LOL
I teach. I don't dictate. Please feel free to adhere to whichever version suits you. We have some like you in India as well; they are currently in the process of informing us that Hindus had invented planes, nuclear devices, plastic surgery sufficiently advanced to exchange an elephant's head for a human's, and so on. So after those rapes, your little sexual impropriety is quite bearable.
Neither history nor anthropology deals with colour, in the way this thread has. Let me give you a link, which you - barely - might find useful. I am sceptical, but, hey, why not just try?
Bolstered by some nationalist and ethnocentric values and achievements of choice, this concept of racial superiority evolved to distinguish from other cultures, that were considered inferior or impure. This emphasis on culture corresponds to the modern mainstream definition of racism: "Racism does not originate from the existence of 'races'. It creates them through a process of social division into categories: anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic, cultural, religious differences."[66]
This definition explicitly ignores the biological concept of race, still subject to scientific debate. In the words ofDavid C. Rowe "A racial concept, although sometimes in the guise of another name, will remain in use in biology and in other fields because scientists, as well as lay persons, are fascinated by human diversity, some of which is captured by race."[67]
Until recently, this racist abuse of physical anthropology has been politically exploited. Apart from being unscientific, racial prejudice became subject to international legislation. For instance, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1963, address racial prejudice explicitly next to discrimination for reasons of race, colour or ethnic origin (Article I).[68]
Happy New Year.
Lol uncle, relax. I don't see a single post here which implies racism. Racism is making derogatory remarks about individual based only on their colour or race. I didn't see anyone doing that. Saying an African American is black skinned and a White American is white skinned is not racism. It's a fact.
And equating me with those rapists and hindutva extremists is totally uncalled for. I still don't see in which post I implied racism. Saying that an Awan is lighter skinned and more "caucasoid" looking than a kammi(a.k.a miscellaneous/serf tribes) is not racism. It's reality, which can't be denied. And if these statements imply racism, than don't blame me, blame the people who take on fake surnames. If a gypsy tribe is claiming a Pashtun origin, then their bluff needs to be exposed right?