Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Indeed, there was an idiot on here not so long ago denying that the father of Kamala Harris was a black dude.
I still don’t quite understand the latest American usage of ‘black’, or indeed ‘Black’
Does it mean anyone with any African ancestry? If so, that is probably all of us, so it is meaningless. Does it only go back to parents? What about a black grandparent?
Serious question. Careers can end if you get this wrong yet I’ve not seen a precise definition
Have you never heard of the one drop rule? People, however they look, have been discriminated against in the States if it was found that they had any African-American ancesrty whatsoever -
It's obviously not lawful anymore but the on-drop rule in Virginia was not declared unconstitutional until 1967 - that's only 14 years before she was born. Given that American history lumped all people with any African-American ancestry into the category "black" it's hardly surprising that that is how they tend to define themselves. Similar tired arguments over whether President Obama was black occurred - I think even on here during my lurker days. See, also, "passing" -
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Republicans should be 15-20% of the population. They are about 40-50% of active posters on here, if not more so, and that's across party.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
Only 43% of population think the country would be worse off if the monarchy was abolished.
You're the minority on here and the country.
That is completely different from outright republicanism. As you well know. That’s like quoting a Scottish sub-sample and you’d rightly take action
Deliciously ironic that Meghan's interview is aired the same day the trial starts of the US copper who killed George Floyd?
Jury selection starts - the case itself won't start until at least the 29th as it will take 3 weeks to select a Jury as both sides try to select people more likely to favour their side.
Reading the early comments by TSE and Charles re: The Monarchy, I find myself agreeing with both.
I'm a bit of a soft Republican. If there was no current system in place, I darned well wouldn't consider implementing a monarchy; but given we've got one and had one for more than a millenia with only a decade interuption, then I couldn't be bothered scrapping it.
However, I do agree that they should all bloody well count themselves lucky. Millions of pounds handed to them every year, simply for being born. There aren't many people in the whole world who have that sort of privilage and they really shouldn't try and 'hit back' if they feel someone slights them or their institution.
Republicans should be 15-20% of the population. They are about 40-50% of active posters on here, if not more so, and that's across party.
That says quite a lot about the types of people who post on here, quite frankly, and not much more - we're also weirdly interested in things like betting, voting reform, quantitative analysis and computer games.
Only 43% of population think the country would be worse off if the monarchy was abolished.
You're the minority on here and the country.
The problem is, what would go in its place. We'd have a superannuated ex-politician in post. It would be used as a bung to persuade a senior but useless Cabinet Minister to step aside. Gordon Brown would have probably been our last-but-one president.
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I think there's now a fair to middling chance that the roadmap will be liberalised, to some extent. There are some glaring anomalies with it already – the massive England vs Scotland football match at Wembley in Euro 2021 and Royal Ascot are scheduled less than a week before the restrictions are supposed to end! That cannot hold, and I expect a fudge at the very least whereby the government calls them 'test events' and thus allows full crowds.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
For the first time I am now officially a lockdown sceptic. Id be happy to accept limiting social life to the rule of six outdoors for another month or two, but stay at home orders and only meeting one other person are excessive in the current climate. They are not being followed or enforced anyway.
The trouble is, while-ever the rules are there, they are cause for the judgemental, authoritarian curtain-twitching we see on here daily. Look at the likes of Sandy Rentool – he spends most of his pixel allowance on PB calling those who dare to sidestep or bend a single rule "dickheads" and advocating punishments that wouldn't look out of place in totalitarian regimes.
It is better that rules, and laws, fit the reality, rather people just saying "oh it doesn't matter because they aren't really enforced".
Absolutely. Laws should be widely understood, accepted and enforced, bad ones that arent should be removed or changed. The continuous spew of new laws that are infrequently and incoherently enforced brings the law and govt into disrepute. This was a problem well before covid, but obviously covid has made the problem bigger.
Great post. People cannot be expected to follow the rule of law if they cannot reasonably be expected to easily figure out what the law is.
Tom Bingham put it as 'The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable'.
Constant confusion of laws on laws can make it hard.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
I had a suspicion it was one of those 'qualifying' words that actually serves to weaken the operative word, in this case 'experience'. An experience (eg. someone using a racist epithet) can be recorded and verified. A 'lived' experience need not conform to that standard of verification - it can be based on a feeling that the other person is wronging you in some way.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
I had a suspicion it was one of those 'qualifying' words that actually serves to weaken the operative word, in this case 'experience'. An experience (eg. someone using a racist epithet) can be recorded and verified. A 'lived' experience need not conform to that standard of verification - it can be based on a feeling that the other person is wronging you in some way.
See my post re clowns if you are having difficulty understanding the concept.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Never. It's such a very careful label. Yet it was religiously used for Meghan. That's what got me thinking along the lines of my original post.
From her Wikipedia page: Rachel Meghan Markle was born August 4, 1981, in Canoga Park, California, and identifies as being mixed-race.
You are effectively complaining that the UK press were scrupulous in following her wishes as to how she wanted to be described. Unusual side of the debate for you.
You're not getting my point. I'm postulating this was not the main or only reason for the diligence. And I'm in any case not complaining about anything. If I'm right that "we" were less ready for a black black Meghan than a white black Meghan, I don't find this shocking or wicked. I think racism runs deep here and is to be expected given our history and national story. What's important is to recognize this and continue to move away from it. Applies to other countries too, of course, but this is mine so it engages me more.
2 points from the interview shocked me.
That they were already married when they married - if that's true.
That Meghan was driven to suicidal thoughts - if that's true.
And for me the latter is the biggie. If that is true it lends credence to the view of the Royals as an outmoded, unsympathetic institution in collusion with our ghastly tabloids. If it isn't, it paints Meghan as at best a drama queen and at worst quite a bad person for lying about such a thing.
I've been avoiding the media to respect Harry and Meghan's wishes to avoid media intrusion
However whilst I never liked Meghan I found it offensive that she thought that people did not like her because they hold racist views - I just thought she was a loud mouthed American and still do.
I don't pretend to know who said what but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt - there is a fantastic episode of the podcast Hidden Brain called How they see us. It tells the story of Claude Steele a black Stanford psychology professor and hid work on stereotypes. What he has shown is that it is more taxing for an outsider / minority when trying to fit in, and any failures will be blamed on race, but it is also difficult for people who do not want to be portrayed as racist. Claude Steele talks about his empathy for white Police in America who are highly scrutinized all the time.
I highly recommend it and unlike some the comments I have skimmed over on here so really believe that for the vast majority of the time people are not racist, or trying to offend. I have met only one open racist in my whole life!
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
Take clowns. Don't bother me but apparently they scare the bejeezus out of many.
If one such person and I were walking down the street and there was a clown in the window of a house, one of us would be scared and the other would be untroubled.
Their lived experience would be of fear, mine not.
I don't doubt that Meghan felt the way she did was down to the causes she attributed, and therefore the emotions she experienced are sincere, but it doesn't mean I believe all that all those causes are true.
People are very adept at telling themselves stories which are often baseless.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
I had a suspicion it was one of those 'qualifying' words that actually serves to weaken the operative word, in this case 'experience'. An experience (eg. someone using a racist epithet) can be recorded and verified. A 'lived' experience need not conform to that standard of verification - it can be based on a feeling that the other person is wronging you in some way.
See my post re clowns if you are having difficulty understanding the concept.
I'm not having any difficulty understanding the concept - but thanks, I've now read your post, missed it before.
I am actually more than on board with peoples' experiences of the same thing being totally different - I think it goes even further, into the metaphysical, in the sense of people attracting experiences and evidences that reflect their belief systems.
However, central to this way of looking at the world is that it would be an entirely fruitless task to try and ease out all the kinks of what is, effectively, someone else's subjective view. We should all try to uplift others, and ensure if possible that everybody has the essentials of living. But beyond that, our happiness lies in our own hands.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I don't see it as sinister and neither is what I'm saying remotely woke. I think from what you've written here you are misinterpreting what I'm getting at.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Ridiculous over-interpretation, retro-fitting reality to satisfy your obsessions
The media don’t call her ‘black’ because she clearly isn’t black, to the average person (who may not be up to speed with the latest critical race theory). It’s like calling the Queen German, there’s an underlying half-truth but anyone that says this generally sounds mad or aggrieved
No retro about it. It struck me at the time. And you are not engaging with the point. I might be overthinking it (it happens) but you are not thinking about it at all. You should at least do that. If it's simply because she doesn't look very black, why is a similarly ruthless discipline of description not applied to others in public life of similar ethnic background and skin tone?
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
I had a suspicion it was one of those 'qualifying' words that actually serves to weaken the operative word, in this case 'experience'. An experience (eg. someone using a racist epithet) can be recorded and verified. A 'lived' experience need not conform to that standard of verification - it can be based on a feeling that the other person is wronging you in some way.
See my post re clowns if you are having difficulty understanding the concept.
I'm not having any difficulty understanding the concept - but thanks, I've now read your post, missed it before.
I am actually more than on board with peoples' experiences of the same thing being totally different - I think it goes even further, into the metaphysical, in the sense of people attracting experiences and evidences that reflect their belief systems.
However, central to this way of looking at the world is that it would be an entirely fruitless task to try and ease out all the kinks of what is, effectively, someone else's subjective view. We should all try to uplift others, and ensure if possible that everybody has the essentials of living. But beyond that, our happiness lies in our own hands.
Don't disagree at all. There is a (tenuous) analogy with art also - one man's 6-yr old can do it, is another's masterpiece
Probably best royals steer clear marrying Americans tbh. Doesn't tend to go very well. Harry's going to get gushing press when the inevitable divorce happens.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
Take clowns. Don't bother me but apparently they scare the bejeezus out of many.
If one such person and I were walking down the street and there was a clown in the window of a house, one of us would be scared and the other would be untroubled.
Their lived experience would be of fear, mine not.
I don't doubt that Meghan felt the way she did was down to the causes she attributed, and therefore the emotions she experienced are sincere, but it doesn't mean I believe all that all those causes are true.
People are very adept at telling themselves stories which are often baseless.
Again, while not commenting on the H&M thing at all - what is "true" is another minefield.
Being scared of clowns is imo baseless. Tell that to a - google - coulrophobic.
Fergie wasn't treated differently because of sexism of gingerism or whatever, it was because people didn't like her as much as Diana. Meghan is just a modern-day Fergie.
Doesn't 'experience' mean 'lived experience' - anyone help as to what the 'lived' prefix changes?
The phrase "lived experience" is used in reference to a "person of colour" describing their own life experiences.
It's on the basis that you'd never understand what it's like to live in their shoes so you shouldn't challenge what they say, but only accept it.
It's sometimes used to contrast with professional experience. So your experience of having had poor mental health, rather than your experience of being a professional in the field and treating others. Of course you may have both. In your example the qualifier seems otiose, though.
In that case, I would say in my personal experience.
Lived experience is a bit wokey and designed to avoid any challenge, rather than the benefit of the doubt.
It's a bit like the shibboleth that's "it's not the job of people of colour" to educate you on racism - read my book, and accept what I say, instead.
I wrote a thread header on this last year. I ignored it and spoke to a lot of black colleagues of mine instead, and learnt a lot through doing so, which was far more nuanced. And we even debated one or two points.
None of them objected and all were pleased I asked.
I had a suspicion it was one of those 'qualifying' words that actually serves to weaken the operative word, in this case 'experience'. An experience (eg. someone using a racist epithet) can be recorded and verified. A 'lived' experience need not conform to that standard of verification - it can be based on a feeling that the other person is wronging you in some way.
See my post re clowns if you are having difficulty understanding the concept.
I'm not having any difficulty understanding the concept - but thanks, I've now read your post, missed it before.
I am actually more than on board with peoples' experiences of the same thing being totally different - I think it goes even further, into the metaphysical, in the sense of people attracting experiences and evidences that reflect their belief systems.
However, central to this way of looking at the world is that it would be an entirely fruitless task to try and ease out all the kinks of what is, effectively, someone else's subjective view. We should all try to uplift others, and ensure if possible that everybody has the essentials of living. But beyond that, our happiness lies in our own hands.
Don't disagree at all. There is a (tenuous) analogy with art also - one man's 6-yr old can do it, is another's masterpiece
Yes - and politics. We all think the other person is just plain *wrong*, but what if people Guido commentors, and people who read the Morning Star, and Scottish Nationalists, and BNP supporters, are all being confirmed in their view, by life showing them the evidence each day that what they believe is true, is indeed true? Meaning all that they can do is shout across from their trench, to the other side, and wonder about all the crazies and how they JUST DON'T SEE IT.
That is why it's impossible to satisfy (as one example) the woke. A society where no racist comments are ever made again is unrealistic but achievable, even if you have to remove everyone's vocal chords to do it. A society where nobody 'lives the experience' of racism is not possible, because the experience is a subjective one, and we must apparently accept whenever someone feels they are living it.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I agree. It was only when Wendell "Bunky Bunk" Pierce rocked up a few seasons in as her Dad that I even gave a second thought to her race. Some people are determined to drag everything back to race in a way that I find rather sad and self defeating.
That she doesn't look very black is integral to the point I'm making. Her non-black-lookingness aided her acceptance as Harry's princess bride. Hence she was never called black in the way that other high profile people in other walks of life of similar ethnicity and looks often are. Acceptance of black black people in those areas running ahead of acceptance as a Princess at the heart of the British Royal Family.
Regardless of whether you agree or not - or even want to think about it or not - do you at least understand what I'm postulating and why?
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?
'"proper" black' are you fucking serious?
For the purposes of this discussion, yes. It was (importantly) in inverted commas and a perfectly ok way to express what I'm talking about.
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
I thought the lateral flow test gave more false negatives than the PCR test, but didn't give an appreciably larger number of false positives?
I suppose the issue is that number being tested is very large and (more importantly) you are testing people with no prior risk (symptoms or proximity to an existing case).
Does this matter though? I think the schools going back are more of an experiment - to see what happens - than anything else. There will be lots of lovely data to add to the models. There will then be a lot more confidence in taking any further steps.
Yes lateral flow has a higher false negative rate than PCR. But both seem have a false positive rate that would give 1 or 2 per 1000. Not an issue if you are only doing say 10,000 tests, but yesterday we reported 900,000 tests. However if you test positive and it is a false positive, testing again will almost always be negative (chance of two false positives would be 1 in 1,000,000. So I suspect in a lot of these cases, they will be asked to test again. A second (negative) test would strongly suggest the first was incorrect.
Which would be great if it wasn't policy that 1 positive test requires whole household isolation under force of law regardless of it being corrected by a 2nd test
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I don't see it as sinister and neither is what I'm saying remotely woke. I think from what you've written here you are misinterpreting what I'm getting at.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Ridiculous over-interpretation, retro-fitting reality to satisfy your obsessions
The media don’t call her ‘black’ because she clearly isn’t black, to the average person (who may not be up to speed with the latest critical race theory). It’s like calling the Queen German, there’s an underlying half-truth but anyone that says this generally sounds mad or aggrieved
No retro about it. It struck me at the time. And you are not engaging with the point. I might be overthinking it (it happens) but you are not thinking about it at all. You should at least do that. If it's simply because she doesn't look very black, why is a similarly ruthless discipline of description not applied to others in public life of similar ethnic background and skin tone?
Until barely 50 years ago, quite legally, in many states, anyone with "one drop" of African-American "blood" was considered to be black. You can't just consign that to history. The notorious decision in Plessy v Ferguson happened because Plessy, an "octoroon" (someone with 1/8 black ancestry) deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" train car accommodations for white and non-white passengers.
Upon being charged for boarding a "whites only" train car, Plessy's lawyers defended him by arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost at trial, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court, who only overturned it in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education. Virgina's "One drop" rule was only consigned to the dustbin in 1967, 15 years before Meghan was born. Those centuries of legal racist classification still resonate today in the States anyway
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?
'"proper" black' are you fucking serious?
For the purposes of this discussion, yes. It was (importantly) in inverted commas and a perfectly ok way to express what I'm talking about.
Your use of "black black" wasn't in inverted commas.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
There is an episode of Suits where Mike finds out who Rachel's dad is and is surprised and she comments about whether it is so hard to believe her dad is black and if he thinks she just has a year round tan (he makes a joke about not knowing about the dad being black, as he knew she was, he just didn't know she was that guy's daughter).
More seriously, there isn't consistency about whether someone is referred to as mixed race or not as far as I can see. Personal preference maybe? I think Kinabalu may be closer to the situation in respect of media here though.
Certainly race is not always obvious (which is yet another reason racism is so stupid, as if we needed another). I seem to recall a BBC piece from last year I think about a pair of siblings who were mixed race, one of whom looked more 'white' than the other, and how that affected how others had treated them at times.
Yes, I'm talking about the studied and delicate way that she was always "mixed race" when, for example, the legions of similarly mixed race footballers are very often "black".
For me, this is evidence of us being less comfortable with a black bride for Harry than we are with a black striker for England.
I could be overthinking it but I don't think I am. And I offer the thought as being potentially very fascinating. People can disagree but it should not be just written off unthinkingly as me being "woke". That would be disappointing and unworthy of a board such as this.
SHE SELF-IDENTIFIES AS ‘MIXED RACE’
If the media called her anything else you’d be jumping on them for that. Give up
Yes. As do others in public life who are not so carefully and always given the "mixed race" moniker. Why is that? This was - is - the question I find interesting and leads to the postulation I offer.
Again you fail to grasp the point. It's a pretty straightforward one and I've written it at least 6 different ways now.
So, yes, I do give up. Can you hear that exhausted sighing sound? That's me giving up.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?
'"proper" black' are you fucking serious?
For the purposes of this discussion, yes. It was (importantly) in inverted commas and a perfectly ok way to express what I'm talking about.
Your use of "black black" wasn't in inverted commas.
No, that didn't need it. It can be a minefield, all this, but I'm happy with how I've expressed myself in attempting to get this very good and interesting point of mine over. Not sure I've managed to do that with everyone, but you can only do your best.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I don't see it as sinister and neither is what I'm saying remotely woke. I think from what you've written here you are misinterpreting what I'm getting at.
I'll try and do it more clearly.
My sense (strong sense but no more) is that "we" - the country and the Royals - were ready for a mixed race and (as you say and crucially) not very black looking Princess and that was the boundary. We were not ready - or at least much less ready - for a proper, full on, black black Princess. Meghan was on the right side of the line. We didn't really think of her as black, and this was reflected in the very careful and delicate use of "mixed race" as her descriptor. Something one does not see with the similar example I quoted - all the mixed race footballers who are routinely called black despite looking as far from black black as Meghan. Picture Theo Walcott if it helps.
TLDR: We are comfortable with black footballers but not with a black Princess. The linguistics are a tell of this.
There is no read across from or to the Danny Baker episode.
Ridiculous over-interpretation, retro-fitting reality to satisfy your obsessions
The media don’t call her ‘black’ because she clearly isn’t black, to the average person (who may not be up to speed with the latest critical race theory). It’s like calling the Queen German, there’s an underlying half-truth but anyone that says this generally sounds mad or aggrieved
No retro about it. It struck me at the time. And you are not engaging with the point. I might be overthinking it (it happens) but you are not thinking about it at all. You should at least do that. If it's simply because she doesn't look very black, why is a similarly ruthless discipline of description not applied to others in public life of similar ethnic background and skin tone?
Until barely 50 years ago, quite legally, in many states, anyone with "one drop" of African-American "blood" was considered to be black. You can't just consign that to history. The notorious decision in Plessy v Ferguson happened because Plessy, an "octoroon" (someone with 1/8 black ancestry) deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" train car accommodations for white and non-white passengers.
Upon being charged for boarding a "whites only" train car, Plessy's lawyers defended him by arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost at trial, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court, who only overturned it in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education. Virgina's "One drop" rule was only consigned to the dustbin in 1967, 15 years before Meghan was born. Those centuries of legal racist classification still resonate today in the States anyway
It certainly can't be consigned to history. Nor be reduced to labels or just some territory to be fought over online for points in the War on Woke.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
It's obviously not lawful anymore but the on-drop rule in Virginia was not declared unconstitutional until 1967 - that's only 14 years before she was born. Given that American history lumped all people with any African-American ancestry into the category "black" it's hardly surprising that that is how they tend to define themselves. Similar tired arguments over whether President Obama was black occurred - I think even on here during my lurker days. See, also, "passing" -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)
I suggest you ban yourself for three days
You don't have to accept their taste in wallpaper.
*Cough*
Especially for any Metallica fans out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_UcjMusUA&t=954
Tom Bingham put it as 'The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable'.
Constant confusion of laws on laws can make it hard.
2 points from the interview shocked me.
That they were already married when they married - if that's true.
That Meghan was driven to suicidal thoughts - if that's true.
And for me the latter is the biggie. If that is true it lends credence to the view of the Royals as an outmoded, unsympathetic institution in collusion with our ghastly tabloids. If it isn't, it paints Meghan as at best a drama queen and at worst quite a bad person for lying about such a thing.
However whilst I never liked Meghan I found it offensive that she thought that people did not like her because they hold racist views - I just thought she was a loud mouthed American and still do.
I don't pretend to know who said what but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt -
there is a fantastic episode of the podcast Hidden Brain called How they see us. It tells the story of Claude Steele a black Stanford psychology professor and hid work on stereotypes. What he has shown is that it is more taxing for an outsider / minority when trying to fit in, and any failures will be blamed on race, but it is also difficult for people who do not want to be portrayed as racist. Claude Steele talks about his empathy for white Police in America who are highly scrutinized all the time.
I highly recommend it and unlike some the comments I have skimmed over on here so really believe that for the vast majority of the time people are not racist, or trying to offend. I have met only one open racist in my whole life!
I don't doubt that Meghan felt the way she did was down to the causes she attributed, and therefore the emotions she experienced are sincere, but it doesn't mean I believe all that all those causes are true.
People are very adept at telling themselves stories which are often baseless.
I am actually more than on board with peoples' experiences of the same thing being totally different - I think it goes even further, into the metaphysical, in the sense of people attracting experiences and evidences that reflect their belief systems.
However, central to this way of looking at the world is that it would be an entirely fruitless task to try and ease out all the kinks of what is, effectively, someone else's subjective view. We should all try to uplift others, and ensure if possible that everybody has the essentials of living. But beyond that, our happiness lies in our own hands.
Being scared of clowns is imo baseless. Tell that to a - google - coulrophobic.
That is why it's impossible to satisfy (as one example) the woke. A society where no racist comments are ever made again is unrealistic but achievable, even if you have to remove everyone's vocal chords to do it. A society where nobody 'lives the experience' of racism is not possible, because the experience is a subjective one, and we must apparently accept whenever someone feels they are living it.
Regardless of whether you agree or not - or even want to think about it or not - do you at least understand what I'm postulating and why?
Upon being charged for boarding a "whites only" train car, Plessy's lawyers defended him by arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost at trial, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court, who only overturned it in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education. Virgina's "One drop" rule was only consigned to the dustbin in 1967, 15 years before Meghan was born. Those centuries of legal racist classification still resonate today in the States anyway
Again you fail to grasp the point. It's a pretty straightforward one and I've written it at least 6 different ways now.
So, yes, I do give up. Can you hear that exhausted sighing sound? That's me giving up.