[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-07-2013 08:58 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

It's skin color, nothing else. I'd follow that to its logical conclusion and say that Barack Obama is black, and Slash is white.

But what does it matter for? Saying someone is black, white, yellow, green and whatnot is not an insult. It's just a simple physical description. It also carries certain physical differences with it (ex. black people are more resistant to skin cancer and sunburns, probably are better runners, etc), but I think those are negligible.

So my point is that yes, there are races, and yes, they are more or less clearly biologically defined, but they don't really matter. People who make a fuss over them (on either side) are usually trolling the world.

Contrast this with a liberal who claims that race doesn't exist, because if it did exist it would matter.

From my link:

Quote:

Q. Isn't race just about skin color?

A. That's a simplistic verbal shorthand Americans use to refer to ancestry. Nobody really acts as if they believe race is synonymous with skin color.

Q. What do you mean?

A. Consider the golfer Vijay Singh , who during 2004-2005 became the only man in this decade besides Tiger Woods to be the number one ranked player in the world. Singh, who was born in the Fiji Islands of Asian Indian descent, is much darker in skin color than Woods.

Singh is at least as dark as the average African-American. Yet, nobody in America ever thinks of Singh as black or African-American. There's an enormous industry that celebrates the triumphs of blacks in nontraditional venues such as golf. But Singh's accomplishments elicited minimal interest in the U.S.

A 2007 article, for example, asked where are all the black golf champions who were expected to emerge in the wake of Tiger Woods's first Masters championship in 1997. It never mentions the blackest-skinned player on tour, Singh … because we're not actually talking about skin color when we use the word "black," we're talking about sub-Saharan African ancestry.