|
>they have more in common with eachother than they do with >"africans" by in large. > >phenotypically, genetically, culturally, etc. > >you can deny it, but it is a valid statement.
they may have less in common with afrikans. they could be the same gotdamn blood with each other. it has no practical or real value.
there is still just as much diversity in culture, in thought, in resistance, in oppression. and this is what u delegitimize when YOU place in them one group.
why dont u provide examples of culture, social structure, famiily, class, race, etc (anything real and relevent to peoples lives) that are common across all these groups?
>shared poverty does not equal shared phenotype, nor shared >culture (or higher degree of similarity). the issue. > >being under the same foot, does not equal being the same >"trash" in a manner of speaking.
man, genotype of phenotype desnt mean shit unless u an academic, planning a holocaust, or just theorizing.
ARE you trying to do anything with this knowledge? or is peoples real oppresion irrelevent? are we trying to overturn this fucked up shit?
NOWHERE am i arguing that this or that group is the same or not the same. my father can be a monkey for all i care. PRACTICALLY, where are the differences?
there are differences, power and oppression, between: black, white, brown, yellow, red, etc rich and poor men and women
seems u have bought too much into european ideas of race/culture. in real life things dont get divided into neat little boxes. people gotta worry bout getting food to eat and place to sleep.
they should create a board on here called OkayAcademic.
|