Racially diverserer?

MVMosin

I was just reading from a history book about the early English colonies in the seventeenth century. It mentioned that one colony was "one of the most racially diverse" with a population that was "60 percent white, 40 percent black." Then it goes on to say that South Carolina is the "most racially diverse" with a population that is "60 percent black, 40 percent white."

I may not be great at math, but I'm pretty sure that 60 percent of one thing is the same percentage as 60 percent of something else, so the question I pose to you is: What the fuck?

Coldred

Er, the difference between "one of the most" and "the most"?

durandal4532

Well, to be fair, genetic variation in a black slave population would most likely be higher than in a predominantly European white population. Assuming the slaves didn't all come from the same country. So, they were right.

As to the question not misinterpreted hilariously: meh, slight over-PCing, a mistake? Not really anything to get one's panties in a bunch over.

MVMosin

*loosens proverbial panties*

Yar

Also, more diverse would generally imply, to me, something along the lines of 25% white, 25% asian, 25% black, and 25% hispanic, and 17% Native American, or something. Just two races doesn't make diversity.

MVMosin

A friend of mine, upon reading this himself, laughed and said "I bet the workers on some of their plantations were 100% racially diverse."

PC overkill FTW.

The Cat

poor proofreading. see also: who cares?

Yar

The Cat wrote: »

poor proofreading. see also: who cares?

I'm all but certain proofreading has nothing to do with it. Perhaps it is an American thang.

ben0207

Yar wrote: »

Also, more diverse would generally imply, to me, something along the lines of 25% white, 25% asian, 25% black, and 25% hispanic, and 17% Native American, or something. Just two races doesn't make diversity.

Either I'm missing something or maths really ain't your strong point, Yar.

redx

ben0207 wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Also, more diverse would generally imply, to me, something along the lines of 25% white, 25% asian, 25% black, and 25% hispanic, and 17% Native American, or something. Just two races doesn't make diversity.

Either I'm missing something or maths really ain't your strong point, Yar.

you are forgetting about multiracial individuals who are in more than one category.

Just because someone is half black, does not mean they count as half a black.

Incenjucar

ben0207 wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Also, more diverse would generally imply, to me, something along the lines of 25% white, 25% asian, 25% black, and 25% hispanic, and 17% Native American, or something. Just two races doesn't make diversity.

Either I'm missing something or maths really ain't your strong point, Yar.

If we ever started outnumbering anyone they'd start scalping us again.

You will see a black transvestite Wiccan president before a Native American one.

unilateral

redx wrote: »

ben0207 wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Also, more diverse would generally imply, to me, something along the lines of 25% white, 25% asian, 25% black, and 25% hispanic, and 17% Native American, or something. Just two races doesn't make diversity.

Either I'm missing something or maths really ain't your strong point, Yar.

you are forgetting about multiracial individuals who are in more than one category.

Just because someone is half black, does not mean they count as half a black.

Unless you're Barack Obama, then if you're half black, you don't get to be black at all (according to that one lady on Colbert).

ElJeffe

This... this is not a D&D thread.