about.google/products. Everyone on this page is a negro. Again, is every, single, person in america a negro?!??!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
I've noticed this for a lot of stuff. If you were to check most IT stuff is just blacks and some white women.
And yet all the people you work are Indian, White or Asian, and I do know Indians are Asian but Indians make more then half of the people I work with so I put them in a separate category.
I got a newsletter from my alma mater. On the cover was 1 asian female, 2 black females, 1 black male, 3 hispanic males, 1 white female, and 1 white male.
The college is 60% asian, 25% hispanic, 12% white and 2% black.
Well you see it is because blacks and women do not work in IT because they don't see pictures of blacks or women in IT stock images. Now that blacks and women appear on IT companies websites the next generation of programmers and sys admins will be predominately blacks and women. This is what progressives actually believe.
In a way it is. This type of representation signals to black people that they will get preferential treatment.
Only, and let me repeat this, only if one ignores everything except what continent they're from.
Culturally? they ain't Asian. (some similarities, yes, in the same way that Canada's First Nations tribes have similarities with the long-gone Inca, Maya, and Toltec of Latin America)
Skin tone? Not Asian.
Eye shape? Not asian.
Voice? Not asian.
Food? Despite all the Rice, not asian.
Again, they're only asian if the thing you care about is which of the 7 major continents they're from, otherwise they're Indian.
It's a weird Britishism.
Yes. Ironically Indian probably share more common ancestry with Europeans through Aryan population migration, even though Dravidian (&other) Indian types are not Euro
It's not even ironic, its absolutely true that Indians are more closely related to Europeans than East Asians. This is confirmed through genetic analysis.
If you look at genetic population supergroups, Europeans, arabs, and Indians make up one supergroup the same way that east asians and pacific islanders make up another supergroup, as do the various native populations of the Americas. Sub-Saharan Africans and Australian aboriginals also make up their own groups too, but they lack to genetic diversity to have supergroups. In other words, they are monoethnic and geographically limited and not closely related to other human populations.
Put another way, a Swede and a Gujarati are not that closely related but are more closely related to each other than either of them and a Korean. And all other human populations are more closely related to each other than Sub-Saharan Africans. (A Welsh, Filipino, and Lakota are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to a Nigerian.)
This is not true. An Australian aboriginal and a Swede have a closer common ancestor than either and a Sub-Saharan African.
Asians are only asians when its convenient.. otherwise asians hate each other and will get offended or mildly annoyed if you mislabel them.
Now why would a group get annoyed from mislabeling? Because they think they are better than the other group hehe.
Indians aren’t Asian. Indians are Indians. If you ask Japanese and Indians if they “share” a common Asian connection they will say “fuck no “