People classify people racially not just by their skin coloring...
The next time I get stopped for being black while living, I’ll be sure to instruct the cop that he’s allowing his actions to be dictated by a social construct.
That’ll straighten him out.
Caucasian variety. Colour white, cheeks rosy; hair brown or chestnut-coloured . . . face
oval, straight, its parts moderately defined . . . To this first variety belong the inhabitants
of Europe . . . and those of Eastern Asia, as far as the river Obi, the Caspian Sea and the
Ganges; and lastly, those of Northern Africa.
Mongolian variety. Colour yellow; hair black, stiff, straight and scanty; head almost
square; face broad, at the same time flat and depressed . . . This variety comprehends the
remaining inhabitants of Asia . . . and the Finnish populations of the cold part of Europe,
the Lapps, &c. and the race of Esquimaux, so widely diffused over North America, from
Behring’s straits to the inhabited extremity of Greenland.
Ethiopian variety. Colour black; hair black and curly; head narrow, compressed at the
sides; forehead knotty, uneven . . . To this variety belong all the Africans, except those of
American variety. Copper-coloured; hair black, stiff, straight and scanty; forehead short .
. . This variety comprehends the inhabitants of America except the Esquimaux.
Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head
moderately narrowed . . . This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean,
together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda
Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula.
You express disdain at the absurdity of skin-color classification.
I say that dealing with race as if it’s an intellectual exercise is a luxury- a privilege, if you will - for only white people to indulge.
Harry and Meghan expressly said they were asked how dark they thought Archie was going to be.
I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
The late Queen's lady-in-waiting Lady Susan Hussey has apologised and resigned after she repeatedly asked a black British charity boss where she was from.
Ngozi Fulani, a charity founder, was questioned about her background at the charity event at the palace on Tuesday.
Ms Fulani, said she was "totally stunned" by Prince William's godmother's comments.
The palace described the comments as "unacceptable and deeply regrettable".
Ms Fulani was at the reception at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday representing the London-based charity Sistah Space, which supports women of African and Caribbean heritage across the UK who have faced domestic and sexual abuse.
Along with 300 guests, she had been invited to the event, where the Queen Consort, Camilla, had warned of a "global pandemic of violence against women".
But afterwards, Ms Fulani described on Twitter how the royal aide moved her hair aside to see her name badge, and then challenged her to explain where she was from.
In the post, Ms Fulani referred to the palace aide only as "Lady SH".
Ms Reid confirmed to the BBC the person who had made the remarks was Lady Susan Hussey, having seen her name badge. Neither Buckingham Palace nor the charity named her.
Ms Fulani recounted in detail how she said: "We're based in Hackney," to which the aide had replied: "No, what part of Africa are you from?"
She said: "I don't know, they didn't leave any records", and the palace aide responded: "Well you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?"
Ms Fulani went on to say: "Here, UK".
But she recalled how the questions continued, with Lady Sarah saying: "No, but what nationality are you?"
Ms Fulani said she had replied: "I am born here and am British."
"No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?"
Ms Fulani said on Twitter: "It was such a shock to me and the other two women that we were stunned [into] temporary silence."
Also part of the conversation was Ms Reid, leader of the Women's Equality Party.
She said that members of the Royal Household were circulating at the reception and making "chit chat" - but she said it became a "really unpleasant interaction", when despite Ms Fulani's replies there was an insistent questioning about her background.
Ms Reid said they were "stunned into silence" afterwards and says that Ms Fulani should receive an apology and those working for the palace should receive training.
An eyewitness to the conversation, Mandu Reid, told the BBC Lady Susan's questions had been "offensive, racist and unwelcoming".
She said she had a "sense of incredulity" about the exchange in which Ms Fulani was interrogated about where she was from, even though she had already explained she was born and lived in the UK.
In its statement, Buckingham Palace said: "We take this incident extremely seriously and have investigated immediately to establish the full details.
"In this instance, unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments have been made. We have reached out to Ngozi Fulani on this matter, and are inviting her to discuss all elements of her experience in person if she wishes.
"In the meantime, the individual concerned would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect. All members of the household are being reminded of the diversity and inclusivity policies which they are required to uphold at all times."
The Duchess of Sussex received "disgusting and very real" threats while a working royal, the outgoing Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner has said.
Neil Basu said he would understand if Meghan had felt "under threat all the time".
People have been prosecuted over the threats, he told Channel 4 News.
Prince Harry, who moved to California with Meghan in 2020, said last year he did not feel safe when visiting the UK.
The couple have often spoken about the abuse they received before they left and how it affected their mental health. As early as 2016, after the couple went public with their relationship, Prince Harry issued a statement attacking social media trolls for targeting Meghan.
Neil Basu - the former head of counter-terrorism policing in England - was speaking to Channel 4 News in his final interview as assistant commissioner.
"If you'd seen the stuff that was written and you were receiving it, the kind of rhetoric that's online, if you don't know what I know, you would feel under threat all of the time," he said.
When asked if there had been genuine threats to Meghan from the far-right, he added: "Absolutely.
"We had teams investigating it. People have been prosecuted for those threats."
He said he had previously spoken publicly about the threat of "extreme right-wing terrorism", saying it was the "fastest growing" threat that he dealt with.
"When I started in counter-terrorism in 2015, it was about 6% of our total workload. When I left 15, 16 months ago, it was over 20% of our workload."
Mr Basu, who is Britain's most senior officer of colour, was also in charge of royal protection.
He became an officer at the Met in 1992 before rising through the ranks and has been outspoken about race and policing over the years.
He added: "I speak about race because I know something about race because I'm a 54-year-old mixed-race man."
Mr Basu also criticised the government during his interview, saying he found "some of the commentary coming out of the Home Office inexplicable".
He had been asked about comments by Home Secretary Suella Braverman saying that it was her "dream" to see asylum seekers removed to Rwanda under the government's policy.
"It is unbelievable to hear a succession of very powerful politicians who look like this talking in language that my father would have remembered from 1968. It's horrific."
In response to his comments, a Home Office spokesman said: "The Home Secretary expects forces to take a zero tolerance approach to racism within their workplace.
"But the Home Secretary is also very clear about the need to manage our borders effectively and have an asylum system that works for those in genuine need, as are the British people."
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down as senior members of the Royal Family in 2020 to carve out their own path in the US.
After leaving the Royal Family, Meghan gave an Oprah interview in which she revealed she felt suicidal while a serving royal.
A Labour MP has accused the British press of monetising online hatred of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Rhondda MP Chris Bryant said newspapers had "filled their online sites" with "hateful Meghan Markle material".
"It is becoming their richest clickbait scene… it drives viewing and earns advertising income," he said.
He made the comments in a speech introduced by Hugh Grant at the annual Leveson Lecture held by press-reform group Hacked Off.
Mr Bryant said the monetary incentive was "why so many British opinion writers penned so much drivel about the couple".
"Not because the story matters. It doesn't. Not because the writers genuinely cares about it. They don't. But because it makes money," he said.
"That is not journalism. It's a perversion of journalism and it means, yet again, the press see people lives as commodities to be traded."
Mr Bryant said one of the main reasons for the prevalence of hatred in media coverage were social media algorithms, and the type of content they promote.
He said the algorithms "nudge people to political extremes, they promote division, and they pervert the truth by creating an incentive for untruth".
"Far from caring about the harmful impact of algorithms, social media companies and their allies/competitors in the press rely on them, I think, to make money," he added.
Mr Bryant said analysis by data firm Bot Sentinel showed just 83 Twitter accounts were responsible for 70% of the negative content targeted at the royal couple.
"To the innocent bystander it looks like the whole world hated Harry and Meghan, but this is not just normal, spontaneous or altruistic hatred.
"It is coordinated and deliberate, it uses social media recommender systems to amplify hated.
"Like clickbait, it uses hatred to entice people to follow a link to an article on another client web page where money is to be made. Which is how it knowingly monetises hatred."
The bit that interested me is in bold, it's incredible that such a small amount of accounts can have such a disproportionate effect.