Pioneer1

At one point during the recent Democratic Presidential Debate, Hilary Clinton said that lead levels in Cleveland Ohio actually tested higher than in Flint (still 5 times higher than what is considered normal) ! So what does that mean? It means that urban areas all over the nation are suffering from the effects of lead poisoning. Something tells me what we're hearing so far is just the TIP of the iceberg.

I have a few points to make on this topic that I'm sure many may not like but they must be said for the sake of our youth..... First, the fact is, some people ARE physically unattractive. It's an unfortunate fact, but a fact none the less. I'm not the MOST attractive person on the planet, so I'm not saying this to talk down on anyone else, but I believe in being honest with our youth. To tell them that they are the most beautiful person in the world when you KNOW they are not. is just setting them up for a life of disappointment and confusion. That's not love. Nor is it being kind. It's delayed cruelty. It's like telling a person who you know is on the slow side that they are smart and encouraging them to go to school to be a lawyer or scientist. If you love them, tell them the truth in a kind way to save them from further hurt and humiliation. Not that a less physically attractive person can't be successful in life, but they may not have the advantage in certain professions or personal relationships that a very attractive person may have automatically. Second, we know that not only is beauty in the eyes of the beholder, but the standards also change from time to time and from society to society. In this society White women have been hoisted up as the ideal standards of beauty and this concept has ruined the self esteem of most Black girls in the United States and all over the Western world. Especially dark skinned Black girls. Many have suffered psychological torture from society at large and much of it from other Black people for being dark skinned or having big noses or big lips and other African features that this society calls "ugly" or unattractive. Black girls, especially darker skinned girls with more "African" features should be portrayed in a more positive light. We saw this in the 60s and 70s and it had a tremendous effect on raising the self esteem of a lot of our people both male and female. Third, the poor diet of so many of our children DOES infact make many of them out of shape and grotesque with a terrible figure and terrible skin. I remember as a kid most Black boys were skinny with well defined muscles and six-packs. Most Black girls were on the heavy side, but still shapely with nice wide hips and a narrow waiste. Now when you go to a lot of inner city schools it's hard to tell the boys from the girls. Both of them are very obese at a young age with round puffy faces and no "shape" to their bodies to distiguish the boys from the girls. Some of the boys have breasts. Many have stretchmarks in their early teens, asthma, diabetes, and other health issues that go along with being overweight. I drive through White neighborhoods and it seems like ALL of them from young to old are out jogging with their shirts off showing off their six-packs! I'm thinking to myself.....ok, when did all of this running and jogging start??? Along with obseity, many of our youth have dry ashy skin, dry brittle hair with no luster, and other physical issues that are not seen among Blacks in other parts of the world. Something is actually happening to our children and I'm not sure if it's the result of the diet alone or perhaps medications that many are taking, but there is a NOTICABLE change in the physical and mental characteristics of Black youth today as compared to a couple generations ago. And with all this lead and other toxins they're finding in the water, there's no telling how that's contributing to the problems too. This shouldn't just be ignored or normalized. There is an effort on the part of some to encourage your young people to "embrace" these problems and be proud of themselves. But you shouldn't embrace a dysfunctional and unhealthy body, you have to recognize it as a PROBLEM and do something about it. Now with all that said, it's important that young Black boys and girls be properly EDUCATED as to what constitutes healthy Black physical characteristics (kinky hair, wide hips, wide nose, ect...) so they can distiguish this from unhealthy characteristics like dry brittle hair, obesity, dry flakey skin, ect....and DO SOMETHING to correct these faults like proper diet, exercise, using the correct make-up for their skin. Like Malcolm X said, I know some of you don't like my saying this. You want to hear people say EVERYBODY IS BEAUTIFUL. But we all know this is just not the case. I LOVE my young brothers and sisters too much to give them ear candy and tell them what they WANT to hear knowing that it will only set them up for a life of disappointment and failure.

I've mentioned before that because most AfroAmericans have White and Native American ancestry, even when we produce children with Whites the offspring still aren't exactly half because we aren't fully Black ourselves. Which is one of the reason a racially mixed WEB Dubois whom America called "Black" still came out looking more White than Black. Him and Vladimir Lenin look like they could be brothers...lol

Troy A good example would be: Abolition Slavery was primarily an economic institution in the South that not only exploited Blacks but there were White and Native Americans slaves as well. However not enough Whtie men were enslaved for the White population at large to take notice and see it for the evil it was. Since Blacks were the predominant victims of it, Abolutionists made the wise decision to not only make it a "human" or moral issue but a RACIAL issue with morality at the center of it. Now you're right, many White men are harassed and beat up by the cops too. But unlike the 60s where White males and females tended to protest everything, today in this post-Reagan era most White men have been taught not to complain about their problems. They have been taught that it's not manly, it's what women or "nigggers" do....playing the victim. They are taught to deal with their problems individually or to blame themselves. So because of this as well as the fact that the predominant victims of police abuse tend to be Black and Brown, even when a White man IS a victim he often times doesn't see himself as one. Far more White men are killed by police than White women, but when was the last time you saw a crowd with more White men than White women marching against police brutality? But I THINK I may understand the point you're trying to get across to me about labling everything with racial overtones, because it's one I grapple with from time to time. If I'm reading you correctly, your point is why is there such a need for Black people to lable things "Black" this or "Black" that when Whites aren't doing it. Why does it have to be BET, Whites don't have to call it WET they can call it NBC or ABC and do just as good? Why does it have to be a Black forum or Black magazine, we can't we just call it a magazine and let Black people and whoever come? Why does housing, crime, and other issues have to be about race...why can't they just be issue ALL citizens should be concerned about? Before I go any further with my explanation, am I correct in my understanding?

Studies link childhood lead exposure, violent crime June 6, 2015 9:31 am After growing up poor in a predominantly African-American neighborhood of Cincinnati, the young adults had reached their early 20s. One by one, they passed through an MRI machine that displayed their brains in sharp, cross-sectioned images. For those who had been exposed to lead as toddlers, even in small amounts, the scans revealed changes that were subtle, permanent and devastating. The toxic metal had robbed them of gray matter in the parts of the brain that enable people to pay attention, regulate emotions and control impulses. Lead also had scrambled the production of white matter that transmits signals between different parts of the brain, largely by mimicking calcium, an element that plays a critical role in brain development. Scars left by lead have had significant consequences for the study participants and their communities. As children, they struggled in school more than those who had not been exposed. As teens, they committed crimes more frequently, University of Cincinnati researchers reported Last month, a Tribune investigation found that lead hazards are festering in the same parts of Chicago that have given the city a national reputation for violence and academic failure. In impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods like Austin, Englewood and Lawndale, more than 80 percent of the children tested in 1995 had dangerous lead levels. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-lead-poisoning-science-met-20150605-story.html * Take a look at the DATE of this article, it was before the current lead crisis being exposed in Flint and other cities.

Troy You're looking at the negatives of racial classification, and there are many. However there are some important positive aspects of it. I've heard from many AfroLatinos from Latin American nations like Peru, Columbia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere where racism is rampant that one of the biggest problems they have is articulating their problems. See, in many Latin American nations "race" doesn't exist either. ALL people are considered "Latinos" despite how they look. Although they may recognize various shades, they don't recognize racial terms like Black or White. So when AfroLatinos become angry over the lack of "Black" representation in positions of authority, on the police force, in the media, ect....because race doesn't "exist", they don't know how to structure a complaint to bring it to attention. It's not until they get to the United States where the identities are more clear, that they find the language to articulate their frustration. So you see, it can work both ways....for bad and good.

Sara Joy Behar has "kinky" hair because despite her last named from being married to a Jewish man, she's actually of ITALIAN background. And most Italians in the United States are descended from Southern Italians who themselves have a lot of African and Arab ancestry. This is why so many have darker skin, kinky hair, big noses, and other features that may be considered "non-White". But still, her Caucasian features predominate. Joy is a WHITE WOMAN....nappy hair and all, lol. Which is why 85% of African-Americans are bi- and some of us, tri-racial. I would urge you to think about it this way -- mulattoes are always talking about they shouldn't have to "choose" one racial designation over another, that they shouldn't be asked to "deny" their mothers (usually). And yet, and yet, by appropriating the term bi-racial for themselves, they deny 85% of all African-Americans of THEIR "mixed" heritage! You make a great point. Especially acknowledging that most AfroAmericans have Native American ancestry. But I've addressed it several times already. This is where OPINION comes in, and my OPINION is if your Black ancestry predominates then you can be considered Black despite your background. It's the same for if your White ancestry predominates, you can call yourself White. We have to draw the line somewhere. I mean, if we are willing to go as far as to call ALL Black people with any White/Native Ancestry as non-Black, then we may as well go just as far the other way and grab ALL Italians, French, Greeks, Spaniards, Macedonians, and many other Europeans and stamp the label "non White" on their foreheads like Ash Wednesday as well for the Black and Arab ancestry most of them have.

Troy Nationality is a well defined technical term, no argument there. I think what you describe as Ethnicity is more accurately described as Culture. Throwing in the racial (physical appearance) aspect muddies the water. People can look very different and be part of the same culture. This is true. I actually started to say this, but decided to wait until later on in the conversation so as not to confuse people by adding too many possibilities inside the concept and risk confusing people. Ethnicity I think is probably the most confusion category because it involves and can exclude a large number of variables. But like you said, it's largely about culture. You have Jews who are White, and Jews who are Black. But you also have Jews who are atheist....so why are they still considered Jewish? AfroAmericans may look all kinds of ways, and may not even be Black. Hispanic is also a culture made up of different races, and many Hispanics can barely speak Spanish. As far as Race is concerned, I know what you are saying and would have agreed with you in the past. However, a few years ago I began stopping myself from thinking of humans in terms of racial categories. The term were devised to put us at the bottom, and only serve to perpetuate stereotypes. Upon further contemplation I can not think of a single good reason to continue using the concept of race, so I don't unless I'm communicating with someone who only understands the world in those terms. Well, brother T-Roy...YOU may not look at things from a racial lense....but trust me the POLICE still do. Law enforcement agencies are very aware of the concept of race in America and they are quick to label a suspect as "Black male" or "Hispanic male" or "Middle Eastern". They have no problem using these terms when they call other officers, and those officers responding seem to show little confusion in their understanding, LOL. My point is, race is a reality in America whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The "AA" in this site's acronym stands for African American, is that not a term with racial connotations? Our best bet as AfroAmericans is to start defining ourselves instead of sitting back and allowing others to do so.....because they WILL do so if we neglect our duty to define ourselves. If we stopped looking at things in terms of race, how would we be able to justify any claims of "racism"? Cynique I remember reading books where the Native Americans were considere Mongoloids like the Chinese and Koreans. I can see reasoning in this when I look at the so-called Eskimos of Alaska, but when I look at the darker skinned Mayan and Aztecs who look NOTHING like Koreans or Japanese...it makes sense that they should be in their own category. I actually think that a lot of Mongoloids actually came overhere thousands of years ago by way of the Bering Strait and intermixed with the Natives as they old theory goes, which is why a lot of Inuit people have an "Asian" appearance and it probably led to that erroneous classification. But those genes didn't trickle down to the rest of the Native American population of the Americas.

Race Race is based strictly on physical characteristics and genes. African , Caucasian, Native American, ect.....(there are other races) Ethnicity Ethnic grouping involves SOME race, but for the most part it involves shared history, religion, diet, language, social customs, ect..... AfroAmerican, Jewish, Arab, ect.... Nationality Nationality is basically what nation you were born in or in some cases depending on the laws, what country your parents were born in. Canadian (born in Canada), French (born in France), Nigerian (born in Nigeria)..... I'd personally put "tribes" in this category. Hausa, Fulani, Aztec, Choctaw, Cherokee, Zulu, Flemish, Scottish, ect.....because these tribes were all "nations" with their own lands at one point. It's important that AfroAmericans know the difference between these categories so that we aren't manipulated or tricked into believing that we have made more progress than we actually have.

Troy If I understand your logic regarding "race," then virtually all so called Black people in America would be Afro-American. Exactly. I personally use the term "AfroAmerican" to distinguish us from African immigrants who become Americans and would more properly be called "African-American". But extending your reasoning so would most white people. Not really. Because AfroAmerican is an ETHNIC GROUP. Ethnicity is more complicated than race, it involves ancestry, language, food, social customs, ect... Which is why Rachel Dolezal wouldn't be considered even AfroAmerican no matter how much she tried to adopt our culture. She doesn't have ancestry. 　 If most so called "afro-americans" have some white ancestry, why would they not be "mixed race" too? This is true, and many are. I wouldn't consider Beyonce Black, I'd consider her an AfroAmerican of mixed ancestry. I wouldn't consider Will Smith Black, I'd consider him an AfroAmerican of mixed ancestry. Now to you and I.....both these figures are BLACK. We've grown up with people who look like them that called themselves Black and was accepted as Black, but to a Nigerian or Congolese who comes over to the United States and looks at them they would CLEARLY see the White in them. Which is why a lot of Africans see "Black" Americans as not entirely their people. But for most, despite the mix the African ancestry in AfroAmericans predominates and in my OPINION puts most of them over on the Black side. For me, race is largely determined by which part of your ancestry predominates. Like most AfroAmericans, I also have White and Native American ancestry...but the African ancestry predominates and so I consider myself Black. 　 　 What racial bucket would Walter White go in, mIxed race or Afro-American, or is he both? Ethnically Walter would be considered an AfroAmerican because not only did he have African lineage but he also IDENTIFIED with that African lineage and socialized as an AfroAmerican. But racially speaking, Walter White is a WHITE MAN. He's not even "mixed". I don't care if his mother was Blacker than Wesley Snipes, HE is White because his White ancestry clearly predominates.

Sara Race IS actually in part based on phenotype Webster: Race def. 3-c.... a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits Webster: Phenotype def..... the observable properties of an organism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race Phenotype is basically a person's physical characteristics and that's what race is primarily based on. Again, it doesn't matter what we've been TAUGHT to believe in America regarding genetics, your race is primarily how you LOOK. Troy And therein lies one of the major problems with "Race." When one person looks at Maya they see a white woman, another sees a Black woman, and Maya can see herself as something else entirely. I personally see her as mixed race but if she decided to call herself Caucasian I wouldn't argue with her about it. Go downtown or right on over to Jersey and you'll find a thousand Italian women who look JUST LIKE Maya with probably just as much Black ancestry....yet they'll be classified as White. Cynique At this point it might also be pertinent to remind that for centuries, the "either/or" dilemma was resolved by simplying referring to bi-racial people as MULATTOS! This is a label that was routinely used on CENSUS forms. I personally don't have a problem with the term "Mulatto". It's accurate. More accurate than just calling everybody "Black" when they obviously aren't.

Flint resident wonders if lead caused her miscarriage http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/health/water-crisis-flint-michigan/index.html "My son has been going to the same school for two years. Last year he was suspended one time. This year I have paperwork he has been suspended 56 times," Wakes said. "I thought it was just the school and all that, and then I started noticing his behavior at home with just me and my daughter. I started noticing a change in my daughter's behavior. They're getting more aggressive." Suspended 56 times!!!

Maya is neither a Black woman NOR a White woman but a bi-racial woman with predominantly WHITE features from her White father Richard Rudolph: And let's not forget. Minnie was an AfroAmerican, descendant of slaves which means she probably wasn't 100% African herself and probably had White ancestry too making her slightly mixed. Which would explain why Maya's White genes predominate and make her look almost White. 　 my mind wins out - no matter her "phenotype," Maya is NOT white But racial classification IS BASED on phenotype, not just genes. Determining the race of another is not always simple, or accurate. Sometimes you have to "ask" the person 'what race are you'? In apartheid South Africa, Minnie would be of the black "race" and Maya would be of the Colored "race." In Brazil, mother and daughter would be of different races, as well. The one drop rule is alive and well in America, so they are both black. The white Powers That Be decide what race ALL of us are, thus it is as Troy said: Race is a man-made construct. Race is nor more "man made" than a person's sex. Just as the difference between MALES and FEMALES exist as a matter of fact regardless as to what mistakes have been made in their classification....the differences between RACES have existed as a matter of fact. They are visually self evident and need very little interpretation. White people don't decide race a person is. They have just historically decided upon which system would be used to classify them. Again, I don't support the "one drop" nonsense. It has little influence over the decisions I make regarding a person's race. I use the eyes and brain God gave me to make those decisions.

　 Troy Bro you must be a mind-reader because I was JUST ABOUT to bring up Rachel Dolezal as an example of how a White person can easily fool others into thinking they're Black as long as we hold on to this silly "one drop" garbage. She was able to come among Black people and get a prominent position because she knew the love and respect so many of our people pathologically have for Whites or those who LOOK the closest to White. And she also knew how easy it was for anyone to just CALL themselves "Black" regardless as to how they look and have that claim automatically accepted. My words can't be divisive because I didn't create the division. The division was already there. I just exposed it for what it is. Many very light skinned people would have passed for White if they could, and many did. Many mixed people RELUCTANTLY accepted being called "Black" because White America historically didn't give them a choice until recently. As far as bi-racial people are concerned. I consider them neither White nor Black. They are BI-RACIAL...a mixture of both races. No society gets to determine a person's race, just like society doesn't get to determine where a person is male or female. Nature has done that already. Mixed people are MIXED PEOPLE despite what society classifies them as. Since one of Walter's Grandparents was and enslaved Black woman, which by the rule of the day and Pioneer's definition make him "Black." Actually, my view is the opposite. I'm not sure if I made it clear enough but I'm saying simply having a Black ancestor IS NOT enough to make one "Black". I consider them AfroAmerican...but NOT BLACK. AfroAmerican is an ethnicity and has more to do with culture. But Blacks a RACIAL term and is about phenotype. If simply having a Black ancestor....an African gene..was enough to make one Black then most Italians, Greeks, and Arabs would be considered Black. Cynique As light-skinned Blacks used to respond to anyone who questioned their authenticity back in the 60s and 70s: "blackness is a state of mind". Whatever. To me, there was a certain vibe I picked up from the fair-skinned people I encountered who chose to identify themselves as black. They seemed secretly pleased by how much their choice surprised and impressed darker blacks. It didn't stop in the 70s, that attitude still prevails TODAY in many circles. A lot of very light skinned AfroAmericans love being around other Black people because they are often treated like royalty. As if it's an honor for them to "come down" and be with the common folk. I'm not very dark, nor very light but am "brown skinned" but I have friends of all shades and I've dated women of all shades. Some light skinned women would openly diss darker ones around me and make fun of their complexion. I've noticed for year that many lighter skinned AfroAmericans....especially those who grew up in the Black community....enjoy the attention they often get from Black people who may see them as more attractive and smarter. So this is another reason why I don't call ALL AfroAmericans "Black". Not only don't we all share the same racial traits, but many very light AfroAmericans haven't had the difficult social experiences that most truly Black people have had in this society.

Troy Pioneer you realize there is no way to identify someone as Black based upon their genes. So sentences like the one below are confusing: "But the fact is, many of our people (AfroAmericans and AfroLatinos) are NOT actually Black (genetically speaking), despite having African ancestry." If an enslaved African has a son child with a native American is the child Black or Native American? If that son (1/2 Black 1/2 Indian) goes on to have a another son with a white woman is that child Black? If that son, the enslaved African's grandson has a son with a white woman, is that son Black? Now this son, as you can image probably looks 100% white, but if you tested his DNA his y chromosome would point directly balck the his African great grandfather Perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology. What I'm saying is, just because a person may be an AfroAmerican (American WITH African ancestry even if it's only a small amount) or an AfroLatino (Latino WITH African ancestry even if only a small amount), they still may not necessarily be BLACK racially speaking. For me atleast, a person's African ancestry has to be predominant to consider them Black. Which is why I don't call President Obama "Black", but I do call him AfroAmerican. So in keeping with the analogy you gave..... The answer to the first question is NO. They are mixed..... "Zambo" I believe is the old term used to be for a bi-racial child of African and Native American parentage. And that pretty much answers your next 2 questions, lol. A person doesn't get to call themselves "Black" just because they have a Black ancestor because according to modern science EVERYONE'S ancestors were Black evolving out of Africa, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. I know what I'm saying may SEEM divisive. I know some may say this type of thinking may keep our people separated like Willie Lynch. However the fact is, it's absolutely necessary that we begin thinking along these lines because the very survival of Black people may depend on it. If we allow ANY and EVERYONE to call themselves Black, pretty soon you'll have blonde haired blue eyed people running around calling themselves Black and pointing to some distant relative to justify it. Meanwhile you'll be searching hard to find ACTUAL Black people whom they've replaced.

CD If you noticed, I didn't necessarily say young people had to join the MILITARY after highschool. Everyone isn't cut out for military duty. There are a lot of people who should not only never learn how to use a gun, but they shouldn't even come NEAR one because they'll end up hurting themselves before anyone else. However, they CAN and SHOULD perform some sort of National Service such as fighting forest fires, cleaning up trash, performing medical services, ect.... But the main thing is to get them out of the comforts of their homes and away from mommy and daddy and teach them discipline, responsibility, and self reliance as well as how to work with people of different backgrounds. I see it as a "great equalizer" of sorts. In a nation so large that values individualism and people have the right to choose where they live, too often people tend to grow up in isolated communities and by human nature don't want to leave unless someone MAKES them. There needs to be some sort of institution that FORCES people to live and work together for a certain period of time in order to achieve and maintain some sort of sense of unity in America or else the people will eventually turn on eachother. My views on the role of women in society is constantly changing. For such a long time, I didn't think women should even be in the military....just like I didn't think homosexuals should be in the military. Now I think BOTH should be allowed in the military and the focus should be the individual rather than the group and the criteria should be who can produce the best RESULTS regardless. However the officers should use a lot of common sense when putting different groups together. You can't expect to put a bunch of healthy young men and women together under ANY condition and not expect that some sexual activity may go on. Nor can you just recklessly put gay men in the same squad with straight men and then be suprised that fights start breaking out in the shower room because nature takes it's course...lol.

Congradulations! It's hard to believe ANY website today is 19 years old. Who knew the internet would be as big of a deal as it is today? Starting a website way back then was forward visionary thinking.

This is just another example of the error Black Americans make by holding on to that "one drop" rule. Zoe is an AfroLatina of Dominican and Puerto Rican lineage, but clearly her Caucasian and/or Native American genes are just as strong as her African genes. Despite this, she still apparently considers herself Black. Which in a way is about time because for decades AfroAmericans have been badgering and begging AfroLatinos to embrace their African ancestry and call themselves "Black". But the fact is, many of our people (AfroAmericans and AfroLatinos) are NOT actually Black (genetically speaking), despite having African ancestry. And while they may not have any malicious intent by insisting that mixed people are Black...infact most likey see it as a way to unite our people........still, this type of confusion can lead to many problems. This one involving a mixed race actress who is CONSIDERED "Black" being given the role of a truly Black woman to play and having to wear make up to do it and "pass" is just ONE example. Other examples are the tricks that many media and advertising agencies use by purposely picking AfroAmericans who look nearly White (but are still considered Black) and putting them in prominent positions so that the IMAGE remains White, but they can avoid charges of racism by pointing out that they have a "Black".

Troy Right, Seeing the blonde hair whipping around with all the darker girls behind dancing kind of made mockery of the entire movement and sent subtle messages of White leadership even in a Black movement. And I also take issue with her Formation video because too may clips were flashed by with very little or no context behind them. Much of her audience had no idea what it means to see a woman on top of a car with flood waters all around and how it related to Katrina, nor do they have any idea of what message some guy in shades and a bowtie holding a paper is trying to convey besides showing MLK's picture. How many people outside of the 'hood have seen the brothers selling beanpies and Final Calls to even know what that scene means??? When you take into account that most of her audience is under 25 AND it's a world wide audience with limited access to the 24 hour news cycles that we in America are priviledged to get....... She's flashing all of these images to an audience who are either too young AND/OR too uneducated about the stories behind these images to firmly grasp whatever message she's trying to send. But it's not just her. It's the same with MOST of these entertainers who try to make political statements that either miss the mark or go right over the head of the audience. I blame it on the fact that most entertainers...being artists...tend to be more RIGHT-brained and because of this may not know how to communicate a serious message as effectively as a politician or political activist might. Sara Actually, as much as I use the terms "Black" and "White" for race, I actually PREFER using the terms "African" and "Caucasian" because i see them as more accurate. Now for the pictures you displayed and the question you asked....... With one exception, ALL of those pictured above appear to be, and indeed ARE Caucasians by race. It doesn't matter what their "ancestry" is.... THEY/THEMSELVES are for all intents and purposes WHITE. The only exception is Mindy Kaling, who is an East Indian of Dravidian ancestry. The only reason her and East Indians are classified as White/Caucasian is because of the Aryans who invaded Northern India centuries ago and now predominate in that area. They infact ARE Caucasians, but most of the people of India....especially those in the South are members of the indigenous population that dwelt in that region before the Aryan invasion and those people were as Black as any African but had different hair and facial features. I know under the U.S. racial system Indians are considered White. And so are Arabs...even the Black ones from Sudan. And some are pushing for certain Asians to be called White. Who cares? I could care less about some man-made "classification system" that is ever changing based on the whims and desires of those incharge with the purpose of manipulating the public and keeping them in a constant state of confusion. God blessed me with eyes and a brain to decide for myself how to interpret what I see.

I've heard the very same thing from most people who've been in the military. That it's not about race, class, or sex...it's about PERFORMANCE. The military is the insitution where most racial barriers are broken down permanently because human beings are reduced to the same level during basic training and then built back up into a new mentality where everyone acts as a unit. The military is the place where the White supremist mindset is often destroyed because it's usually the first place a White person is taken from their priviledged environment and placed in the same environment as Blacks and Browns and begins to realize that humans are humans regardless as to what he's been taught all his life growing up. This, I believe is why so many Black people tend to do good in the military and it's also why you find so many Blacks and Latinos in the armed forces out of proportion than you find them in general society. It's one of the few institutions in this nation that the playing field is some what level. The rules are clear. The expectations are clear. And the results are self evident. I hope I don't sound like a hypocrite for saying this because I didn't serve in the military, however I personally believe that ALL young people should be required to be apart of some national service program after highschool for a few years just to instill the discipline and teach them the skills of life that they may not necessarily get from home or in school.

Troy The fact that race is an artificial construct does not mean there are no differences between humans. Lol..... And I may also add that the fact that something is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. Right now I'm sitting infront of a bowl of ARTIFICIAL fruit on my coffee table. And it's just as "real" as the real thing.....if you know what I mean. 　 Pioneer would you provide a definition of the word "race." I ask because you are using it as if it you are quite clear what it means. If would help if I knew what definition you are working from and were you pulled it from--Thanks I'm using the Oxford on-line dictionary's definition of the word: RACE http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/race#nav2 There are several definitions available, but I'm using the word in reference to THIS definition: "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics" It is difficult to judge what Beyonce looks like, given the makeup and fake hair. But now that you juxtapose the two images. It seems like they were shooting for the "Shakira look" for Bey. It's for this reason why I didn't feel too much "spirit" in her Super Bowl performance in recognition of the Black Panthers. I mean...it's good and brave to make a political statement. But when you KEEP your hair dyed blonde (it's not just an occassional thing, she stays blonde) you're sending an even deeper message to young Black girls that is stronger than any choreographed leather and lace show you may have performed for a ball game. To see a some blonde woman dancing and slinging her hair around in the middle of a crowd of leathered up Black Panther-ettes (notice no men were in the group) is just the type of cream in the coffee that weakens it's effect and makes it almost a mockery of the real movement.

Troy Sure all three people pictured here have different phenotypes, but generically they are virtually identical. So much so that there may be more genetic similarities between two people of different "races" than there are of two people of the same race. The reason why people of seemingly "different races" may have more features in common than many of those of the same race is probably because they AREN'T of a different race. They are mostly likely of the SAME race....or almost. But because they come from different cultures they may have been CLASSIFIED as being of different races. The definitions of what constitutes a particular RACE or ethnicity is very fluid and tends to change from time to time and from region to region. Take these two world famous performers Beyonce and the singer Shakira: They not only look to be of the same race, they almost look the same...lol....to me. Yet they are said to be of two separate "races", Black and Caucasian respectively. However when we understand that Beyonce is not fully Black and like most AfroAmericans surely has a large if not dominant amount of Caucasian ancestry, she may technically be MORE CAUCASIAN than Black. Then it begins to makes sense. It's not the fact that races simply don't exist. It's that most people around the world are CONFUSED about the definition of race and what consitutes a person being of a particular race, and because of that confusion they simply abandon the entire idea. But scientist KNOW that racial differences do exist. They know some groups of people are more likely to be lactose intolerant, others are more likely to suffer from alcoholism, and yet others are more likely to get cystic fibrosis...all based on racial genetics. The key to harmony is not ignoring the differnences and pretending that they don't exist, the key is to not place value on one above the other....which is what White supremacy does.

Troy Pioneer, any African that would fail to embrace an African-American as his Brother is simply a victim of the same colonial mindset we are. Pan-Africanism is better than the fractured, powerless, state we are in today. "Pan worldism" would serve humanity better, but I'm happy to go one step at a time. Oh, the middle east, is clearly on the African continent. Mesopotamia, Egypt, the birth place of Christ, and the Great Pyramids are all in north east Africa. As I said in my previous post, PART of the Middle East is in Africa, but if you look at Iran and Turkey which is also considered part of the Middle East....these nations are clearly not within the boundaries of the African continent. When I was younger and running around Detroit, most of my political interactions were with Black Nationalists who CONSIDERED themselves "Pan Africanists" because they had a glorified view of Africa.....and so did I. But as I began to travel more and run into REAL Africans from the continent the more I realized how LESS we actually have in common with eachother not only culturally but even mentally. We are all of African DESCEN...sho 'nuff. And ofcourse the same snake of White supremacy that bit them in the form of colonialsism bit our people too in the form of slavery. However being African is more than just genes or sharing a common ancestry. I also began to realize it was a mindset....HUGELY VARIANT BETWEEN ONE NATION AND THE NEXT as Cynique and Mel have pointed out...that most AfroAmericans don't seem to share with most continental Africans. Because of this, even when we TRY to unite with them....the cultural diffrences are too vast and often don't permit it. Usually one has to give in and submit to the other's culture. I believe there is strong hope for a type of PanAfrican unity, but it's going to take a lot of patience and careful planning and both groups will have to be conditioned into a receptive mindset. Sara Africa was black for millions of years before Arabs arrived in the 7th century A.D. Egypt had been a wholly black nation and world power for over 5,000 years before the first Arab set foot on African soil. Yes, yes..I understand. But we're not JUST talking about Africa. When you talk about the Bible you're talking about parts of Europe (letters to Greeks) as well as parts of Asia (Shinar, Palestine, Media, Persia, ect...) The Middle East is a term coined in 1901. Until that century, nobody talked about the Middle East because neither the term nor the states in the region existed. The TERM "middle east" may not have existed, but the REGION has been there since atleast Biblical times. Persia was no more a part of Africa THEN than it is NOW.

Troy Funny Mel, your attitude about Men who can't make it in America, is the same one I held about White men who can't make it in America--I had no concern and little sympathy for their predicament. Then I traveled the country and saw whole swaths of the nation covered in white poverty. They are not covered in media, but they exist. Then I also realized when we pit men and against women, white against Black, we lose track of the cause of our problems, and we fail to work together to fix them. 　 No wonder folks are embracing Donald Trump for president. Folks are desperate. I used to feel sorry for poor Whites who were victims of the same system that oppressed Blacks, Latinos, women, and other oppressed groups. But the more interactions I began to have with them....even those who were homeless....the more that sympathy began to give way to confusion. If you go to the Midwest and South as you have....you'll see entire communities of White people living in trailer parks, living in tents out in the woods, on welfare, sick and comtemplating suicide, and suffering from other social ills. But the confusing part is like you said, they'll STILL VOTE FOR TRUMP.. Much like their daddies STILL VOTED FOR RONALD REAGAN. Despite the fact that both these men were clearly part of the same system that keeps f*cking them over. Remember the Reagan Democrats? Even when you point out to poor whites the condition they're in and why they should unite with others in the same predicament they STILL refuse to vote Democrat. Many people don't understand why poor Whites continue to vote against their own interests, but once you understand racism and how it operates...... Once you realize that the average White man would rather suffer the humiliation of POVERTY AND DESTITUTION than see his daughter go to school with and date little Black boys... You begin to understand why. It's not the ECONOMIC POLICY of Conservatives like Trump and Reagan that poor Whites find attractive, it's the SOCIAL POLICY. Mel Yes! We have to toss this caste system that is presently operating in the U.S. I recently read that money was set up as a means of exchange for goods and value - not something to accumulate and hoard.. Our current social & economic system, however, makes it easy for people to monopolize at the expense of ourselves. Well, I'll tell you something that you probably already know....sexism is rampant ALL OVER the world. It may be more overt in some areas than in others but atleast society is making an atempt to solve the problem of sexual inequality in the West...in many Eastern and Latin American nations the sexism is overt and relentless. I think people of African descent, especially us in the Americas must come up with our own unique systems to battle the inequalities that exist not only in our respective nations but also among us as a people.

To claim that races do not exist because we all come from a similar origin is like saying there is no difference between men and women because both came from the womb of a woman and started out as fetuses. One's origins may INFLUENCE a similar state of being between progeny but doesn't mean the progeny remains the same. We may all be of one human SPECIES but the fact is just like most house cats are of the same species but of different breeds...humans are of the same species but of different breeds (races). Now look at these pictures: Are any of you willing....BRAVE ENOUGH...to tell me that the differences between these women are just a fabrication or some "social construct"?