> The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than

> The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks. So you want to essentially just exclude from blacks, like what, Sub-Saharan Africans? I don't know American demographics in detail, but I imagine that African Americans have to make up an overwhelming majority of the black population, so would that really make any difference? Or is it just another rebranding? Breaking things down to specific ethnic groups is surely useful in some cases, but is it really for everything? And I'm not sure what the point of that even is or what problem is it supposed to fix. It's still skin color, just a little bit more specific. I mean, you can be a white kid raised in the exact same environment as African Americans and that doesn't make you an African American in any stretch of imagination. I wouldn't mind being more specific about it, but I just don't get why replacing race with ethnic groups would change anything. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my impression is that you want to reject race just for historical reasons, but at the same time you want to keep ethnicities around, because you're still not crazy enough to take it to its full logical conclusion, go full Lysenkoism and deny genetics all together. Probably going to change in near future and this seemingly progressive idea will be considered as a serious thought crime, but hey, what do I know.