Then again, I've also definitely heard older people talk that way and they don't seem to mean harm or be angry.
It can apply from a socio economic angle, but that applies only in America or a country that uses American racial profiles for systemic racism.
Edit: Aware this is a controversial viewpoint in non-scientific communities, so here's some interesting comments from Wikipedia on the subject:
> Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][3][4]
> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.[5] Today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete,[6] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[7][8][9][10][11]
> Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21]
If there is no correlation between genes and “American race definitions”, how is this possible?
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-07...
https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-phi...
To add a bit more weight it’s worth reading the intro to race on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
No, the whole distinction of black is dark skin colour, which is a proxy for skin melanin, which is (far as I'm aware) the primary factor determining vitamin D production from sun exposure (which is not directly useful in the body, but is the form that is often measured).
Also, because of the effect on vitamin D production from sun exposure, there is some evidence that other aspects of how vitamin D is handled by the body are different for people with darker skin, maybe because their ancestors got more than enough of it.
This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour.
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
Then I remembered that Wales exists :)
If you mean darker skin (darker than what???) then use that term.
Accuracy is important.