No, I am being fully serious.I think you know full well what I mean. And I might lean toward thinking that you are being somewhat contentious.,
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, contentious or really just don't understand...
An African, by blood is going to be varying shades of Black. Poles, Italians, English, Germans, by blood, are going to be White. Asians will have epicanthic folds. We are taking ancestry/bloodline, not nationality. Yes, if I were born and raised on Chinese soil, I would be Chinese by nationality, but not by ancestry.
I think this just isn't true, though. There are Africans who have been in Africa for generations - centuries even - who consider themselves African but have mainly European, or Middle Eastern, blood and appearance and would say that their ancestry is African. No, they're not the majority, but they do exist. And there are plenty of Italians who are not white. And there are different types of people in Asia.
If we're going by the "bloodline" argument, then we should assume that Australians and New Zealanders are Black, since that is what their aboriginal people are, and whites are only Australian by nationality.... Americans and Canadians are aboriginal. And Italians were not traditionally considered white and many have significant Arab and African bloodlines. There have been people of colour in Europe for generations. Britain has had Blacks since way back at the beginning of the slave trade. Are they not English enough still after generations and generations? What about Romany people who have been in Europe a long time but trace their ancestry to India? Don't they have Romany people in Poland? What about some of the Sephardic Jews in Europe with Semitic backgrounds? Or those descended from the Moors in Spain?
Also, when people say Black, they don't necessarily mean African. While the way we use it here implies African ancestry, people may use it while thinking primarily of Caribbean or Latin culture, too. And in the UK, Black also included South Asians until recently and still does for some people.
I don't think race is as clear-cut as that.
I think you said earlier your background is Belizean, so to me at least, Belize-Poland or Black-white go together, but Black-Poland don't, and I personally would find that more confusing for a child, but that's just me.
And the use of the term Black in the description of my daughter's ancestry refers to African. We all know that.
I don't get what the question is here?
Oh, and if you ask a White person what they are, they aren't going to say White. They are going to tell you their ancestry... We've had threads here that proved that point. The converse for many Blacks is unfortunately, not always an option. So, we instead point to a whole continent, since many are unable to point to a specific country. These things are general knowledge now, come on.
If using my China example, if I went around telling people I'm Chinese, you don't think people would be asking, "But, no, what are you really? What is your ancestry/bloodline?" Come on.
I don't know what you look like. But the book Return to the Middle Kingdom, by Yan-Tsung Chen, is about my great-uncle and his family. They are described as follows below. If you read it, you'd assume they are what people normally expect a Chinese person to look like. But in fact, Eugene's mother was Black and Eugene married a woman who was mostly Black, and pictures of Jack show him with dark skin and kinky hair. But he considered himself Chinese, lived and grew up in China, spoke Chinese fluently, married a Chinese woman, was involved in Chinese politics. He was Chinese and also Black.
People have trouble with many aspects of other peoples' identities or assume people from certain countries look a particular way, but it doesn't make it the truth, and it doesn't make it ridiculous to say who you are if that is who you are. Isn't that the point of this thread - the right to self-identification? Why should my cousin Jack have had to say he was multiracial or Black or whatever if he felt he was Chinese?
In the spirit of the classic Wild Swans comes this epic tale spanning three generations and three separate revolutions. Mixing biography and history into a single ambitious story, Yuan-Tsung Chen views China’s rebirth in modern times from the perspective of her late husband’s family.
Ah Chen, a landless peasant, fought in the Taiping Rebellion against the Manchu court in 1850-64. But when Western powers helped crush the uprising, Chen was forced to flee to Trinidad as an indentured servant. Decades later, his son Eugene rose from poverty to become Trinidad’s first Chinese lawyer before moving to London, where he met Sun Yat-sen and became his close aide. Inspired by Sun, Eugene returned to China and led the 1911 revolution that overthrew its last dynasty.
Finally, Eugene’s son Jack—the author’s late husband—used his artistic and journalistic talents to illustrate and explain the Chinese Marxist Revolution to the outside world. When Jack (whose first language was not Chinese) was seized by the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, his wife Yuan-tsung was forced to serve as his translator during interrogations. Ordered to write a confession—“Go back three generations to see what crimes your family has committed against the revolution!”—Jack and Yuan-tsung began to piece together the family’s dramatic history.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali
Last edited by Amneris; 08-07-2009 at 11:00 AM.