Kidd said Exactly. But that doesn't make them difference races. Just like an African-American isn't a different race than you.

This is honestly just me being a Grammar Nazi right now, but if your argument is that there is no such thing as race you probably shouldn't say things like "They aren't a different race". Because that implies there are cases where people can be of a different race, it's just that the case in question isn't one of them.

Kidd said Yes, you did. However, if something is this flawed, then it doesn't work on a scientific level. People, on average, cannot guess a person's race correctly over 80% of the time. That's a 20% if this was a test--a test that would quickly fail. To further this point, I recommend checking this quiz out. It asks you to sort people into races and I can almost guarantee that you'll fail.

I gave it a shot, and yes I did end up scoring pretty low, point proven.

Kidd said No, but heterosexuals like the opposite gender.

*Sex

There's a difference between Sex and Gender.
Sex = Biological Body (Basically, what genitalia you posses)
Gender = How to feel, relate and identify as. This where cases of stuff like "A man trapped in a womans body" comes from.
This does actually expand even further into Identity & Expression, but I don't think there's a need to go into a long winded explanation/lecture here. All I needed to address was the sex/gender difference.

Kidd said Bisexuals like both men and women. And asexuals are just not interested in anyone sexually. This is a given. You cannot do that with race. There is not a single universal trait or gene that applies to a single race. Not all African-Americans have dark skin (refer to the twins for example--the white one is still descended from a black parent). Not all Caucasians have narrow noses.

You're absolutely right that your sexuality doesn't define who you are but it isn't comparable to race. Labels with human sexuality work very, very well. Labels with human diversity do not.

The point I was making was that the existent of these labels (however flawed/broken they may be) doesn't suddenly take away the rest of us, or turn us into 1-Dimensional people/personalities.
Are the race labels severally flawed? Definitely, you've more than proven that here. But we are not removings one individuality by using it, at best we're just making a gross generalization when it comes to one physical aspect about them.

Kidd said Though I'm cautious about doing so via the internet because people are quick to dismiss it as bull shit or trying to "win points."

Most of those people would of done it regardless because you bothered to bring up your education at all.
So if you're going to use it, at least make it clear from the start.

+Using it later on usually indicates that they're doing it because they feel cornered/back to a wall, are simply being desperate for victory.

I don't really see what's wrong with the word 'black', TBH.

Magic Magnum said
*Sex

There's a difference between Sex and Gender.
Sex = Biological Body (Basically, what genitalia you posses)
Gender = How to feel, relate and identify as. This where cases of stuff like "A man trapped in a womans body" comes from.
This does actually expand even further into Identity & Expression, but I don't think there's a need to go into a long winded explanation/lecture here. All I needed to address was the sex/gender difference.

Ah, you're right. That was my bad. I should know better and thank you for the correction.

Magic Magnum said
+Using it later on usually indicates that they're doing it because they feel cornered/back to a wall, are simply being desperate for victory.

That's true. Thanks for the advice.

I am black, but I refer to myself as a Louisiana Creole since that's where my family is from. I'm more French than African since my family is heavily mixed. In my opinion black is almost as flawed of a term as people of color, the skin color variation from dark to light makes that term just dumb.

Yog Sothoth said In my opinion black is almost as flawed of a term as people of color, the skin color variation from dark to light makes that term just dumb.

I have to agree. The idea of there being a group of 'coloured' people seriously annoys me. It implies/suggests that White people are the best/default and everyone is some sort of variation/difference from the norm.

It's the same reason I try to use the term "Heterosexual" rather than "Straight" (Though, I do slip up often cause it's the term we're all raised with >.<).
Because it implies Hetero people are 'right', 'normal', that their 'straight' in the sense there is nothing off or odd about it. But every other sexuality is some kind of variance.

I mean, I'm all for terms to help better clarify/describe what someone is.
So bring on the LGBT terms, feel free to say someone has _______ coloured skin.
But for heavens sake don't set the tone to imply that one's the normal/default and everything else is somehow different.

I feel mixed on the term "people of color." On one hand, I agree with you two. It gives the impression that white is normal / default and everyone else can just be grouped together as a general whole. On the other, I think it's useful when referring to the marginalized racial groups as a whole. "People of color" are denied many opportunities, "people of color" have to deal with their culture being attacked and erased daily. "People of color" (in western society) most certainly deal with struggles white people do not have to deal with.

Maybe some feedback/advice on this would help. I personally don't use the term because of my mixed opinion, but I see it very often and kinda just stay quiet because I'm not sure what to say, lol

I've always found the term 'Minorities' works in that sense. It's more accurate generally too cause it's always the people lesser in number geographically you have these issues (Save women in 3rd world countries) and not the majority of the people there.

Yog Sothoth said
I am black, but I refer to myself as a Louisiana Creole since that's where my family is from. I'm more French than African since my family is heavily mixed. In my opinion black is almost as flawed of a term as people of color, the skin color variation from dark to light makes that term just dumb.

By that argument, calling somebody Asian is dumb because of the slight feature variance and skin tone between nationalities. Likewise, a Mediterranean white person typically has a more olive complexion and darker hair and eyes while a Nordic white person tends to have lighter eyes and hair with a paler complexion. Or heck, a Native American can range anywhere from a South American Incan to an Arctic Inuit, but you still consider them Native American. If I saw you and were asked to describe you, I'd just say black. I'm not going to know where your family is from any more than you know where mine is from. Plus, I'm pretty sure most government forms that ask for your ethnicity aren't going to accept Louisiana Creole as a response. If everyone nitpicked and enforced what people called their ethnicity, we'd have to memorized literally thousands of different ethnic permutations when a simple generalization works a lot more efficiently without being racially insensitive in the slightest.

Kidd said
I feel mixed on the term "people of color." On one hand, I agree with you two. It gives the impression that white is normal / default and everyone else can just be grouped together as a general whole. On the other, I think it's useful when referring to the marginalized racial groups as a whole. "People of color" are denied many opportunities, "people of color" have to deal with their culture being attacked and erased daily. "People of color" (in western society) most certainly deal with struggles white people do not have to deal with. Maybe some feedback/advice on this would help. I personally don't use the term because of my mixed opinion, but I see it very often and kinda just stay quiet because I'm not sure what to say, lol

Simple, "ethnic minority" works fine as a catch-all phrase, because it works for any society. If I lived in China, I'd be the ethnic minority there. Of course, it helps to look into a particular situation closely before jumping to the conclusion that everyone who happens to be a different race than the majority is suffering the same slights and inequities as another just because they're not a majority group. As with anything, knowledge is key and while it's good to champion the rights of the under represented, it's good to keep in mind that not all struggles are created equal. For example, an Asian isn't going to be effected by native land disputes or demanding compensation for residential schools, a black person isn't going to be suffering from the same discrimination as an Arab in a post 9/11 world, and so on. It's part of why I'm not a fan of using a "catch all" term for non-whites because I kind of feel like if you start to lump everything into one, the lines start to blur a bit and that leads some people to adopt an "us verses them" mentality, which is awful.

Dervish said Of course, it helps to look into a particular situation closely before jumping to the conclusion that everyone who happens to be a different race than the majority is suffering the same slights and inequities as another just because they're not a majority group. As with anything, knowledge is key and while it's good to champion the rights of the under represented, it's good to keep in mind that not all struggles are created equal. For example, an Asian isn't going to be effected by native land disputes or demanding compensation for residential schools, a black person isn't going to be suffering from the same discrimination as an Arab in a post 9/11 world, and so on. It's part of why I'm not a fan of using a "catch all" term for non-whites because I kind of feel like if you start to lump everything into one, the lines start to blur a bit and that leads some people to adopt an "us verses them" mentality, which is awful.

True.

I think the only case I use the term 'Minorities' to describe discrimination is in one of two ways.

1. _______ race does fine, but all the other minorities have issues in one way or another.
2. _______ country tends to hate/discriminate against anyone who is a minority.

If it's anything more specific, I tend to address the specific groups of people affected.

Dervish said
By that argument, calling somebody Asian is dumb because of the slight feature variance and skin tone between nationalities. Likewise, a Mediterranean white person typically has a more olive complexion and darker hair and eyes while a Nordic white person tends to have lighter eyes and hair with a paler complexion. Or heck, a Native American can range anywhere from a South American Incan to an Arctic Inuit, but you still consider them Native American. If I saw you and were asked to describe you, I'd just say black. I'm not going to know where your family is from any more than you know where mine is from. Plus, I'm pretty sure most government forms that ask for your ethnicity aren't going to accept Louisiana Creole as a response. If everyone nitpicked and enforced what people called their ethnicity, we'd have to memorized literally thousands of different ethnic permutations when a simple generalization works a lot more efficiently without being racially insensitive in the slightest. Simple, "ethnic minority" works fine as a catch-all phrase, because it works for any society. If I lived in China, I'd be the ethnic minority there. Of course, it helps to look into a particular situation closely before jumping to the conclusion that everyone who happens to be a different race than the majority is suffering the same slights and inequities as another just because they're not a majority group. As with anything, knowledge is key and while it's good to champion the rights of the under represented, it's good to keep in mind that not all struggles are created equal. For example, an Asian isn't going to be effected by native land disputes or demanding compensation for residential schools, a black person isn't going to be suffering from the same discrimination as an Arab in a post 9/11 world, and so on. It's part of why I'm not a fan of using a "catch all" term for non-whites because I kind of feel like if you start to lump everything into one, the lines start to blur a bit and that leads some people to adopt an "us verses them" mentality, which is awful.

If someone asks for my ethnicity then I tell them that I am an American and if that's not enough then I'll say I'm black if calling myself a Louisiana Creole is not enough.

I completely agree with you on the matter of the term people of color lumping everyone together. The problem is that Americans have a very simplistic view of race where everything is either black, white, Asian and Hispanic. One of the biggest flaws with the term people of color is how can a pale skinned Asian be considered a person of color if their skin tone is the same as caucasians? People of color to me is just another ignorant term to turn the race and ethnic problems of society into an us verses them argument which doesn't solve problems.

What are you complaining about? American racism is probably the lightest stuff around in comparison to everything else.

Hell, East Asians I've learned pretty much hate each other. Taiwanese distrust the Mainland Chinese, the Mainland Chinese are spat on by Hong Kongers, these three Chinese groups dislike the Japanese, the Japanese loathe the Koreans (and frankly all Japanese given their immigration policy), and the Vietnamese don't like anyone north of them.

Shit, even in Europe there's the Hungarians who group everyone into two group: Hungarians and Jews and Jewish Sympathizers. Gotta save Magyar homeland from Israeli subjugation.

Dinh AaronMk said
What are you complaining about? American racism is probably the lightest stuff around in comparison to everything else.

...So because racism isn't as extreme in America as it is in other countries, we shouldn't be upset about it? It is still an issue and people are still suffering from racism in the US. They're still being denied opportunities and being murdered because of their race and you don't find it sensible to have an issue with that just because racism is "worse" elsewhere?

Kidd said
...So because racism isn't as extreme in America as it is in other countries, we shouldn't be upset about it? It is still an issue and people are still suffering from racism in the US. They're still being denied opportunities and being because of their race and you don't find it sensible to have an issue with that just because racism is "worse" elsewhere?

Of course it's an issue in our country, but not a major one to America. They need to fix the economy, the Elections are coming as well, and many other issues that was served to America. I'm against racism towards everyone, but you can't get raid of it forever. People are going to be who they want to be or are not matter what you do to fix it. That's including being racism.

Of course we can decrease the number of racism, but we can't wipe it all forever. It's like smoking, you can't make it disappear no matter what you do.

What does literally any of that have to do with this issue and thread? And please drop the "there are bigger issues so don't worry about this one" mentality. It's just an excuse to be apathetic.

I want to end by law all government imposed racism, but I don't believe in sticking a gun to someone's head and saying "Serve all Arabs who enter your store!" I don't like violence being used like that.

Yog said
If someone asks for my ethnicity then I tell them that I am an American and if that's not enough then I'll say I'm black if calling myself a Louisiana Creole is not enough.

I completely agree with you on the matter of the term people of color lumping everyone together. The problem is that Americans have a very simplistic view of race where everything is either black, white, Asian and Hispanic. One of the biggest flaws with the term people of color is how can a pale skinned Asian be considered a person of color if their skin tone is the same as caucasians? People of color to me is just another ignorant term to turn the race and ethnic problems of society into an us verses them argument which doesn't solve problems.

Heard man, but it's tough too. People of Colour can be a term to highlight challenges unique to those who are viewed as non-white. The shit part is that this view isn't established by us, but by those who feel they can define white -- basically, people who feel they can identify as white. There's this big separation there and fear too. When we're talking about issues unique to being a POC I get it, but when someone is just using it as a general description I start to wonder if they're just afraid to ask or have an extremely limited knowledge of colour tones (I mean seriously, I can't be the only one who recognizes the difference between mahogany and tope).

It does peeve me when people lump everyone who's coloured together as black though. Just like when they assume if you're dark, you're also African (what country, you never hear assumed). I am Puerto Rican and Native, not too dark, but enough to where people will identify me as black in conversation. I get it, sure, but when people start thinking that the suffering African Americans endure(d) here reflects my family history, they're blatantly wrong. We have very different histories. Racism is a common thread, sure, and so is slavery and genocide against people like us, absolutely, but the stories I passed down in my family about the fall of Borikén are not the stories of those from Vietnam, Kenya, or even those from Mexico.

So no, I would never identify as American first. In professional and political encounters my race has been seen and noted. As long as that's a thing, it makes no sense for me to ignore that identity.

So Boerd said
I want to end by law all government imposed racism

Like affirmative action? I can't think of any other examples of codified racism in the modern West.

Dinh AaronMk said What are you complaining about? American racism is probably the lightest stuff around in comparison to everything else.

Fallacy of relative Privation.

Rare said I'm against racism towards everyone, but you can't get raid of it forever.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to at least discuss it.

-

The Nexerus said
Like affirmative action? I can't think of any other examples of codified racism in the modern West.

Not exactly sanctioned by law, but specific business and economical practices largely favor whites in the US and actively suppress the advancement of those persons unaffiliated with a white racial background. Instead of overt racism, it's covert, and consequently keeps the public uninformed and ignorant on the issues that minority groups face in this nation. Worse yet, it keeps the teeming white population fixated on small-scale problems while their beloved white government persists in caring little for them or their ethnic plight.