Not but it has racist connotations, you really want to go out of your way to educate everyone on the etymology of a word because of an antiwoke crusade?
It is the same reason that polite people don't continue to use the word, "niggardly".
It is the same reason that polite people don't continue to use the word, "niggardly".
White and black, light and darkness, yang and yin, on and off, one and zero. I'll bet that most people that have ever lived understand those parallels. Human melanin concentrations in skin don't enter into it. Attempting to control usage of a word as fundamental and common as "black" is an absurd overreach. It's nothing like "niggardly", which was barely in use anyway and brings to mind the same slur in the minds of just about any American alive today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_n...
>you really want to go out of your way to educate everyone on the etymology of a word because of an antiwoke crusade
What's wrong with people voicing their opinion in a debate fashion?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Musl...
You're saying Europe should not have retaliated for all the land and people that were stolen? They were at war, under attack for centuries, but if they counter-attack, well that's the worst thing ever, still remembered almost a thousand years later, while the Muslim attacks they were responding to go largely unmentioned. It's bizarre.
Come on, everybody knows this is not true.