ...
I dont see how any body can mistaken her for being anything other than blk. Even if she's mixxed, her blk features are too pronounced to not see her as blk, just like J.Cole. or Steph Curry.
However if i say she's not blk
That's not colorism...
Somebody has to draw a line in the sand. All this blk has no label ? is stupid , cause we're the most marginalised group on the planet.
Identity is essential.
Ok, but what is your basis for saying she's not black. And I ask that as someone who has no idea who she is, so I don't know her racial makeup or anything like that. I just know I've seen females that look more or less like her who are unquestionably black. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people.
So your response to research backed conclusions is "? " and that's based on what? Your own personal prejudice.
I've never seen a West African person with blue eyes. So what. That's why mutations are what they are. The might only be expressed for one out of every million people, but they are still there. That's the whole point. All human diversity comes from Sub Saharan Africa, so you saying that the total sum of phenotypes expressed in Sub Saharan Africa is basically saying "all of humanity."
I don't really understand your point that every phenotype is represented among indigenous sub-saharan African people (or something like that, tell me if I'm misquoting you). This seems to imply that there are indigenous sub-saharan Africans with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin (who aren't albinos). Or am I misunderstanding something?
If I'm not mistaken the mutation that causes blue eyes probably occurred in Europe or the Middle East around 6 thousands years ago, I could be way off. I've never seen West Africans with blue eyes but there are some with green eyes.
@zzombie said that the Black race is defined by the phenotypes found in Sub Saharan Africa. I pointed out that all phenotypes can be found in Sub Saharan Africa. Yes, there are non albino blue eyed Sub Saharan Africans, I posted two examples a few posts earlier.
You guys are mistaking the origin of a mutation for when that mutation starts to be commonly expressed in a population. No, blue eyes is not common among sub saharan Africans, but it does happen.
You are taken extreme minority example to build a case and that's ? disingenuous -
Scientifically race doesn't exist but obviously physical differences between groups of people do those differences can be grouped together to makes up the phenotypical part of what we call race
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Do you believe that people who are mixed and people who are black are treated the same and have the same experiences?
I think lighter skin blacks get better treatment than darker skin blacks. However, lighters skin and darker skin do not always fall along black vs mixed lines. My brother and I are mixed, but we're darker than my first cousins who are pure black. Which of us do you think gets preferential treatment?
I mean in all aspects not just in whether whites give preferential treatment. And i have no idea how light or dark u are and personally i dont think colorism is a big deal for men in the US
Zendaya and that other chick are mulattos and the second chick is prolly closer to 75% white -
You are taken extreme minority example to build a case and that's ? disingenuous
You're misunderstanding my point. There is no easy way to define who is black. Your attempt was to say every phenotype found in Sub Saharan Africa. I was just pointing out that the variation found Sub Saharan Africa is huge. No blue eyes aren't typically thought of as a black trait, but having blue eyes also can't be used to say someone isn't black.
In principle, I agree with what you're saying. There is a segment of the population that is considered black and treated a certain way because of that. Where we disagree is that you are suggesting that that segment of the population is separated from other groups by nice clear cut lines. I don't agree that is true. I think those lines are very fuzzy. -
What is white? And what is Asian?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »All the phenotypes of native sub Saharan Africans in their total equal black.... It's really not hard to understand
lol You do understand that most phenotypes displayed in humanity can be found in Sub Saharan Africans. As a matter of fact I've seen it described that all diversity outside of Sub Saharan Africa can be considered a subset of the diversity found within Sub Saharan Africa. In other words, you basically just said that all humans a black.
Nope there are phenotypes the are African the genes that created whites and Asian did not come into existence in Africa they are mutations caused by European and Asian climate
Nope. Quoted again...What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
I don't think you quite understand how genetics work. The climate difference didn't cause mutations in Europeans and Asians. The climate difference allowed people that expressed those mutations to thrive where as in Africa people with those mutations did not benefit and therefore those traits did not take hold. The point is, those traits can still be found in Sub Sahara Africa just not to the degree as in other places.
? and I think you are the one that didn't understand whatv I just said. When have you ever seen a native west african with blue eyes??
Is that trait found in igbo people.
So your response to research backed conclusions is "? " and that's based on what? Your own personal prejudice.
I've never seen a West African person with blue eyes. So what. That's why mutations are what they are. The might only be expressed for one out of every million people, but they are still there. That's the whole point. All human diversity comes from Sub Saharan Africa, so you saying that the total sum of phenotypes expressed in Sub Saharan Africa is basically saying "all of humanity."
I don't really understand your point that every phenotype is represented among indigenous sub-saharan African people (or something like that, tell me if I'm misquoting you). This seems to imply that there are indigenous sub-saharan Africans with blonde hair, blue eyes and pale skin (who aren't albinos). Or am I misunderstanding something?
If I'm not mistaken the mutation that causes blue eyes probably occurred in Europe or the Middle East around 6 thousands years ago, I could be way off. I've never seen West Africans with blue eyes but there are some with green eyes.
@zzombie said that the Black race is defined by the phenotypes found in Sub Saharan Africa. I pointed out that all phenotypes can be found in Sub Saharan Africa. Yes, there are non albino blue eyed Sub Saharan Africans, I posted two examples a few posts earlier.
You guys are mistaking the origin of a mutation for when that mutation starts to be commonly expressed in a population. No, blue eyes is not common among sub saharan Africans, but it does happen.
But you didn't show pictures of indigenous sub-saharan Africans who look like Hilary Clinton or Zack Morris, they only had one particular trait that we wrongly associate with Europeans. They don't look like Europeans generally (hair/complexion/? features package, although features can be open to interpretation). I think you'd be making a better argument if you pointed out people who look like sub-saharan Africans (like many Melanesians) but aren't genetically more related to them than Europeans are or how strange it would be to classify the predominately black son of a pure African and a mixed African/European as a separate race from his predominately white half-sibling.
I understand that a mutation doesn't become commonly expressed when it first arises in a specific individual but some mutations occurred in humans (whom only Eurasians descend from) outside of Africa. So there could be some mutations in non-African populations that are lacking in pure Africans (most humans do not have the gene that would allow them to properly digest milk past infancy, Africans and Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerant than Europeans are, and unlike Eurasians, pure Africans do not have neanderthal ancestry). I agreed Zzombie made a mistake in thinking that the climate somehow causes mutation (although I'm sure environmental influences can affect DNA replication).
I'm not a science expert and I don't care, just saying. If I have a point, and I don't really, it's that there not being a universal and clear cut definition of who's black doesn't really negate it as a social concept. Everyone agrees that Wesley Snipes is black even if some other people are racially ambiguous. There is no universal and clear cut definition of what it means to be human, either. Pinpointing precisely when ? sapiens emerged from ? erectus or ? sapiens sapiens from ? sapiens idaltu is arbitrary. I don't know where exactly this came from or where it's supposed to go but hasn't @Zzombie actually admitted that race is not a biological concept? How is the scientific status of race relevant to why he should or should not consider so and so to be black or not to be black or why his criticism of interracial marriage is flawed?
