Why does being a certain race obligate you to date people of that race?

Question

Like someone who doesn't usually date people of their own race is considered "self-hating".

Thats the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. So if I don't want to date people with a penis because I have a penis myself.. is that self-hating too?

I date women who I click with and race is not a factor. I don't feel that being hispanic or black or white obligates you to date and associate with those people just because they are the same race. I don't persue or turn away anyone because of race.

If you disagree please explain why...

Answer 1

What? What country do you live in?

Answer 2

I dont feel obligated to date strictly my own race, but I think people are usually attracted to those who look and act like the people they were raised by. I think environment and brainwashing are factors of people who date only outside of their race.

For ex., if a blk man dates only wht women, I dont believe its b/c he hates himself. I think he's bought into the stereotypes of his own culture and is now turned off by his fellow blk women or has been raised completely around whites and does not know how to approach blk women. I think its cool if someone dates different races b/c then they're just an open minded person who's looking for compatibility. I am a blk woman who likes to date someone that has things in common with me, which is usually other blks. I love everything about brothas from the way they talk, dress, and carry themselves. I usually dont need to look elsewhere...for me being with a blk man is like being at home!

Answer 3

I know what you mean. I only race on foot, but I usually like to race with cars. So, unless the distance is very short, giving me enough time to cross the line before they can get the RPMs up, I usually lose. So people often call me a race mixer. I've never tried to race a horse on foot, but I have seen a car race a horse. Or is that what you're asking? Oh, wait. Ah, no, this is American, date who you like. Everyone else will have to deal.

Answer 4

I think you should date whoever feels right for you, however I think a lot of people tend to date their own race because it may be more likely that you have a similar background thus making a connection more likely. Example: I did not grow up rich and I married someone that had the same socio-economic background as myself and that's one less hurdle we have to face.

Answer 5

I dont experience obligated to this factor strictly my very own race, yet i think of persons are in many cases interested in those who look and act like the folk they have been raised by ability of. i think of ecosystem and brainwashing are aspects of people who date purely outdoors of their race. For ex., if a blk guy dates purely wht women people, I dont believe its b/c he hates himself. i think of he's accessible into the stereotypes of his very own subculture and is now grew to become off by ability of his fellow blk women people or has been raised thoroughly around whites and would not comprehend a thank you to suggestions-set blk women people. i think of its cool if somebody dates distinctive races b/c then they're purely an open minded guy or woman who's searching for compatibility. i'm a blk lady who likes to this factor somebody that has issues in uncomplicated with me, it fairly is in many cases different blks. i like each and every little thing approximately brothas from the way they communicate, gown, and carry themselves. I in many cases dont could desire to look someplace else...for me being with a blk guy is like being at abode!

Answer 6

Ok! It does not matter! I always been dating outside my race.

Answer 7

Well said and I agree with you. Merry Christmas. 2D

Answer 8

date whoever you want to.

Answer 9

"American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

[Note: For further information on human biological variations, see the statement prepared and issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1996 (AJPA 101:569-570).] "