I'm familiar with the narritive.
So based on something that's based on assumptions. Never mind.
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
I'm familiar with the narritive.
Are you also familiar with the long history of allegations against the St. Louis police department, not only from citizens, but even from black officers?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/national-blac ... d=68611060article from 2020 inlk below wrote:One of the nation's largest black police organizations is throwing its support behind a St. Louis law enforcement watchdog group that's accused the city's police department of fostering systematic racism.
The 9,000-member National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers released a statement praising the St. Louis Ethical Society of Police for calling out instances of alleged racism in the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, including blacks being passed over for promotions or being assaulted by white officers.
The Ethical Society of Police, created in 1972 to combat racism in the department, also voiced support for embattled St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who filed a lawsuit this month against the city and its police union alleging a coordinated, racist conspiracy to drive her from office.[...]
Properly freed now:BaronVerde wrote: ↑Mon, 29. Mar 21, 12:18A, ok, so not yet floating on its own and able to get out of the way.
Yeah... try familiarizing yourself with history, instead.
Well, no, not exactly. In the US, 76% of the population is white, 13% is black. The term "minority", in this case, means anything below 50%. The way population trends are going, whites are going to become a minority race in the US in 20-30 years, though will still be the largest demographic for some time still.BrasatoAlBarolo wrote: ↑Tue, 30. Mar 21, 09:01Population in the US is so mixed compared to most western countries I'm impressed by how big racism is there. It means a very large portion of the population is composed by bad people or easily mind-controlled people (or both). Calling "blacks" a minority (edit: I mean, a numerical minority) in the US is just a lie, from my point of view.
It's strictly a count of persons based on race. It's not a definition of worth or social class or anything else. Yes, they number in the millions but blacks do not account for more than 50% of the population. The same as republicans in both the senate and house are the minority, or that women are the majority and men are the minority in the US, and pretty much everywhere else.BrasatoAlBarolo wrote: ↑Tue, 30. Mar 21, 10:3213% isn't the definition of a minority, imho. Yes, it's a small number, but it's not so small. It's something like 40 million humans.
But, I guess, they're a much larger economical minority, and that's what really counts these days, apprently.
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ
Maybe collecting census data is racist in itself. I know there was some light discussion on this point some time back. Regardless if it is or isn't, whether you want to call the identifier 'race', 'ethnicity', 'skin color', or whatever else, without the data points, there can be no proof of systemic racial inequalities without knowing the demographics of the people involved. To that point, I say it does far more good than harm when things like an all white jury is 17% more likely to convict a black man than a white man accused of the same crime, but that disparity disappears when at least one juror is black, are on the table.BaronVerde wrote: ↑Tue, 30. Mar 21, 13:12'Race' is not a scientifc term, even in general biology it is just an informal expression of traits valid only in a context. In a human context it just manipulative and divisive.
Skincolour is very variable in all animal kingdom and among all species, for humans there is no black/white dichotomy, all shades in between exist (it is a huuuuge gene pool), and no statistics can be derived from that, doing so or using the term 'race' to distinguish a group of people from others bears the danger of 'racism' with all that is attached to it, division, discrimination, hate, mass-murder and genocide.
American language (and thus the search engine bubble) still uses the term 'race' just like other rudiments of a 'racist' society, in other languages (thinking of German and Spanish) it has been purged or is frowned upon and not being used in anthropologically relevant publications.
Yeah, trying to steer people (nobody specifically, I mean) away from sith thinking
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ
I thought I saw something about humans being around a lot longer, like back in the Pangea time period. There's certainly a lot of land animals that exist on multiple continents that predated known human interaction. It would stand to reason that the earliest evolution of humanity could have seen similar migration patterns. Would make sense if they were following food sources and got separated by continents before Pangea split apart.BaronVerde wrote: ↑Tue, 30. Mar 21, 15:09It is still not quite clear how and when humans reached the Americas back in the day. Bering strait, sea level low stand, ice cover, or from Oceania and Melanesia ?
That's true, that's when it started to break apart and took many millions of years to fully separate. I just have a vague recollection of an article I read that some evidence uncovered suggested humans were around a lot longer than previously estimated. Anyway, just offering it as a potential explanation. If I had a time machine, I'd go back and take a picture so we could all know for certain =p
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ
It might be that you mean Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern humans (AMH), whose dates have recently (oh, it's already 4 years back ) been pushed back by 100,000 years to ~300,000 years BP. The site is Jebel Irhoud.
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ
And spare no expense !
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ
It very well could be. That's not something I actively follow. Just something that caught my eye once upon a time.BaronVerde wrote: ↑Tue, 30. Mar 21, 16:39It might be that you mean Homo sapiens, or anatomically modern humans (AMH), whose dates have recently (oh, it's already 4 years back ) been pushed back by 100,000 years to ~300,000 years BP. The site is Jebel Irhoud.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335
Code: Select all
/l、
゙(゚、 。 7
l、゙ ~ヽ /
じしf_, )ノ