Aielyn
No it doesn't:
racist
adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a) n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others syn: racialist
Categorised in the same way as "race", though you're too dim to notice that I guess
White skin
LOL. You failed miserably to do so for "Lebanese" and "Japanese".
So much for your ethnic "descriptors"
culture, nation of origin-ancestry. Also skin colour
That might be the single most incoherent definition given on usenet so far this year.
Please explain the difference between "relating people to labels" and "giving labels to people", especially as you yourself talk about the "binary" certainty of ethnic identification
White people, generally of european ancestry
Now, name the person that "Lebanese" relates to, given that you so completely failed to do so last time
Just like "caucasian"
So, you're happy to call someone "ethnically British" who's never been to britain and doesn't identify as British. Doesn't sound like a "description" to me.
Well, my grandmother was scottish, and my great-great-great grandfather was german. I've never been to either country, have no interest in them, I don't speak german, and I don't speak with a scottish accent.
yet, according to your increasingly confused logic, I am both ethnic German and ethnic scottish.
Great thinking.
Black, or african, depending on which terminology you like. Then he sliced himself and and turned plastic.
Calling someone "caucasian" is a pretty good description, as is "asian" or "chinese" or "black".
Yet your so-called "description" would describe me as German. Heh. You're the one in urgent need of some scientific clarification
Ethnicity doesn't exist either then: it's not backed up by science
Just like "race", which so far seems a much better "descriptor" than calling me German!
Non-sequitur
And I refer you to your logical idiocy that would see me described as "german" ("no doubt" you said)
See above.
Plus your lame attempts to define the "ethnicity" of "lebanese" and "japanese"
It's not very "descriptive" then, is it?
What if the "french" person is from Quebec, and considers himself canadian. Why if he grew up in New York and had never been to france but go the accent from his parents? According to your stupid theory, there is "no doubt" he is "French"
You just said there is "no doubt" that if you have british parents you are ethnically British. Now you're saying it's self-identification.
Do try to make up your mind
Heh, no you haven't
Maybe if you got your own ideas straight you might be able to present them properly
Culture, nation of origin, physical appearance, accent.
I just did do it.
Now, how about you actually work out what makes a person "ethncially British"
You must be a bozo then, because you can't even decide if self-idenbreasty or parentage makes you part of an ethnic group or not.
Your "descriptors" don't seem to be able to actuallly "describe" anything
But you said "ethnicity is a personal thing". So, a person who has british parents is "no doubt" ethnically British. Yet you also say if that person personally feels he's not British, then he's not British.
Quite a logical hole you've dug for yourself
Exactly: "race" and "ethnicity" are both constructs, so either both are "racist" or not. You can't have it bot ways
I have, and it's pretty obvious you need to, in order to decide what your own theory is.
It's your own conclusions I'm highlighting, and they're making you look rather foolish.
And how is "African American" as an "ethnicity" defined that "African American" as an "race" is not?
