San Lumen wrote:Ayytaly wrote:A lot of people here regarding race as "nothing more than mere pigment" and putting down claims of "race betrayal" must not be minorities or even descendants of indigenous peoples who got fucked by colonialism.
Say I want America to have its indigenous population to skyrocket. Is it bad that I'd encourage them to adopt a racial policy where they can maintain their autochthony, especially in these times where whites vote Republican just to fuck with them (see: Standing Rock, Dakota oil pipes, etc) and blacks are promoting their toxic cultural vulturism where they claim to be the "real" natives? Because clearly the awareness programs aren't working for them. In fact, both squatter demographics (WASP and Black) only seem to get along whenever the Redskins play, and would protest the decision of the Cleveland Indians retiring Chief Wahoo.
In a nation such as the US, the actual Americans are nothing more than a niche group, a minority amongst minorities, and highly vulnerable to the effects of multiculturalism obstentibly obscuring them. Ditto for the Aboriginals in Australia (cheers, Anglos!), the Berbers in Canary Islands (Gracías, Spain), the Irish (cheers, Anglos), and the Itelmen in Russia who were genocided by the Cossacks.
But nah, race is merely "skin tone".
Who cares about skin tone? Why does it matter who someone finds attractive, marries abs has children with?
Define actual American
Skin tone can be a factor that someone finds attractive or unattractive. For instance, lighter skin has historically been seen as attractive as it was associated with wealth. Personally, I’ve found myself more often than not attracted to individuals with skin tones that we’d consider dark. It ultimately doesn’t matter in the long run but if someone has that kind of preference, it’s fine.
Descended from Native American tribes, most likely. A silly definition and racist to boot.