Explaining why you have the definition you do does not eliminate all other definitions.
Obviously. And yet, in the year 2009, there is a common agreement on what the word “black” refers to, with no clarification needed as to South Asians, Pacific Islanders, and those of SSA descent.
It was NOT clear to ‘everyone here on this thread,’ Theosis, or I WOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED THE WAY THAT I DID. Ipso facto.
What is clear is that your reaction to the original poster that sparked this discussion was irrational, because, as I and others have already stated, when someone in the United States of America, in the year 2009, refers to a “black person”, my 11 year old brother would know that we’re referring to people that are racially related to us, and not our neighbor from Kerala, India, who happens to have darker skin than us.
I hate to break this to you, but "negroid’ is the medical and scientific terminology for that group of people. It is NOT an insult, any more than describing me as ‘celtic/norse’ or my inlaws as ‘hispanic’ or those from the far east as ‘asian’ is. The insulting form of the term has two "g"s, the “e” and “I” in different places, and no “o” or “d.” Just as the insulting term for MY race starts with an ‘h.’ There are valid medical reasons for keeping such a classification for groups of people; the one I belong to is more prone to gall bladder problems, skin cancer and other things: Native Americans are at risk for diabetes. People of negroid descent are at risk for high blood pressure and sickle cell anemia. I MARRIED a man of negroid descent, and gave birth to five more. It is simply a fact. Get over it.
Yes, I know all about the origins of the word “negroid”, and I’ve actually studied racial anthropology as a nerdy hobby. Words such as “negroid”, “mongoloid”, “caucasoid”, etc. have been highly criticized in that area in recent history, especially “negroid”/“negro”, hence the evolution of words used to describe people of ethnic SSA origin, in the scientific community and outside of it. I’m well aware of incidence and prevalence of diseases specific to racial groups (I have sickle cell trait), since I not only study human biology, but also work in a cardiac-telemetry unit (lots of obese diabetics with heart disease, a-fib, CHF, hypertension, etc)
And please don’t tell me to “get over” anything. You may be married to a “negroid” and have negroid children, but I am actually one, and find it very rude that you are telling me to get over my dislike for the word “negroid”. Other negroids may not agree, however that’s how I feel, and prefer the use of other words.
but it’s not accurate, since it historically DOES refer to anybody with a dark skin (especially when used derisively) is also inaccurate if you are going to claim that it applies only to people of ‘black’ African descent; there are many peoples whose skin is as dark, and sometimes darker, than those of that descent.
Dianaiad, I believe I’ve explained myself on this twice. I can agree that “black” historically can refer to anyone with dark skin,
however, what I am talking about at this moment is that, in the USA, in 2009, when someone is referring to “black people”, it is quite standard to believe that they are referring to “negroes”. This is the common usage of the term in the USA, which is why we don’t understand your criticism of the person who referred to the priesthood ban of “blacks” everywhere. I gave you numerous examples of the use of the word “black” today, and they all refer to the
same people. From the Genesis Group, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article titled “Blacks”, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, some demographic surveys, Black History Month, National Black Catholic Congress, to CNN’s “Black in America” program, to a host of others, they all refer to the same people. It may not be
historically accurate, I’ll grant you that, however it is the common term used today, in 2009, hence my whole reason for bringing up this side discussion. I was not concerned at all about the historical accuracy of the use of the term “black”, nor was I saying that the only valid definition is the one I am using. All I was concerned about was how it is used
today in common language, and that your outrage at the poster was unfounded due to its usage today, both within and outside of the “black community”, and that there was no need to assume deception on his part, since this is how we refer to my people today.
Obviously there IS such confusion. Why? BECAUSE I reacted in that manner. There is also such confusion because I, the Mormon, have been told over and over again the church banned the priesthood from anybody who didn’t have a lilly white skin, because we were prejudiced against the skin color…white supremicists, if you will.
Who knows why these people react in that way. The point is that if someone hears about a priesthood ban against blacks, if someone hears about Historically Black Colleges and Universities, if someone hears about Black History Month, if someone reads the main page of the LDS Genesis Group, if someone hears a criminal described as a black male, chances are they won’t be thinking that these things are referring to South Asians, South Pacific Islanders, etc, because that would be illogical in the common usage of the word in 2009. Being black, living in a majority black neighborhood, going to a majority white college, now working and going to grad school in the largest city in the country, I feel comfortable saying that most people today are referring to my people when using the word “black”, regardless of its historical accuracy. That’s really all I have been trying to get across.
It is a site run by a for-profit arm of the LDS church, so it’s “safe” for you to use.