White supremacist discovers he is part black Craig Cobb, a white supremacist who wants to ban all blacks from a small North Dakotan town discovers that he has African ancestry
I’m guessing the black part is not his, ummmmm, manhood.
this is how psychopaths are made
The article doesn’t say he’s “part black”. It says that he’s 14% Sub-Saharan African.
Charlize Theron is 100% Sub-Saharan African. She’s from South Africa.
It might sound like I’m arguing semantics, but I feel like this article has some semantic points to it.
Surprised I’m the first one to reference Chappelle’s Show…
And all those Mexicans (and Colombians, Peruvians, Brazilians, etc.) are Americans, by the same logic.
You don’t need to be white to be a Neo Nazi or share KKK ideology. I imagine that a black Neo Nazi would just have some self loathing issues.
@Bchad - True, but I’m not sure what your point is.
The article makes a specific point of saying that the dude is 14% “Sub-Saharan African”, which is vague and somewhat nondescript. It does not say that he is 14% Black, or 14% Negroid (or whatever the scientific term is). I don’t believe that this is an accidental omission.
But I am glad that his proposed flag has a “discreet Swastika”. (You know, because a discreet one probably won’t ruffle any feathers.)
You were arguing semantics, and I was showing you that some semantic points are silly. There is a commonly understood meaning for sub-saharan african, which is “those parts of Africa which are neither predominantly white nor predominantly Arab”. To say that Charlize Theron is 100% sub-saharan African because she was born south of the Sahara in Africa is to stretch the meaning way out of its commonly-understood context.
There’s nothing that says you aren’t allowed to do that (just as we can say that everyone in the western hemisphere is an American), but it’s the sort of thing that even someone with a liberal arts education should be able to understand. (poking at liberal arts for fun here, not to insult anyone - I went to a liberal arts school too and think things like philosophy and history and language are important)
I was arguing semantics, and that was my point. The pendulum swings both ways.
If the article wasn’t being semantic (which they may or may not be), then my argument is invalid. But if they were being semantic (which I think is highly likely), then they’re being intellecutally dishonest.
But we don’t know if by saying “14% Sub-Saharan African” they mean “14% black”. They may mean something totally different and are semantically disguising it, and you fell for it.
(Similarly, I might tell somebody that I got my MBA from the University of Texas, omitting the “San Antonio” part. Does it really matter if it’s from UT-Austin or UT-San Antonio? UT is UT, right?)
Not exactly, because “American” means from the United States of America (as “Mexican” means from the United States of Mexico (los Estados Unidos Mexicanos)). They might be “Americans”, but they’re not Americans.
^ well if you wanted to go that far… technically Americans are only the native American people that had their land taken from the settlers.