Bobad wrote...
Seifz wrote...
Bobad wrote...
Darthnemesis2 wrote...
atheelogos wrote...
Heavenblade wrote...
People are throwing around the word "african" as a synonym for black. Such people have either never seen anyone from north africa or been there.
Perhaps they mean sub-Saharan?
They mean both. And yes thats why I don't like the term African American. Because most blacks have never been there nor do they know anything about the land. Its like white people saying british american.... Yeah it sounds kinda weird doesn't it.
I actually do check the 'other' box and write in "European American" on papers/documents/whatever.
I tick Other and write Human, as anything else is just backward tribal affiliation bull**** without progressive thought.
Not really.
So how is referring to your ancestoral origins progressive, regressing to past designations is surely the antithesis of progession?
Medicine. While it's true that we're all human, our ancestors adapted to different environments on Earth. For example, most Europeans (and later Americans) developed a tolerance for milk beyond infancy. Many Africans have sickle-shaped blood cells to combat Malaria.
Culture. While it's true that we're all human, our ancestors developed different cultural habits and traditions. Greeting another person in Japan is different than greeting another person in Germany. Certain foods are accepted in India while those same foods may not be accepted in Iraq.
There are many reasons to consider where someone is from and who there ancestors were. Indeed, forgetting about these differences would be quite terrible.
EDIT: If you don't buy all of that, perhaps you'll buy this. Why stop at human? Why not insist that we write "******" on our papers? Why not go further and insist on "mammal"? Vertibrate, animal, multi-celled being? See how silly it gets?
Modifié par Seifz, 22 août 2010 - 11:23 .