Autopsy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2017
I can't speak for him, but as time is going on, more people people are disputing those classifications too. Except maybe Jew, because it almost always refers to Ashkenazi, but that's an entire can of worms and the Israelis might decide my home is a Hamas base if I get too in-depth on how and why "Jews" are about as Jewish as humans are Neanderthal.
"Black" in particular has had an intensely negative effect in the USA because:
- Africans with black skin in the East and West and Central and South Africa barely interacted with each-other for millennia and have very divergent phenotypes (and therefore consequential physiological differences). While most American blacks are West African, that is by no means a hard and fast rule (some 45% historic slave families are Central/SW/East, not to mention migrants who are overwhelmingly East African), and not accounting for this difference may have significant medical ramifications. Likewise, lumping frequently mixed-race American "blacks" with European ancestry, who are either West African or Central African, with East-African and South African migrants that are much more ethnically "pure," muddies the numbers and leads inexorably to worse medical outcomes- likewise, I would expect lumping West Europeans and East Europeans, or South-East Asians/Islanders and Indians in one diagnostic category to cause the same imprecisions. It's just not sensible.
- African blacks have nearly as dramatically divergent cultures as they do "race" and they almost all fucking hated each-other historically. The creation of a "black" moniker has allowed ancient feuds to fade under "shared oppression," but this perspective has allowed "blacks" to artificially inflate the crimes against their people by "whites" as opposed to other "blacks," and robbed "blacks" of any chance of being proud of, or chastened by, their unique heritage. The idea of Ashanti pretending to be as oppressed as the Akyem or as relatively innocent as the Fula is nearly as obscene an Englishman volunteering to run the IRA. No one should be happy about it.
- Much like "white," "black" has formed an artificial rallying point for radicalization, with many post-Civil-War immigrant Africans taking on a slave culture as they integrate into being "black," despite having no significant familial history of oppression by "whites" or baggage due to accumulated crimes, and typically having an economic status comparable to "white" and "Asian" migrants... They also often get full access to scholarships, fellowships, and other resources intended for disadvantaged "blacks" that were devised with legitimate "African-Americans," the kind who were historically American slave families, in mind. This one is less of a big deal now, but as even the generational consequences of slavery and segregation fade in full, and the portion of foreign-born or never-slave "blacks" rises, the very idea of a set-in-stone "black" experience will keep slavery at the center of the discussion.
I know this post is pretty off-topic, but I always hope people think more about this. It goes much deeper than just "discard race because racism exists!!" or "discard race because ethnic supremacy is rad!!," there are real ramifications for constructing these groups where they did not previously exist regardless of if you whine about porchmonkeys or if you are one. If there's a need to draw lines around skin color for some political reason, it should be made clear to everyone involved that this line is almost entirely arbitrary & discarded entirely for scientific aims.
