4 ms·

Would you say the same if someone questioned the original race of Sub Saharan Africans in distant history? If someone argued some were originally not Black and

Would you say the same if someone questioned the original race of Sub Saharan Africans in distant history? If someone argued some were originally not Black and so therefore the ancestral homelands of Afro-Black people are in question, would you say the same thing or is race only a social construct when trying to define the white race? That is certainly the way the logic seems to be but I think that cuts two ways. If race is a social construct then there isn't a Black nation, Black peoples, or anything ancestral to anyone who identifies as Black. Is that a stance you will defend? It seems like there is a clear definition of race for Black and Brown people but not for white people, often done so politically, and I think that bias is why people question whether the headlines of the GP article are valid and at present it does seem to be a stretch to call Cheddar Man "black".

danans 6y ago
> Would you say the same if someone questioned the original race of Sub Saharan Africans in distant history? Nobody is questioning the ancestral homeland of anyone. Just because some Scandanavians were dark skinned or had ancestors from outside Scandanavia - maybe even somewhere where people were mostly dark skinned - doesn't mean they weren't Scandanavian, unless you choose to believe that "Scandanavia" is a racial and not a geographic term. At some point in relatively recent history some European ethno-nationalists developed this concept of a "racial homeland" and unfortunately to this day that way of thinking holds appeal among some groups. All humans ultimately descend from hominids from more equatorial regions, and on the scale of hominid history we've only very recently left those regions. > If race is a social construct then there isn't a Black nation, Black peoples, or anything ancestral to anyone who identifies as Black. It's exactly the opposite, black identity exists precisely because race is a social construct, and furthermore is a powerful construct that has dictated the fates of untold millions throughout history.

danans 6y ago

> Would you say the same if someone questioned the original race of Sub Saharan Africans in distant history? Nobody is questioning the ancestral homeland of anyone. Just because some Scandanavians were dark skinned or had ancestors from outside Scandanavia - maybe even somewhere where people were mostly dark skinned - doesn't mean they weren't Scandanavian, unless you choose to believe that "Scandanavia" is a racial and not a geographic term. At some point in relatively recent history some European ethno-nationalists developed this concept of a "racial homeland" and unfortunately to this day that way of thinking holds appeal among some groups. All humans ultimately descend from hominids from more equatorial regions, and on the scale of hominid history we've only very recently left those regions. > If race is a social construct then there isn't a Black nation, Black peoples, or anything ancestral to anyone who identifies as Black. It's exactly the opposite, black identity exists precisely because race is a social construct, and furthermore is a powerful construct that has dictated the fates of untold millions throughout history.