<p>Tiger wood isn’t 100% black. He is half Asian (one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Thai), one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch. He refers to his ethnic make-up as Cablinasian (a syllabic abbreviation he coined from Caucasian, Black, (American) Indian, and Asian). Tiger Woods got blood from the Americas (Native), Africa, Asia and Europe. He and his children are what you call “People of the world.” There is nothing wrong of him not being attracted to black women. There isn’t any rule for him to be attracted to black women; he’s not even 1/2 black. Since he’s only 1/8 white (Dutch), his children will strengthen his 1/8 whiteness.</p>
<p>If one can urge why didn’t he marry a black woman, then one can also urge why didn’t he marry an asian woman or a native american woman. Say if he marry a black woman, one can also urge why didn’t he marry a white woman, or an asian woman, or a native american woman. <–These questions are nothing but racist questions.</p>
<p>Tiger Woods is more Asian than black. The social categorization of race is extremely superficial and relies only on a set of arbitrary markers to determine one’s race. Most of the time, the creation of a race is a political reaction and is done to preserve the “integrity” of the dominant group.</p>
What are you talking about? Calling physical differences that emerged from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution a “political reaction” is beyond stupid.</p>
<p>Why are some physical differences singled out for being racial markers, while others are not? That’s what I’m talking about. </p>
<p>Look at one race, and see all the variations in that race, and ask yourself why those people are supposed part of one group. Look also at the similarities across various races and ask yourself why these traits do not unify these people into one category.</p>
<p>Because you know a lot of black women and hang out with a lot of black people? </p>
<p>Considering the fact that your handle is “Asian75”, and I’m going to assume that you’re an Asian guy, it’s pretty sad and hypocritical for you to refuse to challenge the unflattering stereotype of black women in American society when you probably ***** and moan (either publicly or privately) about the unfavourable depiction of your race.</p>
<p>The confluence of physical differences which emerged from groups of humans evolving differently is what defines the “races”. It’s a geography thing.</p>
<p>
Do you even understand the concept of evolution? It’s a geography thing. It’s not a trait thing. </p>
<p>Just because someone might have a thin nose in the UK and someone has a thin nose in Australia doesn’t mean there is a similar genetic basis for both traits.</p>
<p>Skin colour. For example, in the “white race” and “Asian race”, skin tones vary from pinkish white to a bronze tan. Skin tones in the “black race” also vary from light to dark. Why don’t we further segment these further into smaller races based on more homogeneous skin tones? Why is skin tone used as a primary indicator of race when it is so inconsistent?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you believe so stridently in the existence of races, how many races do you think there are? And who belongs to which group? And what is your basis for such categorization that is independent of historical, cultural, or political forces?</p>
Ummm, we do. Analogous traits in geographically isolated groups tend to have additional distinctions. Finnish people don’t look like Italians. We just use the term “race” as broad geographic categories, that word is just a word. What’s important is the meaning (ie: that geographic isolation caused the human race to evolve differently).</p>
<p>Are you saying that the idea of a white race is nothing more than just a linguistic convenience, often used for political advantage (as I would argue)?</p>
<p>I don’t deny that geographic differences have certainly caused differences to emerge among groups in the human race. What I’m arguing is that such differences do not fall neatly in the American-centric notion of race (aka white, black, Asian, Hispanic). My argument is that those aforementioned races are rooted more in politics and convenient methods of social exclusion than science.</p>
<p>In “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, Jared Diamond posits the existence of five human races: three in Africa alone, a broad Eurasian race, and an Austronesian race. I think this is important because it shatters two of the pillars of popular discourse on race: an emphasis on lookism, and an insistence on European exceptionalism.</p>
<p>You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask it again. How many races are there, and who belongs to which group?</p>
<p>Did you look at the link? It makes it pretty clear.</p>
<p>Jared Diamond is an incredibly smart individual - he is not a geneticist though (and he certainly isn’t building computer models which can compare large numbers of individuals for genetic similarities/differences).</p>
<p>Asian75 … seriously - shut up. What if I said that all asians are ugly? (Which some, probably you, are) then what? Of course, I’ll be the bigger person and call you out on your bigotry, and stand by my opinion that all races are beautiful.</p>
<p>Actually, what I’m more interested in is that with the existence of groups (or ethnicities or races or whatever we choose to call this idea), do you believe that there is some necessity in preserving “purity”? Sorry if that’s a loaded word, but I can’t think of anything else to use.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily have a problem with arguing for race (as long as it doesn’t fall use shallow, historically-derived lookist principles). My main problem is when people try to claim that the existence of such distinctions proves some kind of inherent incompatibility among the different groups.</p>
Purity assumes that something “right”. Yeah, that doesn’t mean anything in a sort universal moral sense (because I don’t believe in anything like that).</p>