Black women confront Chris Rock on Oprah Today

[isobell]

To be honest, y'all, I'm always a woman first.

i've always believed this! There are many places in the world where the fact that I'm black is neither interesting nor relevant; but there is no where in the world where my gender is irrelevant. I am always a woman, and where I am there is always a gender dynamic that I have to negotiate.

 

[isobell]

We refer to ourselves (Black women) as "female" and we're not scientists. I think we're the only "racial" group to dehumanize women in this way (even Black women in the US often refer to themselves as "females", bypassing the more noble/human "woman". Sure, many of us don't think about this, but there is a reason, whether or not we want to examine it, as to why we're dehumanizing ourselves and fellow Black women in this way. A dog can be a "female". An animal can be "female". It's the base level of a species (male/female). But it can never be a "woman". We utilize terms for ourselves and fellow Black women...terms that are normally reserved for dogs and other animals. Why is this? Are we not women?

you know i've only noticed this trend in the past year, i don't understand why it doesn't bother people. To my ears it always implies that the person being referred to is "other", its very cold and detached, like someone said, it sounds scientific and the one being referred to is the subject, not necessarily human. Not sure why i'm even surprised by that, if there's anything that's prevalent in our society, its a lack of empathy, people dehumanize each other on so many levels every day, it makes it much easier to treat them like so much rubbish. (yes i know that's on a tangent but it really bothers me)

 

[that_1_grrrl]

I can not begin to describe how much hearing the word "female" in reference to a woman burns me. I don't know why, but it bothers me more even than the b-word. I think it may be because I hear directed towards Black women more than anyone else. Ugh, I just hate it.

We refer to ourselves (Black women) as "female" and we're not scientists. I think we're the only "racial" group to dehumanize women in this way (even Black women in the US often refer to themselves as "females", bypassing the more noble/human "woman". Sure, many of us don't think about this, but there is a reason, whether or not we want to examine it, as to why we're dehumanizing ourselves and fellow Black women in this way. A dog can be a "female". An animal can be "female". It's the base level of a species (male/female). But it can never be a "woman". We utilize terms for ourselves and fellow Black women...terms that are normally reserved for dogs and other animals. Why is this? Are we not women?

you know i've only noticed this trend in the past year, i don't understand why it doesn't bother people. To my ears it always implies that the person being referred to is "other", its very cold and detached, like someone said, it sounds scientific and the one being referred to is the subject, not necessarily human. Not sure why i'm even surprised by that, if there's anything that's prevalent in our society, its a lack of empathy, people dehumanize each other on so many levels every day, it makes it much easier to treat them like so much rubbish. (yes i know that's on a tangent but it really bothers me)

 

[shocol]

This is why I won't be in line at all for his mockumentary.

Neither will I. The joke's on us and we don't even realize it.

That's some sour vile tasting stuff! I think and hope that women, Black women in particular, start re-considering much of the race over gender thinking and start valuing themselves as FULL human beings. Are Black men asked to concede their maleness cuz maleness only belongs to WM? Nada. I guess we don't just have a "one drop rule", but a "one gender" one too .

I think it's funny how Rock made this a solely woman's issue. Tho many Black men aren't putting relaxers/weaves on THEIR heads these days (conks and curls anyone?), how many of them are demanding them of the women in their lives and paying for them? They too are "collaborators", but ones who avoid being put on blast. Typical!

Yes, that's exactly what he did by going on Oprah and saying that "Black men don't care." Now it's not a historical, collective issue but a __________ (fill in the blank) Black woman's issue.

Frankly, the system has evolved in such a way that we as African-American women have become participants in our own oppression...and we often don't even realize it. How many of us will pay money to see this movie that mocks and derides Black women for the challenges and stigma they face regarding standards of beauty? Many of us are actually willing to pay to be openly mocked by a Black man, because we "love him" (huh?) or think he's funny. Many of us here don't see a problem with our people being openly derided and exploited for a dollar.

Sad, isn't it?

I think what he has done is of course, make fun of and is forcing black women to look at themselves and to see how far gone "we" have gone with this trying to get perfect/"good" hair. I mean, we went from (in the earlier times) scorching our hair straight with hot combs, to using a soap making chemical into our hair (lye) which later on became relaxer, to fast forward people importing Indian hair (which is now big business), etc. He says this was done for his daughters. Maybe he's hoping this poking fun and "putting on blast" at how ridiculous the whole hair thing has gotten will inspire some to embrace what they actually have naturally. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I guess I'm just trying to go into it with an optimistic attitude, more so.

I seem to remember my mother telling me that in the 60's and 70's BM were among the first to use lye on their hair.

 

[jamaraa]

Neither will I. The joke's on us and we don't even realize it.

Yes, that's exactly what he did by going on Oprah and saying that "Black men don't care." Now it's not a historical, collective issue but a __________ (fill in the blank) Black woman's issue.


I seem to remember my mother telling me that in the 60's and 70's BM were among the first to use lye on their hair.

Yes, men used lye in conks (read Malcolm X for the tragicomic description of a home conk) from at least the late 40s. This was the pompador era for both men and women. Men only stopped using this in the Black Power late 60s BAA era, but of course many went for culs in the 80s. The relaxer came later, but was pretty much based on the conk formula. Relaxers really seemed to take off in the early 80s, but jheri curls were happening then. I think relaxers for women pretty much started in the mid 70s, but became popular much later. LOL...I was a small kid then in the late 70s-early 80s, so I'm just going by what I recall.

The joke's on those who put money in that clown's pocket for this. I ain't buying what he's sellin'.

Making it solely a woman's issue was a great dodge and dishonest on his part. While I don't believe that random BM actually care what random BW do w/ their hair, I certainly think they care when it comes to the women in their lives. Apparently Rock didn't even ask HIS wife what she did to HER hair, so this makes this whole film even more idiotic than it's premise. If he cared so much about this issue, shouldn't Mrs. R be at least part of his focus? I guess he knew better than to try and clown her.

 

[FluffyRed]

I seem to remember my mother telling me that in the 60's and 70's BM were among the first to use lye on their hair.

I was little in the 70's and I remember being in a salon and a big chocolate brother with a beard was sitting under a dry with pink rollers in his hair. EWWWW!

 

[nathansgirl1908]

In fairness to CR, he's mocked all sorts of people including Black men.

'.

Thats true, but my statement was in response to him saying on Oprah that he doesn't degrade. He was lying.

 

[Chin]

Shinning, extra straight extensions=bad install

That's NOT what I thought we were talking about. A black woman with long hair, be it a good install or her own will be weave checked. A white woman won't. It's not JUST about texture, it's about the assumption that all white women have naturally long hair (it does tend to be longer than ours).

And once again I'm not sure what installs you all are seeing, but 99% of white female extensions look absolutely FAKE. I can spot them much quicker than a black install of the quality.

From what I see Paris extensions looks just like her natural hair on top of her head. A black woman's extensions looks like hair that belongs on someone else hair. Hence why black women get questioned so often. I never heard a black woman get questioned in the past about having braids in her hair from others regardless if fake hair was added or not. Maybe braids are considered to be a natural hair style for Black women and European/Asian hair would belong on someone else.

 

[Chin]

I think this is an excellent point.

If black women were wearing weaves that mimicked their actual texture (and I don't just mean natural. Relaxed black hair still has some texture), I don't think we'd be having the same discussion.

[Big generalization] Most White women wear weaves as an extension of their natural hair. Most Black women wear weaves to cover up and disguise their natural hair.

Silky straight Yaki doesn't mimic black women's hair. It just doesn't.

I wished I didn't skip pages because I could have agreed to what you already said.

 

[jamaraa]

From what I see Paris extensions looks just like her natural hair on top of her head. A black woman's extensions looks like hair that belongs on someone else hair. Hence why black women get questioned so often. I never heard a black woman get questioned in the past about having braids in her hair from others regardless if fake hair was added or not. Maybe braids are considered to be a natural hair style for Black women and European/Asian hair would belong on someone else.

That pic of Hilton looks OK, but there are plenty of pics where her hair looks plastic. She clearly wears extensions and isn't ashamed. Why should she be? shrug.

bolded...don't buy. Yes, BW get questioned if they have super long (let's call it ALP+ for our purposes) braid extensions. They get questioned if they have super long hair at all, even and especially if it's all theirs. Unless you're using non human hair, the braid extensions are also of Asian hair.

This is not about weaves but the perception that Black women can't have long hair WITHOUT it being a weave/wig. Why else did those idiots run their hand thru Oprah's hair when clearly the texture "matches"? It's not about texture, it's about length, IMHO.

 

[Chin]

Many black women wear weaves, but to me that doesn't matter. I'm so sick and tired of generalizations about black women making their way to the media. The media is full of generalizations about black women, show me something different for once. It's rare that one of us gets to control what images are presented to the media, at least use the opportunity to present something new and different. At least present all different angles of the issues. I don't care if most black women are rocking straight weaves, ALL aren't so why not drive that point home? All black women aren't desperate to have straight, euro hair, and many black women have their own long hair. If Chris Rock claims he did 'research' for this film, he should have come across SOMETHING about black women with long hair and presented that if he was going to be on almost every major talk show talking about our hair.

If might be okay for some of you, but not for me. If white people were up on stage spewing out these generalizations left and right, people would have been upset. Chris Rock shouldn't get a pass either.



No, both get extensions with ASIAN hair.

That's true, but I have noticed that a lot of these generalizations are started by Black women themselves. Like "black women can't grow hair" didn't get attention in the media until Tyra did a show on it. Lastly "black women are not finding mates because Black men want women because of their hair", from Tyra and Shirley letter from Oprah.

 

[Serenity_Peace]

For me, the most insulting thing is that white people act as if they don't understand why black women make such a big deal about their hair. They created these standards of beauty. They inundated the culture with these standards; they paraded pale skin, straight, blonde hair as *the* ideal that all must live up to. Not just black women, but Asian women, Hispanic women, East Asian (Indian) women, from Ethnic Jews to dark-skinned Persians. It's not just an accident that minority populations all over the world are destroyed by colorism. In India, there is a caste system in place that, by and large, separates lighter-skinned Indians from darker-skinned Indians. The fairer-skinned Indians tend to be highly educated and wealthy. In Brazil, colorism is major. And in many Hispanic cultures, in general, light skin is prized and thought of as more beautiful than darker-skin.

And yet, European descendants act as though they had no part in this. They feign ignorance about what's going on in Black America. Wait a minute...they're the ones who propagated these ideals of what constitute real beauty. The impact of colonialism is not a figment of our imagination. It has manifested itself in many ways and have destroyed families. I have an entire segment of my family that won't speak or associate with the other side because of skin color. And white people act as if they had no part in that.

 

[jamaraa]

That's true, but I have noticed that a lot of these generalizations are started by Black women themselves. Like "black women can't grow hair" didn't get attention in the media until Tyra did a show on it. Lastly "black women are not finding mates because Black men want women because of their hair", from Tyra and Shirley letter from Oprah.

Yes, sadly this is true. If these things don't START w/ BW, many times they are carried on by BW and enforced on other BW. Unfortunately too many BW are incredibly willing to believe the worst about themselves and their fellows no matter what subject "the worst" may be about.

 

[jamaraa]

For me, the most insulting thing is that white people act as if they don't understand why black women make such a big deal about their hair. They created these standards of beauty. They inundated the culture with these standards; they paraded pale skin, straight, blonde hair as *the* ideal that all must live up to. Not just black women, but Asian women, Hispanic women, East Asian (Indian) women, from Ethnic Jews to dark-skinned Persians. It's not just an accident that minority populations all over the world are destroyed by colorism. In India, there is a caste system in place that, by and large, separates lighter-skinned Indians from darker-skinned Indians. The fairer-skinned Indians tend to be highly educated and wealthy. In Brazil, colorism is major. And in many Hispanic cultures, in general, light skin is prized and thought of as more beautiful than darker-skin.

And yet, European descendants act as though they had no part in this. They feign ignorance about what's going on in Black America. Wait a minute...they're the ones who propagated these ideals of what constitute real beauty. The impact of colonialism is not a figment of our imagination. It has manifested itself in many ways and have destroyed families. I have an entire segment of my family that won't speak or associate with the other side because of skin color. And white people act as if they had no part in that.

The caste system in India predates contact w/ Europe by millenia. It has nothing to do w/ Euro standards. Many of these caste systems you describe also existed pre Euro contact, so we can't lay it all on Whites.

Most societies have a standard f beauty that predate Euro contact (this is not true for "New World" Blacks arguably), but in many cultures lighter skin is prized because it signified that one doesn't labor in the fields. In some parts of Africa darker skin is prized and people make themselves darker. Euro colonialism has certainly made it's mark and complicated things, but color/hair issues didn't start w/ them. That's giving them far too much credit.

Your modern everyday White is looking from the inside out. They are accepting of and perpetuating the status quo about beauty standrads because they are allegdly on the "in" (tho they struggle w/ it too). However, given how segregated America is, many of them have little intimate contact w/ non Whites, so they don't connect these issues together. so I'm not so sure your average feigning ignorance. Even if they are, what can they do to alleviate other people's inferority complexes?

They can sell a beauty standard, but it's up to you if you choose to buy it.

 

[AsianAfricanPrincess]

That's a VERY interesting point about the word "female". Part of this is an American thing, IMHO.

Tho I rarely hear WW use the term "female" to describe themselves (I never hear this from non Americans..Black or otherwise).

You said your guy is from Cameroon...I'm curious how women there refer to themselves and how they are referred to? I know many African women resent being referred to as "baby" or "girl" cuz they feel womanhood should be prized, not youth and immaturity. I hate to think at how they'd react to being referred to as a "female".

I have to say I'm enjoying this convo. It's a rarely discussed issue in our hair quests!

Hey Jamaraa I have noticed that in the US, I hear African-Americans (men and women) in particular referring to themselves or other women as merely "female".

I can't even articulate how dehumanizing and debasing that is.

MY SO said that women are usually referred to as "ma" or "mama" but it has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meaning from that which is used in the US. In his culture (and for many other countries throughout the continent) it's a show of nobility and respect. In the US, when used with women in the street, it often has some sort of leering sexual connotation (usually uttered by random dude in the street while he's checking out my 'tocks...).

I will say, I've shared with him my own observations, and he is often shocked by the behavior or lack of concern of Black men in the US and our own perception of ourselves as Black women (and men)...as well as our participation in these systems.

(We live outside of the US; but I'm from NY...)

 

[FluffyRed]

The caste system in India predates contact w/ Europe by millenia. It has nothing to do w/ Euro standards. Many of these caste systems you describe also existed pre Euro contact, so we can't lay it all on Whites.

They can sell a beauty standard, but it's up to you if you choose to buy it.

First bold the caste system may predate contact with Europe, but was color associated with it before contact with Europe? It used to be that you were born into a caste, from what I understood, not that having heavily Euro features made you better and more presentable, which is more what I'm seeing today.

Second bold, I think they did more than sell it, but, true we have the choice today

 

[AsianAfricanPrincess]

Euro colonialism has certainly made it's mark and complicated things, but color/hair issues didn't start w/ them. That's giving them far too much credit.

Your modern everyday White is looking from the inside out. They are accepting of and perpetuating the status quo about beauty standrads because they are allegdly on the "in" (tho they struggle w/ it too). However, given how segregated America is, many of them have little intimate contact w/ non Whites, so they don't connect these issues together. so I'm not so sure your average feigning ignorance. Even if they are, what can they do to alleviate other people's inferority complexes?

I nearly leapt out of my chair when I read this. Everyday, I hear us attributing darn near every "standard of beauty" to White folks. Whether or not they're reinforcing or perpetuating it, they don't have a monopoly (at all) on straight hair, loose curls, wavy hair, "straight" noses, non-pouty lips, slender bodies...but we swear up and down that those things are all somehow "White".

I originally wrote a lot more, but I just deleted it because I'm a skeptic by nature adn unfortunately, I don't believe this is something we are ready to even face.

 

[andromeda]

The caste system in India predates contact w/ Europe by millenia. It has nothing to do w/ Euro standards. Many of these caste systems you describe also existed pre Euro contact, so we can't lay it all on Whites.

Most societies have a standard f beauty that predate Euro contact (this is not true for "New World" Blacks arguably), but in many cultures lighter skin is prized because it signified that one doesn't labor in the fields. In some parts of Africa darker skin is prized and people make themselves darker. Euro colonialism has certainly made it's mark and complicated things, but color/hair issues didn't start w/ them. That's giving them far too much credit.

Thanks so much for making this point! I find it interesting how people are quick to revel in the colorism issues of others, esp Indians. IMO, it's rather ethnocentric of us as AAs [or colonized Africans] to presuppose that all colorism stems from "the man". As you point out, in some cultures, lighter skin had little to do with a euro-centric standard of beauty and more to do with the class connotations surrounding it. Also, caste and color aren't as closely associated as people think. That darkest of the dark might tend to be dalits or lower caste and the lightest of the light might tend to be of higher caste, but that is by no means the rule - in different areas and traditions, a range of shades can occupy each caste. In the Aishwarya Rai thread, several people assumed that Indians prize her as a beauty bc she represents a euro-centric/aryan model of beauty that's not typically Indian. Funny thing is that if one is familiar with Indian religious art, even that which dates back to ancient times, Rai closely resembles typical portrayals of female deities/figures.

And what about the Fulanis and other groups in Africa? Is their look exalted bc of its proximity to a euro-centric standard of beauty or does this also predate colonialism? (Honest question, I'm not sure of the answer)

 

[FluffyRed]

Also, caste and color aren't as closely associated as people think.

And what about the Fulanis and other groups in Africa? Is their look exalted bc of its proximity to a euro-centric standard of beauty or does this also predate colonialism? (Honest question, I'm not sure of the answer)

Caste and color may not be closely linked, but what is up with all the Indians i see in movies or in schools being lighter than paper bag brown? I *know* they come in dark shades, but they aren't publicized. SOMEthing is up, because it didnt' used to be this way. When i was younger, folks talked about how pretty the dark ones were, but now you never see them.

And with the Nigerian men I know, Fulanis are not exalted. Not scientific, but just what I have observed in a ltd number of cases.

 

[andromeda]

Caste and color may not be closely linked, but what is up with all the Indians i see in movies or in schools being lighter than paper bag brown? I *know* they come in dark shades, but they aren't publicized. SOMEthing is up, because it didnt' used to be this way. When i was younger, folks talked about how pretty the dark ones were, but now you never see them.

Can't say with absolute certainty but as far as Bollywood is concerned, although it's the largest and most mainstream of Indian film genres, it's more reflective of Northern Indian sensibilities - not only in casting (where Bipasha Basu is considered dark), but in dance, music, and costumes also. And even in the old, b&w Bollywood movies, the stars tended to be quite light. I would venture to guess that in other Indian film genres, there are darker actors/actresses, but who knows? - they might be dark relative to Bollywood standards and light relative to the specific population they're marketed to.
As far as the NRI/ Indian-American student/professional pop are concerned, I see a range of light to medium dark. I see less very light (i.e. Rai, though I might be mistaking ones I pass on the street for other ethnicities) or even less indigo black "Rama" types.
Maybe the lack of visibility of the indigo-blacks has to do with the image that India wants to presents in a globalized world. I know on an interpersonal level that being the darkest, relative to your ethnic/language[Telugu]/region/caste group can be a negative thing. I don't know how much this attitude has worsened or how much it can be attributed to white dominance. And if you ask an Indian person, they have their own spin on it that isn't necessarily honest or representative of the group think, so I really dunno.

And with the Nigerian men I know, Fulanis are not exalted. Not scientific, but just what I have observed in a ltd number of cases.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have used the term "exalted" but I was alluding to things I've heard over the years. One of these is that euro colonizers pitted more "euro-centric" African tribes against other ones. Another is that African women don't bleach to look white, but to look like the Fulani or other lighter skin African tribes bc the women in those tribes are considered beautiful. erplexed

 

[Bachelorette]

fulanis are more arab looking like the Enitreans etc.

"Fair skin" is exalted in most parts of Aftica, not "white features".

 

[FluffyRed]

I don't buy any of the excuses on why we don't see the dark Indians anymore. Nor do I let Europe off the hook for adding another dimension to, if not starting, the colorism in India.

There was an article in the Washington Post by an African American with a dark complexion who got treated like ISH when travelling in India.

 

[andromeda]

fulanis are more arab looking like the Enitreans etc.

"Fair skin" is exalted in most parts of Aftica, not "white features".

And does this predate white colonialism/imperialism? What's the basis for it?

 

[andromeda]

I don't buy any of the excuses on why we don't see the dark Indians anymore. Nor do I let Europe off the hook for adding another dimension to, if not starting, the colorism in India.

There was an article in the Washington Post by an African American with a dark complexion who got treated like ISH when travelling in India.

I would generally agree that they added another dimension to it.

 

[AsianAfricanPrincess]

fulanis are more arab looking like the Enitreans etc.

And what about the Fulanis and other groups in Africa? Is their look exalted bc of its proximity to a euro-centric standard of beauty or does this also predate colonialism? (Honest question, I'm not sure of the answer)

While I know that this is not the intention, I think statements like these reinforce the notion that there is only ONE way to look African - usually the stereotypical depiction of Africans (e.g. the Pygmies). Africa is a diverse continent and there is an amazing variety of features. Fulanis look African and whether or not their features are considered more in line with our ideals in the West - that is another story. However, they are African and they look African.

Honestly, these two statements sparked a great discourse between me and my SO. Why do we not state the Arabs look African?? Why are Eritraen features considered Arab? Why are Arab features not considered to look African??

Why are we constantly handing over what is ours, to yet another group of people? I don't understand this. It's almost as if we somehow feel that we cannot "own" anything...as if we are not capable of setting the standard for something. Everything that is ours must be appropriated by others, and "others" eventually claim ownership to it...with us handing it over without protest.

We're constantly handing over ownership of what is ours. I don't get it.

EDIT: My SO just said it best: If something is considered "good" or "beautiful" we cannot attribute it to ourselves. We first think, "what are the references of beauty?..." and then immediately attribute it to being Eurocentric, Arab, and so on...

 

[FluffyRed]

Honestly, these two statements sparked a great discourse between me and my SO. Why do we not state the Arabs look African?? Why are Eritraen features considered Arab? Why are Arab features not considered to look African??

Why are we constantly handing over what is ours, to yet another group of people? I don't understand this.

EDIT: My SO just said it best: If something is considered "good" or "beautiful" we cannot attribute it to ourselves. We first think, "what are the references of beauty?..." and then immediately attribute it to being Eurocentric, Arab, and so on...

well, there are features that are unmixed African features. Many Arabs are mixed. You can say they have an appearance that is associated with North African people, but..

I don't find Eurocentric or Arab features to be the "references of beauty,' btw.

 

[andromeda]

While I know that this is not the intention, I think statements like these reinforce the notion that there is only ONE way to look African - usually the stereotypical depiction of Africans (e.g. the Pygmies). Africa is a diverse continent and there is an amazing variety of features. Fulanis look African and whether or not their features are considered more in line with our ideals in the West - that is another story. However, they are African and they look African.

Honestly, these two statements sparked a great discourse between me and my SO. Why do we not state the Arabs look African?? Why are Eritraen features considered Arab? Why are Arab features not considered to look African??

Why are we constantly handing over what is ours, to yet another group of people? I don't understand this.

We're constantly handing over ownership of what is ours. I don't get it.

EDIT: My SO just said it best: If something is considered "good" or "beautiful" we cannot attribute it to ourselves. We first think, "what are the references of beauty?..." and then immediately attribute it to being Eurocentric, Arab, and so on...

Actually, I completely agree with you and have had the very same discussion with myself (no, I'm not crazy) and with others. That was exact my point in asking the question - that their looks/beauty might be just as much genuinenly African as Aishwarya's is genuinely Indian and that all too often we see things through an ethnocentric lens that projects our Western view onto things and muddles "stereotypical" with "typical".

But apparently, perception is circuitous, bc just as my perception (which happens to agree with yours) framed my question, your perception framed how you interpreted it and what you inferred from it. Yet another case of projection. (I'm not saying this snidely, it's just interesting how that happens.)

 

[FluffyRed]

Actually, I completely agree with you and have had the very same discussion with myself (no, I'm not crazy) and with others. That was exact my point in asking the question - that their looks/beauty might be just as much genuinenly African as Aishwarya's is genuinely Indian and that all too often we see things through an ethnocentric lens that projects our Western view onto things and muddles "stereotypical" with "typical".

Aishwarya is clearly mixed. She is genuinely Indian like Vanessa Williams is genuinely black.

It is not necessary to dilute someone's ethnicity to the nth degree, to the point that you can barely see anything but Euro, to find a person that is "the most beautiful," imo. Case in point:

IMO, Aishwarya is the most beautiful euro, not the most beautiful Indian.

 

[Maracujá]

Aishwarya is clearly mixed. She is genuinely Indian like Vanessa Williams is genuinely black.

It is not necessary to dilute someone's ethnicity to the nth degree, to the point that you can barely see anything but Euro, to find a person that is "the most beautiful," imo.

You don't think a 100% Indian person can look like her?

 

[FluffyRed]

You don't think a 100% Indian person can look like her?

just like vanessa williams, yes she can have two Indian parents, but there's a lot of Euro in her, genetically. what generation, who knows? that's just a semantic distinction.