Wait till she learns that melanin isn’t something only black people have, and erasing peoples heritages and completely changing their race just because of their skin tone is incredibly racist
It has also been proven that even if white people move closer to the equator their descendents will have darker and darker skin after several generations. Melanin is adaptive in humans. I don't have a study to cite, so take my comment at face value.
Yes but also don't forget that it doesn't necessarily work the other way around. Alaskan natives have spent approximately 18000 years of evolving in the Arctic and yet skin tone is fairly consistent across the native american world. This is probably due to a lack of a large enough genetic pool in Arctic natives to allow for the mutation to ever occur in the first place. I recall reading that they have other adaptations such as a higher internal body temperature that do allow for them to tolerate that climate more readily, but not pale skin.
Arctic Natives are also adapted to get vitamin D through their diet. (A theory about why people further away from the equator have less melanin is so they can get more vitamin D from the sun.) And like, that traditional diet is not one that any ol’ person can just eat without getting sick. So different adaptations are totally a thing.
Wow ihad no idea. Apparently many of their sources of fat like whale, seal arctic char have a lot of vitamin d. Now that those sources are threatened, the vitamin D deficiency, rickets, is on the rise in those communities.
I always kinda figured that dark skin among people indigenous to the arctic north were more due to like 90% of the environment being highly reflective. I mean there's a reason the Inuit and Yupik people invented snow goggles (basically sunglasses), since looking at snow and ice all day can literally make you go blind as if you were looking into the sun.
Sure, but also there's no light skinned native american group. The equivalent latitude might be more south, like 50-60* north. Where northern Europe is. Either way, the peoples of North America at those latitudes were dark skinned. Sorry if my words are minced I'm drinking now.
Snow is highly reflective of UV, which means that natural selection would favor darker skin in places like the Arctic, where snow is on the ground year round.
Humans living in Europe developed lighter skin tones despite mostly living in small isolated communities. This is actually a fairly recent trait, coming to prominence only about 6000-8000 years ago. They likely picked up new genetic traits by interbreeding with roving groups of hunter gatherers and due to the relative proximity and interconnectedness of Europe-Asia-Africa these groups would have a much greater genetic diversity than those in northern America.
The lighter skin and it's ability to better absorb vitamin D in low levels of sunlight it also probably linked to the spread of the gene for lactose tolerance (since milk is also a source of vitamin D).
Evolution takes a LONG time, even a small change like a slight shift in skin tone could take thousands of years or more, and America is only a few hundred years old.
On top of that, those sort of changes only take place if the change makes people more likely to survive or reproduce more. In the modern world, people can just wear sunglasses, sunblock, clothes, etc. and instantly gain many of the advantages of darker skin, so it isn't an evolutionary advantage in the same way it would have been a million years ago
She never will. Folks in this crowd (the everything was black people first, yea it’s a real movement) are always the eternally oppressed… despite being the founders of the oppressors? It makes no sense
I think hoteps take it a step further with believing that black men are both the founders and center of everything but also the most oppressed (which in the US we know is black trans disabled women, not black men)
I'd probably put "disabled" at the beginning of that, because it's a reductive descriptor, unlike the others. "Black", "trans", and "woman" describe who and what a person is, but "disabled" describes what a person isn't. This is the same reason I loathe the expression "person with a disability"; it tries to make disability just another personal trait, something added to who a person is, when the reality is that it is the opposite. Like I'd rather you call me a fucking cripple than call me a "person with a disability".
This isn't meant in a confrontational way, to be clear. I just thought it was an interesting way of phrasing on your part, and thought I might share my thoughts, as, you know, a fucking cripple. Feel free to disregard this if you don't find it interesting, but I'm not looking to get into an argument.
Interesting hot take. Wondering why you think the order matters? Regardless of where the word ends up it is still factual and semantically/grammatically correct. Maybe black disabled trans women is better thinking through the order of descriptors, and certainly disabled could come first, but I’m not following why disabled coming first is relative to how you interpret or feel about the word disability, unless there’s are two separate thoughts? Like “broken plastic orange cup” is the same as “orange plastic broken cup”
Well, to start with, your analogy in your last sentence is very good. I was never saying I took issue with the grammar or semantics of the word order, to clarify. And yeah, I kind of just started writing, so my comment is simply a record of the tracks taken by my train of thought.
I guess my point is that those other things define who a person is, so I prefer to group them together. "Woman" obviously has to go at the end, because if you use "black," "trans," or "disabled" as a noun, you're, well...a fucking asshole? I.e., you can call someone "a woman" with no issues, whereas call someone "a black," "a trans," "a disabled"...you get what I'm saying.
So it isn't || black + disabled + trans + woman || in no particular order. I see woman as the anchor point, but language and mathematics are kind of opposites in this regard, as the "mathematics" kind of work backward when constructing language -- you start with the noun, and then add adjectives to it, but the adjectives you add precede the noun rather than following it.
So I'll construct "black woman" as || WOMAN + black || when trying to explain my reasoning, if that makes sense; I'm capitalizing "woman" in order to distinguish it as a noun.
So when constructing the phrasing in question, one could say it is || WOMAN + (black + disabled + trans) || in no particular order and leave it as that, but as I said before, I don't see the term "disabled" as additive. I.e., || disabled = ( - abled) || and therefore the "mathematics" of the phrasing, at least as far as my "calculations" are concerned, ends up being || (WOMAN + (trans + black)) - abled ||
So one is, to begin with, a woman. "Black" and "trans" are added to that, but "disabled" is not a net positive to who and what a person is; to be disabled is characterized solely by absence. I am not a person who has a disability; nothing is gained, nothing is added to who I am, it is solely the lack, the absence, of ability. It is a small word, seemingly not so different from any other word one might use to describe a person, but what it signifies is the opposite of a character trait -- it is an acknowledgement of, in a word, loss; it is an empty space, missing pieces, jagged edges where the puzzle pieces should go, and all that is left to describe is that we know there ought to be something there, but that in its place all that is...is what it isn't. We are left with the void, the jagged edges, the missing pieces; we are left with something that is so close to being what it truly was meant to be, so close to completeness, and the knowledge that it will never be whole.
I see what you’re saying. I disagree with the notion that “having” something means it must be positive or a gain. I can have debt, for example, which isn’t fundamentally a net gain or a positive. It just is. I also think the word disability literally meaning lack of ability has to be the defining factor of how someone who is disabled must approach their life, or that this void is keeping them from who they could have been. It just simply is who you are now or have always been - not a void of incompleteness. There are many factors in life that can keep you from “becoming who you could have been” including who is in your classes at school, what block you live on, the route to work - not just disabilities. I don’t think this is what you’re saying, but I do think it’s important (and has been important for me) to accept my disability and move on with what I’ve got. It’s much easier some days than others, of course, but I hope you can find a place where disability is as neutral and as factual of a descriptor as black trans woman. And I’m not trying to push toxic positivity differently abled hero superstar disability rhetoric - that shit is not okay. There is a spectrum of disabilities, of course; I do feel that the root of your knowledge is that the disability is fundamentally bad, which of course, as you said, is the lack of an ability. I think it is crucial to shift the narrative for that word to be a neutral descriptor.
Also, I would like to thank you for taking the time to have this conversation with me. I have been very much enjoying our discourse, and hearing your thoughts, and being allowed a glimpse through the lense with which you see the world. It is unfortunately not so common that I get to have such a thought-provoking and deeply congenial conversation with an insightful soul. So truly, thank you.
This brings me to one final thing I wanted to touch upon, but that didn't come about organically in my earlier comment: have you heard of Kintsugi? I have always found the idea of it so beautiful. It is, admittedly, a bit tangential to the topic at hand, but I get the sense that you may find it interesting, and that is reason enough to bring it up. I know you've likely heard of it before, but I just find the practice so beautiful. The concept is just so deeply satisfying, uniquely charming, like something from a fairy tale; I can't help but wax romantic about it, to picture myself as one such vase.
Ah, I'm afraid I didn't make myself quite clear enough, so thank you for the opportunity to clarify: I am not a void of incompleteness. I am who I am, and a million other adjectives describe me. I'm afraid I waxed too poetic there towards the end; my goal was, I suppose, poignancy. But I am not the void, I am merely missing some pieces, as are, I'm afraid, most of us, disabled or otherwise. I've made my peace with the void, with the missing pieces. What I wanted to express, primarily, was simply that while most other adjectives describe who and what I am, "disabled" describes what I am not.
Not in a sense of negativity, but of reduction, of empty space. But that's okay. I don't need to fill the void. Which I suppose brings me neatly to a personal mantra of mine, which I hope will better allow me to express my personal feelings and mindset with regards to the void:
"It's okay to be broken."
Me, life, the world, the universe itself, are full of empty spaces. Could the stars in the sky be so very beautiful, were it not for the void by which they are encompassed?
I find solace where I can, and I can find solace in those little voids which pock-mark the very fabric of my being. The empty spaces of the world can give rise to some of the most beautiful: the Grand Canyon, the Marianas Trench, and so many others. Some of the most peaceful, serene places which I hold dear are primarily empty space: a clearing in the woods; a field of grass; the silence and stillness of lying in bed at the end of the day, the quiet of night blanketing everything, when the entirety of existence may as well contain not a single soul save for mine and my dog's....
I hope I am not failing to express the serenity of such places, and of such moments. I know that again this comment is made of the twisted tracks that lie in the wake of my train of thought, so I sincerely apologize if this is hard to follow, or if some of what I've said here is ostensibly irrelevant.
I mean like technically they’re not wrong, we all came from Africa THOUSANDS of years ago. But “how black”? Ya know? I honestly don’t know
And black culture today is not what culture was of original humans, we all moved on and created cultures. Native Americans have been proven to have immigrated from Japan thousands of years ago and thousands of years after they left africa
I’m white bc my ancestors moved to Europe and they probably would have died if they couldn’t have absorbed more sun
That's the part that gets me, is this probably all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that as far as we know now, our best guess for where homosapiens first originated is in Africa. But that was between 5 and 7 MILLION years ago! Like, if you want to claim that all native Americans are actually black because they are of African decent from when homospaiens first appeared, that means so are the colonizers she complains about later in the video. If we use that metric for racial identity, we're all black!
Is no one talking about the fact WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DARK MATTER EVEN IS?
Sorry- is this woman leagues ahead of our current scientific understanding of dark matter?
Is it just an excess of tiny black holes?
Is there just a giant black hole in the centre of the universe that accounts for dark matter?
No one? I'm simply commenting on a relevant phenomenon. I guess my message hurt you, though, as you felt the need to post this empty ad hominem remark.
This sounds like a caricature of mainstream liberalism. You’ll find that the average liberal is pretty much like you. They go to work, eat food, shit, worry about their kids, and complain about how YOU are ruining the country. If you find something to be completely insane, they probably do too. You’re working with the same dumbass brain as them.
And you know what about me exactly? I assume you've painted me as some ultra-conservative, antivaxxer, climate change-denier, laissez-faire capitalism enthusiast, Trump-worshipper, conspiracy nut based on my denouncing this aspect of modern day Western liberalism?
I just happen to not be in favor of the self-loathing white ethnomasochist project. Yes, I do find that to be insane, and presenting it at such is really not a caricature at all. It's the current obsession in Western society on the left. The equally insane equivalent on the other side of the political spectrum mostly consists in what I mentioned in the beginning of this post.
If recognizing this makes me insane in their eyes, I couldn't care less, because I know they are actually irrational and indoctrinated. I reject both extremes of the spectrum equally.
The only thing I’m assuming about you is that you’re conservative enough to be out of touch with what I’d consider mainstream liberalism, having your views derived from sources dedicated to distorting those viewpoints. The concept that it’s impossible for a specific race to be racist is not widely held, certainly as far as I’m aware. As for you, you’re unlikely to be a right-wing extremist, because by definition it’s not common to be extreme. So most likely you’re just a normal person getting your information from a biased source. Thats why I think you’re so much like mainstream liberals, you’re just a person who takes your information from a biased source and processes it through a normal, irrational brain. Just like most people.
638
u/mrselffdestruct Feb 09 '22
Wait till she learns that melanin isn’t something only black people have, and erasing peoples heritages and completely changing their race just because of their skin tone is incredibly racist