Conquer Club

race differences (from McDonald's thread)

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Timminz on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:08 pm

72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?


There is no wider appeal than running.


Um, no... soccer is a far more popular sport than running.
Last edited by Timminz on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:10 pm

Army of GOD wrote:Notice how I said "on average" and not "every single black person".


Yeah, I did notice that and I replied that there were "plenty" of skinny weak black people. I'm just trying to say that it's not the fact that those people are black that makes them better athletes, it's that their genes have been "engineered" over time to make certain groups of black people physically stronger, faster, etc.. Their basic makeup is no different.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby 72o on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:10 pm

Timminz wrote:
72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?


There is no wider appeal than running.


Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.


We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.
Image
Sergeant 72o
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:04 am

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby 72o on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:12 pm

Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?
Image
Sergeant 72o
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:04 am

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Timminz on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:18 pm

72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:
72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.

We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.


As a sport? If we're only talking about activities, breathing, drinking, and eating have a wider appeal than anything. Are black people better at breathing, drinking, and eating?

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?


No black Olympic swimmers?! Are you sure you don't want to amend that statement.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby nietzsche on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:21 pm

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?



Professional sports depend a lot on muscle memory. It's so tough that you depend completely in what your muscles can do automatically.

I'd say that determination, practice and then talent is the order of importance for success in professional sports. Some do without much talent, but have great determination and practice a lot. Others have so much talent that need little practice, and their determination is based in the fact they know they are great.

But give the same kind of food and activities to a black man and a white man, and odds are the black guy will develop bigger muscles and more athleticism than the white guy. (A third white man working out ever other day will do better than both in athleticism).

But then take a black man with his size, add talent, practice and determination, and you have Matt Kemp.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby 72o on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Timminz wrote:
72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:
72o wrote:
Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?

There is no wider appeal than running.

Um, no... soccer is far more popular a sport than running.

We're not talking about spectating. We're talking about number of people participating in the activity worldwide.


As a sport? If we're only talking about activities, breathing, drinking, and eating have a wider appeal than anything. Are black people better at breathing, drinking, and eating?

72o wrote:Why are there no black swimmers in the Olympics? Genetic, or learned behavior?


No black Olympic swimmers?! Are you sure you don't want to amend that statement.


Okay, not "none", but few.
Image
Sergeant 72o
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:04 am

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Army of GOD on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:30 pm

My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:36 pm

Army of GOD wrote:My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.


Handle your balls and dribble somewhere else dude, we are trying to have a serious discussion here...
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:29 pm

Army of GOD wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?


Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.


Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.


Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?

I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.


(1)
So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?
If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)?
(Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)

If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:


(2)
And how does the black v. white causal relationship account for other important causes, e.g. culture, upbringing, etc.?
(Your explanation does not. It simply serves as a cover-all without explaining the variance caused by important variables. It's just as 'useful' as my "American" v. "Non-American" explanation. All you can factually say is that there's more blacks than whites who play professional basketball. But as soon as you stress that causal relationship, you have to be able to account for the causes.)


For example, compared to white kids, what proportion of black kids grow up playing basketball while having black, athletic role models in mind? Is this self-reinforcing among the homogenous group of "black"? If so, then this would disproportionally expand the pool of potentially professional, black basketball players. (so, it may not be the case that blacks are intrinsically more suited to performing better in basketball due to some alleged, physical advantage. It may be simply be the case that more blacks apply to the basketball profession).

(3)
Then there's the broader issue of how the youth of either group perceive expected profits (monetary and psychological) compared to the relative opportunities. If white kids in general have more perceived opportunities for advancing themselves in whatever fashion compared to black kids, then it should be no surprise that there's less white kids striving to become professional basketball players.


The econometric project would have to hold constant income bracket of the families, geographic regions, genetic make-up, skin color, expectations, etc., etc.

If your hypothesis can't explain the above, then we can reasonably doubt its veracity or simply discard it.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:35 pm

Army of GOD wrote:My argument against soccer is that it requires a lot more than pure athleticism. Handling a soccer ball is a much harder skill than dribbling a basketball or running with a football in my opinion.


What exactly is 'pure athleticism'?
(Is it something like PhatScotty's vague definition of 'Marxism' which allows him to arbitrarily apply it?) :D


A skill isn't some thing with a single unit of measurement which can be seamlessly applied across all sports and physical activities. Handling a soccer ball requires some skill which would be completely different from dribbling a basketball. In other words, a particular skill in X may not be comparable to a particular skill in Y.

Then there's not only particular skills, but also some set of things like traits, genes, upbringing, etc., which will cater one to having a comparative advantage in a particular physical activity.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:40 pm

I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby / on Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:40 pm

It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:45 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.


So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:50 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.


So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)


Well you have to make an imaginary line in the sand I suppose(no pun intended) in order to believe that black people exist at all. For the sake of argument I have to admit that they do and thus have to conform a little. So yes, I suppose your examples(at least the ones I recognize) would be black by my definition. I think I need more information to answer your question with any real conviction though, BBS. :|
I suppose you have raised a really good question though, BBS: what makes a "black person"? I do have to say though that the color of someone's skin doesn't enter into it in my mind.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:00 pm

/ wrote:It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.


Are you relying on circular reasoning? (sincerely, I'm not sure)

In other words, let's 'use race in order to narrow down genetic traits among certain people' (But how did we single out this group of certain people? By a priori calling them race X)?

....

Either way, let's move beyond that, and 'compile a list of people along physical and physiological characteristics such as A, B, C, D, and E.' Group A would have rank highly in A, B, C; Group B would rank highly in C, D, E; Group C would rank highly in A, C, E; etc. So, we have groups that are similar in some respects, but differ in others--and this could be the case for 80% of the sample whose skin color = "black," yet of that 80%, they can differ extraordinarily in other characteristics.

For most who adhere to stereotypes, I don't think the other characteristics really matter to them. They'll simply continue "calling a spade a spade" but only because they don't know any better; it's simply cheaper for them to categorize people on one simple common characteristic, "black."---regardless of the facts.

The same goes for cultural characteristics, but I'd expect most to rely on cognitive bias (confirmation bias), thus perpetuating this concept of race, of "black," etc.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:05 pm

Timminz wrote:I think the fact that most of the best basketball players are black has more to do with the fact that basketball is and has been very popular among poorer, black, American neighbourhoods. ie, it's a cultural phenomena, and is not directly attributable to the colour of someone's skin.

If you were to look at a sport with wider appeal (in fact the widest appeal), and take soccer for an example, would the skin-colour arguments still hold true?


Are you fucking insane? It clearly has nothing to do with environmental factors and everything to do with the color of their skin.[/sarcasm]
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:05 pm

Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:18 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?


Shit, that would be great!(to the last statement)
I'm a little bummed that you used my "line in the sand" example though since I thought I made it clear that skin color had nothing to do with my definition. "Black" is just a throwback of a name that unfortunately is still widely used. I plead When in Rome. :oops:
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby / on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:42 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
/ wrote:It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.


Are you relying on circular reasoning? (sincerely, I'm not sure)

In other words, let's 'use race in order to narrow down genetic traits among certain people' (But how did we single out this group of certain people? By a priori calling them race X)?

....

Either way, let's move beyond that, and 'compile a list of people along physical and physiological characteristics such as A, B, C, D, and E.' Group A would have rank highly in A, B, C; Group B would rank highly in C, D, E; Group C would rank highly in A, C, E; etc. So, we have groups that are similar in some respects, but differ in others--and this could be the case for 80% of the sample whose skin color = "black," yet of that 80%, they can differ extraordinarily in other characteristics.

For most who adhere to stereotypes, I don't think the other characteristics really matter to them. They'll simply continue "calling a spade a spade" but only because they don't know any better; it's simply cheaper for them to categorize people on one simple common characteristic, "black."---regardless of the facts.

The same goes for cultural characteristics, but I'd expect most to rely on cognitive bias (confirmation bias), thus perpetuating this concept of race, of "black," etc.


I'm sorry, I'm not very coherent today, by "stereotypically cultured" I was trying to get across that people of certain lineages have an average standard of tradition that most in that culture adhere to, for example, the “Stereotypical Tibetan” person is genetically diverse from the Han Chinese, lives in high altitudes common to the region, follows traditions and teachings common to their region such as Tibetan Buddhism, and eats cuisine heavy in barley, dairy, and mustard seed.
Ethnic Tibetans living in Tibet are known to have high levels of nitric oxide, increased blood flow, and easier metabolization in high altitudes than a foreigner who moves to Tibet. Whether this is caused solely by environment, or if it includes genetics and other factors as well is being researched, but whatever the cause; it would be a factual statement to say the average Tibetan is more suited to a high altitude than the average person globally.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:48 pm

/ wrote:
Ethnic Tibetans living in Tibet are known to have high levels of nitric oxide, increased blood flow, and easier metabolization in high altitudes than a foreigner who moves to Tibet.


Incidentally, this makes them excellent airline pilots. O:)
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby pancakemix on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:05 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?


No, but at this point I don't think there is a single ethnicity that hasn't been demeaned by American culture ("whites" included). It's part of our heritage, for better or worse. We need someone to make "the bad guy", and usually that falls on racial lines.

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?


On this, I can only suggest a few things. One is that skin tone can be used as a physical descriptor. For example, if an author writes a character and that character is black, he should probably mention that that character is black in some way. On a more immediate level, it narrows down people in a semi-large group (Ex. "the black guy over there"), even though there are probably better descriptors available (EX. "the guy in the red shirt over there"). Another is in the realm of physical attractiveness. Considering that the discussion earlier revolved around selected traits, one should consider that skin tone itself is one of them.
Epic Win

"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember." - Richard Roma, Glengarry Glen Ross

aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class pancakemix
 
Posts: 7973
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: The Grim Guzzler

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:08 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Moved, because it deserves its own thread.
Gillipig wrote:
john9blue wrote:^ well said......


.....


Wait, why would not you include whatever comment your thread starts off with John saying "well said'?"

what was well said?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:10 pm

john9blue wrote:^ well said

i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.

we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.

just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.


Sounds like someone needs to get re-educated and make a Progressive transition

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: race differences (from McDonald's thread)

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:29 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.


So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)


Well you have to make an imaginary line in the sand I suppose(no pun intended) in order to believe that black people exist at all. For the sake of argument I have to admit that they do and thus have to conform a little. So yes, I suppose your examples(at least the ones I recognize) would be black by my definition. I think I need more information to answer your question with any real conviction though, BBS. :|
I suppose you have raised a really good question though, BBS: what makes a "black person"? I do have to say though that the color of someone's skin doesn't enter into it in my mind.


Yeah, that line is imaginary, yet it differs across individuals, so there's no clear consensus. Brazilians have IIRC about at least 13 distinct words to describe 13 distinct skin colors. Most Americans probably have 2: black and white. All non-black-or-white are "Asian," "Indian," "Italian" (for some), "Arab" (which may include Persians), or the famous "uhhh errr hmm."

'Do black people exist'? They exist as much as one imagines them to be.

Your last sentences I've got questions for! (see previous post ITT).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee