White Privilege

[Mr Tree]

So... BLM is definitely a hate group right?

What do you define as the BLM group?

Is there even a group or only a movement?
Where does the movement start and the group end in your eyes?

I agree as a movent there are individuals trying to transform a well meant movelent into a hate group.

Edit: if it was reffered to me

 

[Danoff]

What do you define as the BLM group?

Is there even a group or only a movement?
Where does the movement start and the group end in your eyes?

I agree as a movent there are individuals trying to transform a well meant movelent into a hate group.

Edit: if it was reffered to me

It was more of a general question posed to get people to question how they think of BLM.

 

[SagarisGTB]

So... BLM is definitely a hate group right?

I'll bite.

If BLM are a hate group, who are they hating?

 

[Danoff]

I'll bite.

If BLM are a hate group, who are they hating?

Mexicans... just kidding, white people.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Mexicans... just kidding, white people.

I expected you to reply with police services personnel.

Anyway, nope.

 

[Danoff]

I expected you to reply with police services personnel.

Anyway, nope.

Try reversing some of the colors in the various BLM statements and tell me if they would come off to you has a white superiority hate group. For example

1. Black people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a white family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.

2. Black people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a white family. You’re bound to make that money in some other way.

3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a blighted neighborhood and let white people live in it for free.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Try reversing some of the colors in the various BLM statements and tell me if they would come off to you has a white superiority hate group. For example

Um, she clarified that it was directed at allies:

This "list of demands" originated from a facebook post listing what white allies wondering what more they could do could do to help underprivileged people. She even explains that there's no expectations implied, just a listing of ideas.

Even if you don't believe that it was her original intent, the meaning of the list changes.

Besides, it was one person out of many thousands (if not millions) of BLM activists making a facebook post. This facebook post does not appear on the official website, nor is it part of the core BLM messages, so I don't see how it condemns BLM to hate status. If that's all it took, nearly every religion and political party would be a hate group.

 

[Danoff]

Um, she clarified that it was directed at allies:

Does that matter? Suppose my rewrite of the list is directed at allies...

Even if you don't believe that it was her original intent, the meaning of the list changes.

Why?

Besides, it was one person out of many thousands (if not millions) of BLM activists making a facebook post. This facebook post does not appear on the official website, nor is it part of the core BLM messages, so I don't see how it condemns BLM to hate status. If that's all it took, nearly every religion and political party would be a hate group.

That's usually all it takes - for one prominent member of a group to make some asinine statements to get the whole group in trouble. It's not exactly limited to one member either:

“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual. White ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to,” Yusra Khogali reportedly wrote in a 2015 Facebook post.

The BLM movement has a lot of dehumanizing statements that seem to come with it. Dehumanizing police, white people, various politicians, and encouraging violence "you've got hands, use em", "fry 'em like bacon" etc.

They really look like a hate group to me.

Edit:

BTW I don't really want to leave this unclear, but I think Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and just about every other religion that dehumanizes non-members as worthy of eternal torture and pain are also hate groups.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Why?

Because a series of requests is different from suggestions of charity.

That's usually all it takes - for one prominent member of a group to make some asinine statements to get the whole group in trouble. It's not exactly limited to one member either:

The BLM movement has a lot of dehumanizing statements that seem to come with it. Dehumanizing police, white people, various politicians, and encouraging violence "you've got hands, use em", "fry 'em like bacon" etc.

They really look like a hate group to me.

I'm aware of that. There are certainly elements within BLM that dislike white people, I'm not disputing that. But it still seems to me like a small minority and that's not part of the primary goals for the movement, so branding the group as a hate group is very unfair and inaccurate.

Do you consider the republican party to be a hate group based on the likes Roy Moore and other anti-gay republicans? Unlike BLM who don't have anti-white protests, nevermind influencing public policy in such a way, republicans actually vote on enacting anti-LGBT laws.

 

[Danoff]

Because a series of requests is different from suggestions of charity.

In this particular case, I'm struggling to see the difference.

I'm aware of that. There are certainly elements within BLM that dislike white people, I'm not disputing that. But it still seems to me like a small minority and that's not part of the primary goals for the movement, so branding the group as a hate group is very unfair and inaccurate.

Do you consider the republican party to be a hate group based on the likes Roy Moore and other anti-gay republicans? Unlike BLM who don't have anti-white protests, nevermind influencing public policy in such a way, republicans actually vote on enacting anti-LGBT laws.

They have, for sure. Democrats also have voted for discriminatory polices - particularly affirmative action. Republicans have had to drop the gay marriage banner though since the supreme court decided that one for them, and I don't think they have any intent to pick that one back up. While they were trumpeting against gay marriage I could see an argument for them being a hate group. It's a tough sell though because they always had their "separate but equal" line. I don't know whether I'd consider Roy Moore a prominent republican.

I get your point, which is that a group (especially a grass roots movement like BLM or say... the Tea Party) can contain far out nuts who become outspoken on their own and it shouldn't affect what the group actually stands for. Beyond that, a group can just get co-opted by another large group and have their message completely changed.

...but the outspoken efforts of prominent members of the group are often enough to change the view of the group. I don't want to look up the KKK on my browser here, but I wonder if their own internal platform isn't somewhat sanitized to help encourage membership as well.

 

[SagarisGTB]

...but the outspoken efforts of prominent members of the group are often enough to change the view of the group. I don't want to look up the KKK on my browser here, but I wonder if their own internal platform isn't somewhat sanitized to help encourage membership as well.

I really don't like that comparison. Despite the hateful individuals within, BLM march for human dignity and protest perceived injustice. Of the thousands of BLM marches so far, the vast majority are completely civil. Whatever hate exists, it isn't borne out. The same obviously cannot be said for the KKK and similar groups, in fact it's probably closer to the exact opposite.

 

[DDastardly00]

The whole concept of this thread is so inherently flawed that I hardly know where to start. But how about we start right here, can someone, anyone, define exactly just what a "white person" is. And while your at it, please take the time to look up the word "racialism". Please take the time to educate yourselves on it's origins, and it's usage throughout modern history. Who and what were the major proponents of Racialism? What were their goals?

What you find may surprise you.

 

[Mr Tree]

Republicans have had to drop the gay marriage banner though since the supreme court decided that one for them, and I don't think they have any intent to pick that one back up. While they were trumpeting against gay marriage I could see an argument for them being a hate group. It's a tough sell though because they always had their "separate but equal" line.

I'm not sure seperate but equal is a good defense.
Imagine if an interacial marriage would be considered equal but seperate. We want them to have equal rights but we'd call it differently.
Is that then still equal? And if so why call it differently then what it is?

Or am I misunderstanding the seperate but equal part?

 

[PocketZeven]

The whole concept of this thread is so inherently flawed that I hardly know where to start. But how about we start right here, can someone, anyone, define exactly just what a "white person" is. And while your at it, please take the time to look up the word "racialism". Please take the time to educate yourselves on it's origins, and it's usage throughout modern history. Who and what were the major proponents of Racialism? What were their goals?

What you find may surprise you.

I have learnt about racialism, but what does that have to do with this thread specifically?

In my opinion the words "white privilege" is flawed, because it condences a complicated issue into 2 words, without context. I think the OP just wanted to point out its existence and/or denial of its existence in modern society in the USA. The existence of different races cant be denied, as well that each race has certain traits. But although the USA being a country built by immigrants has a particulary rich history of racism that trumps other countries. (I am not denying other countries have had dark pages of racist history too)

the key difference with racialism is the problem is that certain races have been oppressed by others throughout history. You can exchange "white" with every other race where minority races simply have less opportunity then other races in a country where a certain race is a majority. You can even replace it with religion/faction/tribe/nation etc. Jew privilege, catholic privilege, black privilege, chinese privilege, islam privilege etc. It really depends on which time period and location the discussion is about.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure seperate but equal is a good defense.
Imagine if an interacial marriage would be considered equal but seperate. We want them to have equal rights but we'd call it differently.
Is that then still equal? And if so why call it differently then what it is?

Or am I misunderstanding the seperate but equal part?

Oh I'm not going to defend the separate but equal line they gave for gay marriage. Not at all. I'm just saying that's it a tough sell for using that to label them as a hate group.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not sure seperate but equal is a good defense.
Imagine if an interacial marriage would be considered equal but seperate. We want them to have equal rights but we'd call it differently.
Is that then still equal? And if so why call it differently then what it is?

Or am I misunderstanding the seperate but equal part?

By labelling it "interracial marriage" isnt that also like making it separate but equal? Otherwise it would just be called a marriage.

 

[DDastardly00]

I have learnt about racialism, but what does that have to do with this thread specifically?

In my opinion the words "white privilege" is flawed, because it condences a complicated issue into 2 words, without context. I think the OP just wanted to point out its existence and/or denial of its existence in modern society in the USA. The existence of different races cant be denied, as well that each race has certain traits. But although the USA being a country built by immigrants has a particulary rich history of racism that trumps other countries. (I am not denying other countries have had dark pages of racist history too)

the key difference with racialism is the problem is that certain races have been oppressed by others throughout history. You can exchange "white" with every other race where minority races simply have less opportunity then other races in a country where a certain race is a majority. You can even replace it with religion/faction/tribe/nation etc. Jew privilege, catholic privilege, black privilege, chinese privilege, islam privilege etc. It really depends on which time period and location the discussion is about.

The bolded text is where you are wrong, and science just flatly disagrees. There is no scientific basis for race, the whole concept is flawed. That is why I asked for a definition of just what a White person is. Most people are of mixed heritage, mixed race, it doesn't make sense to categorize people that way.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.

Researchers who have since looked at people at the genetic level now say that the whole category of race is misconceived. Indeed, when scientists set out to assemble the first complete human genome, which was a composite of several individuals, they deliberately gathered samples from people who self-identified as members of different races. In June 2000, when the results were announced at a White House ceremony, Craig Venter, a pioneer of DNA sequencing, observed, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”

Source: National Geographic article

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

I am not denying that privilege exists, but I think Socio-economic status and quite simply, the geographic locations of where people reside, whether they live in an affluent community or not would be more of the determining factors of whether an individual has access to more opportunities than others who live in poor areas. It is incredibly misguided, not to mention dangerous, to attempt to pin this on a race, which is really just a fictitious label.

Edit,

Racialism is the belief that you can divide people into categories base on physical attributes, that is how it directly applies to this discussion. Hitler and Mussolini used racialism in horrible ways, there is dark history there. It's a flawed, potentially dangerous theory that we simply need to move on from.

 

[PocketZeven]

The bolded text is where you are wrong, and science just flatly disagrees. There is no scientific basis for race, the whole concept is flawed. That is why I asked for a definition of just what a White person is. Most people are of mixed heritage, mixed race, it doesn't make sense to categorize people that way.





Source: National Geographic article

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

I am not denying that privilege exists, but I think Socio-economic status and quite simply, the geographic locations of where people reside, whether they live in an affluent community or not would be more of the determining factors of whether an individual has access to more opportunities than others who live in poor areas. It is incredibly misguided, not to mention dangerous, to attempt to pin this on a race, which is really just a fictitious label.

Edit,

Racialism the belief that you can divide people into categories base on physical attributes, that is how it directly applies to this discussion. Hitler and Mussolini used racialism in horrible ways, there is dark history there. It's a flawed, potentially dangerous theory that we simply need to move on from.

Perhaps I am wrong in your definition and viewpoint. But do remember that the word "race" can also be debated, before you even debate the definition of race. Races of animals are used to classify species/sub-species/breeds in biology. Races in humans are used in anthropology and genetics. You are probably mixing these 2 definitions up.
Genetically we are all from africa, but by stating science says there are no races (the definition we use to define the color of people).

Racialism and racism have overlaps, but I have learned it as Racialism acknowledges the existence of different races and certain traits (ie black people have dark skin and white people have white skin) and was widely used in the 19th century and early 20th century. Racism acknowledges additionally that certain races are superior to others. Upon research I found there is a lot of misinformation about the term and are used often as a synonim for each other and even there are different definition found on the internet. Hitler and Mussolini were racists in the sence that the white race was superior. The acknowledgement of these races and set in certain policy is indeed racialism, but it depends if superiority of a certain race if it is racist. Racialism is howevery very outdated in its definition and almost cant be distinguished from racism in the modern day.

However you cant deny the existance of the various anthropologic descent by using your eyes. I probably may have used it in english, because of the lack of a larger vocabulary, but generally I use white people, black people asian people etc. In my language we always ask someones ancestrary to define someones color.

From now on I will try to refrain from using the word "race" to define someones anthropologic descent. Not because it is politically correct, but because it is outdated use as a way to define traits of people with a certain ancestry.

But back to your question:
A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

 

[Danoff]

But back to your question:
A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

Oh man, that doesn't even begin to cut it.

So how long does the ancestry of the one on the right have to have lived in Europe to qualify her as white?

Skin tone is an expression of a combination of many genes (just like almost everything about you). What people tend to define as white or black has to do with a perceived fuzzy combination of skin tone with other genetic attributes like head shape and size, eye shape and size, mouth shape and size, hair qualities, and many other subtle combinations. There is no hard and fast rule for who is "white" and who is not.

Here's a white black kid. Good luck, I don't even know what I just said:

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh man, that doesn't even begin to cut it.

So how long does the ancestry of the one on the right have to have lived in Europe to qualify her as white?

Skin tone is an expression of a combination of many genes (just like almost everything about you). What people tend to define as white or black has to do with a perceived fuzzy combination of skin tone with other genetic attributes like head shape and size, eye shape and size, mouth shape and size, hair qualities, and many other subtle combinations. There is no hard and fast rule for who is "white" and who is not.

The one on the right is light skinned of asian descent and thus is Asian. Can you perhaps clarify the use of this picture?

I already emphasised the anthroplogic base to define ancestry.

 

[DDastardly00]

Perhaps I am wrong in your definition and viewpoint. But do remember that the word "race" can also be debated, before you even debate the definition of race. Races of animals are used to classify species/sub-species/breeds in biology. Races in humans are used in anthropology and genetics. You are probably mixing these 2 definitions up.
Genetically we are all from africa, but by stating science says there are no races (the definition we use to define the color of people).

Racialism and racism have overlaps, but I have learned it as Racialism acknowledges the existence of different races and certain traits (ie black people have dark skin and white people have white skin) and was widely used in the 19th century and early 20th century. Racism acknowledges additionally that certain races are superior to others. Upon research I found there is a lot of misinformation about the term and are used often as a synonim for each other and even there are different definition found on the internet. Hitler and Mussolini were racists in the sence that the white race was superior. The acknowledgement of these races and set in certain policy is indeed racialism, but it depends if superiority of a certain race if it is racist. Racialism is howevery very outdated in its definition and almost cant be distinguished from racism in the modern day.

However you cant deny the existance of the various anthropologic descent by using your eyes. I probably may have used it in english, because of the lack of a larger vocabulary, but generally I use white people, black people asian people etc. In my language we always ask someones ancestrary to define someones color.

From now on I will try to refrain from using the word "race" to define someones anthropologic descent. Not because it is politically correct, but because it is outdated use as a way to define traits of people with a certain ancestry.

But back to your question:
A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

Your English is fine, it's very good actually. Most people generally use those terms to categorize people but if you are a DNA/genetic research scientist then chances are you disagree with the basis behind these terms, take a moment to read the article I posted if you haven't already, it's quite fascinating and it contained some things I did not know, like, the roots of the gene mutation for lighter-colored skin originated in Asia and Africa not Europe.

I have to disagree with your definition that a White person is most likely of European ancestry because that gene mutation for lighter skin was prevalent in other geographic locations long before it made it's way to Europe. And as we learned from studying Cheddar man's DNA , the first Bretons were actually dark-skinned with blue eyes, which also refutes the claim that 'white people' are primarily of European decent. In reality at the genetic level we are a 99.9 alike on the inside, and labeling people into groups based on their genetic traits stems from the research of the father of scientific racism, Samuel Morton, who was the first to theorize that humans can be categorized into 5 different groups, which he theorized the Caucasian group as being the most superior. Today, thanks to modern science, we know that his theories were flat out incorrect and there is no factual truth behind them. his research formed the basis behind the racism we see today. In order for us to advance as a society, we need to move past these foolish labels. We are not White people, or Black, we are all members of the human race, and that's all that matters. We are not defined by one genetic trait out many.

 

[Danoff]

The one on the right is light skinned of asian descent and thus is Asian. Can you perhaps clarify the use of this picture?

I already emphasised the anthroplogic base to define ancestry.

How many generations of her ancestors must have lived in Europe for her to be of European descent? There is no such thing as descending from a region (I know this gets used all the time though), you descend from people. Presumably what is meant by European descent is that you descend from people who lived in Europe. So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?

Also, different parts of your genetic code have different ancestors. Your eye color or skin color does not trace the same way as your genetics for particular components of your cells or particular genetic diseases.

Your skin color will have a specific set of ancestors that is a different set than the length of your legs. If you're scratching your head at this just think about it this way... you did not get all of your genes from your mother. Some of your genes include your mother as an ancestor, and some of them do not.

 

[SagarisGTB]

I am not denying that privilege exists, but I think Socio-economic status and quite simply, the geographic locations of where people reside, whether they live in an affluent community or not would be more of the determining factors of whether an individual has access to more opportunities than others who live in poor areas. It is incredibly misguided, not to mention dangerous, to attempt to pin this on a race, which is really just a fictitious label.

Edit,

Racialism the belief that you can divide people into categories base on physical attributes, that is how it directly applies to this discussion. Hitler and Mussolini used racialism in horrible ways, there is dark history there. It's a flawed, potentially dangerous theory that we simply need to move on from.

The issue isn't the biological concept of race, which, as you say, has little legitimacy, but the social concept of race (the grouping of peoples based on certain combinations of phenotypes). Race being biologically a fictitious label did nothing to help the victims of apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow USA. The social construct that is race still exists and can absolutely be responsible for socio-economic privilege, as it was during apartheid and continues to be in large parts of the world.

I'd absolutely agree that it is something to move past, and I'd argue that we (as a species) slowly are, but there is a long way to go and as long as racialism and racism exist, racial privilege will continue to persist.

 

[DDastardly00]

The issue isn't the biological concept of race, which, as you say, has little legitimacy, but the social concept of race (the grouping of peoples based on certain combinations of phenotypes). Race being biologically a fictitious label did nothing to help the victims of apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow USA. The social construct that is race still exists and can absolutely be responsible for socio-economic privilege, as it was during apartheid and continues to be in large parts of the world.

I'd absolutely agree that it is something to move past, and I'd argue that we (as a species) slowly are, but there is a long way to go and as long as racialism and racism exist, racial privilege will continue to persist.

The perception that we are different based on appearance does exist and that's precisely what I'm drilling in here, that it's based on a falsehood and it needs to stop. The great news is that as Americans we have the ability to work hard and achieve success through that hard work, we do not live in a Caste system, and those opportunities are available to everyone who is willing to work for it, and it's not dependent on how light and dark your skin color is. We have things like Affirmative action, and Equal opportunity employment laws that insure those opportunities are there for everyone.

But sadly in regards to racism, I don't know anymore if we slowly are moving past this problem, I think we were for awhile there, but now we seem to be regressing backwards to the 1950's. What's wrong and what's different between then and now is the message has changed, people are listening to the wrong message and believing in falsehoods and hate, this goes for both sides too. We need a a message of unification and love more than anything right now. We don't need to be singling people out for their skin color, gender, age and so on and fomenting hate, lashing out at a invisible boogieman. What we need is something centered around these simply truths: we are more alike than we are different, we all have same basic needs and though we may have differences, we need to treat each other with kindness and respect. Right now we are not doing very much of that at all, the path we're on is a destructive one and unless we change course soon, more bad things are going to happen, things that should never happen. We are not doing a very great job of learning from history right now and we will be doomed to repeat it. What would Winston Churchill say to this if he were alive right now? I can guarantee he would have a stern admonition for us all.

 

[Danoff]

But sadly in regards to racism, I don't know anymore if we slowly are moving past this problem, I think we were for awhile there, but now we seem to be regressing backwards to the 1950's.

Just want to say that in 2008 53% of the US voting population (70 million people) voted for a black man to be president... and it happened again 4 years later. These people didn't just vote to have dinner with the guy, or to treat the guy with respect at the gas station... president. And not everyone that voted McCain or Romney in those elections was a racist either.

 

[DDastardly00]

Just want to say that in 2008 53% of the US voting population (70 million people) voted for a black man to be president... and it happened again 4 years later. These people didn't just vote to have dinner with the guy, or to treat the guy with respect at the gas station... president. And not everyone that voted McCain or Romney in those elections was a racist either.

This gets back to what I was saying a week ago about the loudest voices in the room (they get the most attention). I firmly believe most of us are somewhere in the middle and we're watching the hard left become even more unhinged, we are watching the rise of hate groups in the US on the right as well (because hate begets more hate, that is the way it works unfortunately). And there are numbers, stats and figures to back all of this up of course, but as loud as these voices are, they are still a minority. I am thankful for that. I think most people are good but we give the fringe more attention than it deserves. The middle of this country elected Obama and it was also that same middle that swung the election to Trump.

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh man, that doesn't even begin to cut it.

So how long does the ancestry of the one on the right have to have lived in Europe to qualify her as white?

Skin tone is an expression of a combination of many genes (just like almost everything about you). What people tend to define as white or black has to do with a perceived fuzzy combination of skin tone with other genetic attributes like head shape and size, eye shape and size, mouth shape and size, hair qualities, and many other subtle combinations. There is no hard and fast rule for who is "white" and who is not.

Here's a white black kid. Good luck, I don't even know what I just said:

An Albino is an anomoly. The kid is an albino person of african descent. What are you trying to disprove? You are focusing to much on the skin color. Its is the combination of ancestry and appearance.
There are also Albino animals zebra's, but you cant deny the claim zebra's are striped black and white.

Your English is fine, it's very good actually. Most people generally use those terms to categorize people but if you are a DNA/genetic research scientist then chances are you disagree with the basis behind these terms, take a moment to read the article I posted if you haven't already, it's quite fascinating and it contained some things I did not know, like, the roots of the gene mutation for lighter-colored skin originated in Asia and Africa not Europe.

I have to disagree with your definition that a White person is most likely of European ancestry because that gene mutation for lighter skin was prevalent in other geographic locations long before it made it's way to Europe. And as we learned from studying Cheddar man's DNA , the first Bretons were actually dark-skinned with blue eyes, which also refutes the claim that 'white people' are primarily of European decent. In reality at the genetic level we are a 99.9 alike on the inside, and labeling people into groups based on their genetic traits stems from the research of the father of scientific racism, Samuel Morton, who was the first to theorize that humans can be categorized into 5 different groups, which he theorized the Caucasian group as being the most superior. Today, thanks to modern science, we know that his theories were flat out incorrect and there is no factual truth behind them. his research formed the basis behind the racism we see today. In order for us to advance as a society, we need to move past these foolish labels. We are not White people, or Black, we are all members of the human race, and that's all that matters. We are not defined by one genetic trait out many.

Thank you. My main issue is that sometimes certain statements have another meaning in tone then in other languages and thus can be misunderstood. I am not a scholar on anthropology. But I do now we all have a common ancestor that orginated from africa. Anthropology is an evolving science so I am not claiming my statements are not up for debate. But we are speaking of definining peoples descent and colour in modern society. And you are absolutely right about the word "race" is not up to modern standards and should be updated in the modern vocabulary. There is only 1 human race.

How many generations of her ancestors must have lived in Europe for her to be of European descent? There is no such thing as descending from a region (I know this gets used all the time though), you descend from people. Presumably what is meant by European descent is that you descend from people who lived in Europe. So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?

Also, different parts of your genetic code have different ancestors. Your eye color or skin color does not trace the same way as your genetics for particular components of your cells or particular genetic diseases.

Your skin color will have a specific set of ancestors that is a different set than the length of your legs. If you're scratching your head at this just think about it this way... you did not get all of your genes from your mother. Some of your genes include your mother as an ancestor, and some of them do not.

From a technical genetic point of view you are probably right. But you should look into anthropology for the science of human behaviour, biology and societies. Generally speaking for example people with mixed heritage are called a person with X skin from irish, chinese etc. descent.

edit: added answer to @Danoff

 

[Danoff]

An Albino is an anomoly. The kid is an albino person of african descent.

Ok, so no white privilege then?

What are you trying to disprove? You are focusing to much on the skin color.

I'm proving that white skin isn't remotely cutting it when talking about race. Actually you were the one who focused on skin color:

But back to your question:
A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

Its is the combination of ancestry and appearance.

It's all appearance or it's not white privilege. Ancestry is not readily apparent at the restaurant where the racist wants to start throwing racial slurs. "Hang on, give me a blood sample before I start calling you names and chasing you with a cartoon pitch fork".

From a technical genetic point of view you are probably right. But you should look into anthropology for the science of human behaviour, biology and societies. Generally speaking for example people with mixed heritage are called a person with X skin from irish, chinese etc. descent.

edit: added answer to @Danoff

We're talking about people being treated differently based on their appearance are we not?

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, so no white privilege then?



I'm proving that white skin isn't remotely cutting it when talking about race. Actually you were the one who focused on skin color:







It's all appearance or it's not white privilege. Ancestry is not readily apparent at the restaurant where the racist wants to start throwing racial slurs. "Hang on, give me a blood sample before I start calling you names and chasing you with a cartoon pitch fork".




We're talking about people being treated differently based on their appearance are we not?

Please explain what you are trying to debate. I have no problem reacting, answer questions or explaining my statements, but I am a little lost here. Are you focusing on the definition here? You do understand the discussion shifted from "white privilege" to the definition of racism and racialism? The last few points I was pointed out by @DDastardly00 that the use of the word "race" is incorrect. I used it because it is used more often in english media. In my own language we dont even use the word race to define someones appearance and descent.

Racist slurres are more often then not coupled to ethnicity (an english word I forgot to use). But what does that have to do with white privilege?

Unlike you I am not focusing only on skin color. You posted a photo of an albino to somehow disprove a point. I stated that skincolor and heritage are all part to define someones anthropolic background. So while he is light skinned, it is because he doesnt have pigment. But that doesnt take away his african descent.

As stated the recent posts were not related to white privilege specifically.

 

[Famine]

Unlike you I am not focusing only on skin color. You posted a photo of an albino to somehow disprove a point. I stated that skincolor and heritage are all part to define someones anthropolic background. So while he is light skinned, it is because he doesnt have pigment. But that doesnt take away his african descent.

Try answering this and you might see the problem with your building:

How many generations of her ancestors must have lived in Europe for her to be of European descent? There is no such thing as descending from a region (I know this gets used all the time though), you descend from people. Presumably what is meant by European descent is that you descend from people who lived in Europe. So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?