How much African blood does she have?
Does she have black blood from her Daddy's or her Mammy's side of the family?
shareENOUGH TO FILL A BATHTUB...THAT IS WHAT SHE DOES WITH IT.
share
MovieChat Forums > Charlize Theron Discussion > How much African blood does she have?
ABOUT THREE QUARTS...SHE IS RUNNING LOW.
shareThe Second Boer War military leader Danie Theron was her great-great-uncle.[7]: 14 She is from an Afrikaner family, and her ancestry includes Dutch as well as French and German. Her French forebears were early Huguenots in South Africa.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlize_Theron#Early_life share
She's basically an Aryan. As much as she postures as a progressive leftist, she'd be regarded as a poster-girl for the Third Reich in Hitler's era due to her 'pure blood'.
shareProves what little you know about the word ARYAN
shareI'm applying it in the same sense that the Nazis did, just as when people talk about racism, they're referring to the 'one-drop rule' and the white supremacist categorisation of who is and isn't Black or white.
It's a shame that we should define things according to how racists see the world, but race is a construct used to uphold the 'supremacy' of racists and so that is why we talk about race in this way.
She was born there. That makes her African.
shareNo, she's European, born in Africa!
shareShe's a white African. Her nationality is African, but her ancestry is white.
Is it PC or 'woke' to say that X or Y is European or African, based on their racial ancestry? It arguably allows racists/white supremacists to say "Black people aren't European" even if their family has been based in Europe for several generations.
Africa is mot a country!
You don't become something by having ancestors who lived there for a few centuries, as opposed to the people whose ancestors spent millennia there.
Not many non-Eropeans in Europe have ancestors who lived there for several generations, several decades at most, for most.
nonsense.
Your place of birth is your place of birth.
You may want to look up the history of our planet and once you have done this trace back our genus line which is millions of years old and "race" is made up construct.
Your last line is more BS and maybe you have heard of British Empire
One is not a product (has a genetic makeup) of that location/environment (African/European), unless one's ancestors have lived there for thousands of years.
Your place of birth is your place of birth.Yes!
"race" is made up constructBut one is shaped by the environment one's ancestor resided?
Not many non-Eropeans in Europe have ancestors who lived there for several generations, several decades at most, for most. share
Okay, she's a white *South African*. Better?
But she was born and raised in Africa by a family that had been based there for generations.
If we say she isn't African (and tbf, I do abhor the various badfaith actors and trolls who refer to her as 'African' simply to make some type of weird/'subversive' anti-Black 'point'), then we might as easily say that a Black person whose family have been based in Europe for several generations 'isn't European'. And, personally, I think both scenarios are potentially racist and demeaning. It's saying that one's national and cultural heritage, and their claim to the land/home their family has been based in for decades, and even hundreds of years, is entirely based on the colour of their skin.
No. She is African of European descent. Just like I am American of European descent.
shareNo, you're European, born on the America continent.
share🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thanks so much for the good laugh, I appreciate it.
shareCan we stop conflating race/skin colour with nationality/cultural background?
What people of white European descent have done to POC across Africa and the Americas over the last few hundred years, is absolutely abhorrent, and one can argue that back in the day, white Europeans had no business being in these places (at least not colonising them anyway), but this is the 21st century, and people of white European descent have been based in African and America since the 15th and 16th centuries. I certainly don't think they have MORE claim to these lands than the Indigenous people, including Black Africans who have been based there for far longer (since the dawn of humanity, in the case of Black Africans), but it's arguable that their claim is now equal in view of how long their forebearers have been based in these countries/continents. The alternative is that we say that immigrants and their descendants will never be truly embraced in a foreign land.
FOUR GALLONS...SHE KEEPS IT IN THE FRIDGE NOW.
share