| AfricaSpeaks | Howcomyoucom | RaceandHistory | RootsWomen | Trinicenter |
 |
 |
 |
| RELATED LINKS | COMMUNITY | REASONING FORUM | CHAT ROOM | ARCHIVES |
|
| Photo Gallery | About Us | Terms of Use | Register/Create a Profile |
Is blackness genetic or phenotypical?
Because if it has anything to do with genetics, Tiger Woods is NOT majority "black".
What is 'black' anyway?
Why should he have to go by a categorization BY WHITE PEOPLE that labels/appoints/approves others as black or not?
Doesn't conforming with and enforcing categorizations set for by them kind of comply with white supremacy?
Here we are labeling folks by the qualifications laid out by others.
Is "being black" a genetic description or a status of inferiority? Because by the tone of this article, it seems to suggest that Tiger is now affirmed to be 'black' now because of his tarnished/diminished social status.
If that is our acceptance of such terminology, what kind of message does it send to those who identify themselves as black?
Engrained inferiority perhaps?
 FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |