>It's not me making up the
>definitions. I think the problem
>with much of this discussion
>is people are making up
>their own definitions...stating that, for
>example, black is more than
>a race because of the
>nationalist overtones around the category...this
>of course casually overlooks the
>fact that "white" as a
>category has nationalist overtones as
>well.

This is a horrible summation of the things I've said. Even your example still demonstrates the fact that what lies behind what you claim are congruent ideologies is the matter of doctrine and in the case of "white" race ideology there is an detailed account of genetics or science that demonstrates that there is a genetic difference that makes blacks and whites mutually exclusive and furthermore that whites are more advancd genetically. Black ideology even if I was to agree that it signifies race (which i most certainly do not) still doesnt demonstrate the same demeaning properties that are professed by the ideology that substantiates the "white" race.

>None of these groupings
>are strictly biological, but they
>all have some biological basis
>(general groupings based upon skin
>color, hair texture, and facial
>structure).

But those groupings hold that "whites" have common origins and properties as all sorts of colored peple- as such to label them as White is not based on any group that science identifies.

you're argument still avoids addressing the fact that even if Hispanics and latinos are recognized as a racial group then why are Europeans NOT recognized in a lateral fashion- by their national origins or culture.

You must admit that it is incredibly suspicious that "whites" are obliged to be represented in a race category that race and social science (anthropology) do not validate.

All that you have left to defend is the right of European americans to misrepresent their origins and identity and admit that such policies have done a great deal of damage thus far.


you're tired spirit- nobody's making up their own definitions Im citing sources and even using the dictionaries YOU represent. they all point out at the very least a blatant incosistency but frequently pont race out as we know it as a blatant mischaracterization of science and human properties.

there is no defense nor any excuse for it


K