Steve Nash Double Swirling Gone Wrong!!

Iykeg said:
Red color and big fonts are not the best way to ask a question.

My country also does not have anything to do with a reality he knows nothing about. The fact that he is trying to project American race mentality on issues he cannot even grasp the most basic concept of is where the issue comes from

Its why issues like this come up constantly and people spend 70 pages arguing over a ridiculous concept that should never even be taken seriously at all.


and pls this is not a lecture
Click to expand...
Go ahead and tell them where you are from..

AT LEAST YOU HAVE A COUNTRY....:smt081The fools you're arguing with DON'T HAVE SHIT...:smt043

Anybody with a fake social security card and a one-way ticket from mexico can be more of an American in 4 minutes than they could in 400 years.:smt039
 
flaminghetero said:
Go ahead and tell them where you are from..

AT LEAST YOU HAVE A COUNTRY....:smt081The fools you're arguing with DON'T HAVE SHIT...:smt043

Anybody with a fake social security card and a one-way ticket from mexico can be more of an American in 4 minutes than they could in 400 years.:smt039
Click to expand...

big fail at attempted sacarsm
 
xoxo said:
Both of you guys are making good and not so good points, but to what end?
Click to expand...

Wish more people actually participated in the thread. I actually think it was a good discussion

and I was trying to point out how meaningless what some people do nonstop on this site and in real life is actually
 
Iykeg said:
and I was trying to point out how meaningless what some people do nonstop on this site and in real life is actually
Click to expand...

This sentence is unintelligible.

Iykeg said:
I actually think it was a good discussion. Wish more people actually participated in the thread.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before, moreover racialism/sociology should take a back seat to relationships on this forum. Hypodescent in the U.S is about maintaining a permanent and identifiable underclass, any discussion that doesn't get to that is just as useless to me as watching either version of imitation of life for the umpteenth time.
 
Inner Beauty said:
One could argue that Black is more dominant. I personally call people whatever they want to be labeled. In my head, it's a different story. I might see them as whatever I perceive them to be, but how they identify themselves is not my place to say anything.

The one drop rule did come from White Supremacy.

No, one drop of White does not.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to read all these replies and catch up but I have along way to go but I wanted to comment on this here.

How exactly do you propose black is more dominant. Lets look at that for a minute. Start with skin tone. Skin tone is co dominate. This means genetics from both parents come together and create something entirely new. This is obvious. What do you get when you take a black African and mix them with a white European. A light brown toned person. Hair is also co dominant. Again 2 parents genes working together. Afro, Caucasian, and Asian are 3 very different types of hair although there is variations within each group. They mix together and you get new hair types. This is something you can easily tell on mixed children. Eyes. Well the thing here is brown is the most common color within every race. Hair color the same. Majority of all races are dark. Eye shape. Small is dominant over large. Asians tend to have the smallest well I don't know I could be wrong but personally I see more larger eyes on black than any other race. Full lips and broader nose is dominant over the opposite. These are features most commonly found in black. But just like the eyes it's not about the race of the person it's about the feature itself. Ex. A bw with a pointy nose marries a wm with a broad nose. If father has no recessive pointy nose gene then their child will have a broad nose from the dad. But even you wanted to count these 2 features as black dominance come on now 2 features hardly qualifies as being dominant over all.


One drop rule is total crap. I have black ancestors but that doesn't make me a BW. I'm white. I wasn't even aware until our family tree was done.
 
ReginaStar said:
I'm trying to read all these replies and catch up but I have along way to go but I wanted to comment on this here.

How exactly do you propose black is more dominant. Lets look at that for a minute. Start with skin tone. Skin tone is co dominate. This means genetics from both parents come together and create something entirely new. This is obvious. What do you get when you take a black African and mix them with a white European. A light brown toned person. Hair is also co dominant. Again 2 parents genes working together. Afro, Caucasian, and Asian are 3 very different types of hair although there is variations within each group. They mix together and you get new hair types. This is something you can easily tell on mixed children. Eyes. Well the thing here is brown is the most common color within every race. Hair color the same. Majority of all races are dark. Eye shape. Small is dominant over large. Asians tend to have the smallest well I don't know I could be wrong but personally I see more larger eyes on black than any other race. Full lips and broader nose is dominant over the opposite. These are features most commonly found in black. But just like the eyes it's not about the race of the person it's about the feature itself. Ex. A bw with a pointy nose marries a wm with a broad nose. If father has no recessive pointy nose gene then their child will have a broad nose from the dad. But even you wanted to count these 2 features as black dominance come on now 2 features hardly qualifies as being dominant over all.


One drop rule is total crap. I have black ancestors but that doesn't make me a BW. I'm white. I wasn't even aware until our family tree was done.
Click to expand...

Thanks for coming over to this thread to read the earlier posts. I must issue one caveat: this conversation can get more nonsensical as it goes on.

I read your genetics discussion and appreciate the discussion of variance within subgroups. I think when people say "black is dominant" they are not trying to say that blackness means the mixed child will come out black, they are generally referring to the fact that most traits that are expressed to a greater degree within the black subgroup are the same traits that are genetically dominant within the other subgroups (i.e. a larger percentage of blacks have dark eyes, fuller lips, broader nose, etc). Hence, "black is dominant" meaning we outwardly express more genetically dominant traits than most groups (to a greater or lesser extent).

Sorry for taking the other thread off track in my discussions with Iykeg (sp?). He and I have an extensive debate in this thread, as you will see. Tonight represents the 2nd time we have ended up in pointless debate wherein he makes comments that appear to deliberately misconstrue my statements to insinuate things about my views on this topic that are incorrect.
 
ReginaStar said:
One drop rule is total crap. I have black ancestors but that doesn't make me a BW. I'm white. I wasn't even aware until our family tree was done.
Click to expand...

You won't get any argument out of me on this. I agree. As for its social application, I have generally found that, despite the fact that its crap, it has largely been the way that whites have viewed race in my regions of the country: midwest and now Southeastern Florida.

However, I have noticed (again, only speaking from MY limited experience) that few conservative whites are eager to note and highlight their black ancestry, if any exists. I have heard of a couple who discovered black ancestry and then said "...up until now I always thought we were white..." or something similar, almost as if the discovery shook the foundations of their very identity. Don't want to veer into a discussion of the one-drop rule, as I think we all agree that it's ridiculous, but I have generally heard of whiteness discussed as the absence of any non-whites in one's ancestry. I'm glad that it apparently isn't the case everywhere.
 
orejon4 said:
I never said in my statements that the one-drop rule was NOT the product of white supremacy. It is. No one is arguing that children of mixed-race parentage are ALL black. But in this country, which uses absolutist racial definitions, lack of 'purity' - meaning a deviation from the Northern European/Anglo-Saxon ideal gets you labeled as 'something other than'. In early US history, Sicilians, Arabs and most Mediterranean stock people were treated at least initially as an intermediary group between white and black until they were allowed to assimilate over a generation or two. In most of the European countries I am familiar with, a mixed-race child is referred to as mixed race regardless of how pale or dark they are.
Click to expand...


I don't know at what point it started but somewhere in early US history all these people you named weren't even allowed in the US. Also although Celtic people were allowed here (mostly as indentured servants early on aka slaves) they were heavily discriminated against by the British settlers. However that whole Hitler type thinking mess was not the thinking in Europe prior to Europeans coming to America. Europeans as a whole have been fighting, intermarrying, etc through out time. British are very ethnically diverse themselves. Their ancestors were not only Anglo Saxons but Romans, Normans, Celtic, Scandinavian, and many more. DNA actually shows that the majority of the British ancestors came from the Iberian peninsula long long ago.
 
orejon4 said:
You won't get any argument out of me on this. I agree. As for its social application, I have generally found that, despite the fact that its crap, it has largely been the way that whites have viewed race in my regions of the country: midwest and now Southeastern Florida.

However, I have noticed (again, only speaking from MY limited experience) that few conservative whites are eager to note and highlight their black ancestry, if any exists. I have heard of a couple who discovered black ancestry and then said "...up until now I always thought we were white..." or something similar, almost as if the discovery shook the foundations of their very identity. Don't want to veer into a discussion of the one-drop rule, as I think we all agree that it's ridiculous, but I have generally heard of whiteness discussed as the absence of any non-whites in one's ancestry. I'm glad that it apparently isn't the case everywhere.
Click to expand...

Most whites are all 2 proud to tell you they have native ancestry but little do they know if it exist at all many times it's black ancestry not native lol. You know I really don't know about how white people are taking to it though. I mean I've meet white people that knew they had black in them and would tell you so with no reservations but I suppose anyone that wasn't ok with it wouldn't be telling anyone so I have no idea whom the people are. Alot of people haven't researched their trees yet though either.
 
ReginaStar said:
I don't know at what point it started but somewhere in early US history all these people you named weren't even allowed in the US. Also although Celtic people were allowed here (mostly as indentured servants early on aka slaves) they were heavily discriminated against by the British settlers. However that whole Hitler type thinking mess was not the thinking in Europe prior to Europeans coming to America. Europeans as a whole have been fighting, intermarrying, etc through out time. British are very ethnically diverse themselves. Their ancestors were not only Anglo Saxons but Romans, Normans, Celtic, Scandinavian, and many more. DNA actually shows that the majority of the British ancestors came from the Iberian peninsula long long ago.
Click to expand...

Quite true. Irish were actually viewed as a biologically inferior group in early US history, which since this country is only a couple hundred years old, means the mid-1800s. The treatment of Mediterraneans in this way was pretty well-documented in the areas where they were concentrated (largely the East Coast, with smaller populations in various population centers) in the late-1800s. In St. Louis, Arabs were categorized as 'almost-black' (what nonsense) and forced to live in a buffer zone between blacks and other white groups until the post-WWI period.
 
ReginaStar said:
Most whites are all 2 proud to tell you they have native ancestry but little do they know if it exist at all many times it's black ancestry not native lol. You know I really don't know about how white people are taking to it though. I mean I've meet white people that knew they had black in them and would tell you so with no reservations but I suppose anyone that wasn't ok with it wouldn't be telling anyone so I have no idea whom the people are. Alot of people haven't researched their trees yet though either.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to say anything, either (that would be awkward, lol), but its instructive in the true perceptions held by people about their respective 'gene pools'.
 
orejon4 said:
Thanks for coming over to this thread to read the earlier posts. I must issue one caveat: this conversation can get more nonsensical as it goes on.

I read your genetics discussion and appreciate the discussion of variance within subgroups. I think when people say "black is dominant" they are not trying to say that blackness means the mixed child will come out black, they are generally referring to the fact that most traits that are expressed to a greater degree within the black subgroup are the same traits that are genetically dominant within the other subgroups (i.e. a larger percentage of blacks have dark eyes, fuller lips, broader nose, etc). Hence, "black is dominant" meaning we outwardly express more genetically dominant traits than most groups (to a greater or lesser extent).

Sorry for taking the other thread off track in my discussions with Iykeg (sp?). He and I have an extensive debate in this thread, as you will see. Tonight represents the 2nd time we have ended up in pointless debate wherein he makes comments that appear to deliberately misconstrue my statements to insinuate things about my views on this topic that are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for people saying this largely b/c they identify mixed skin tone and hair as being black when in essence they are truly combination hair and skin tone along with the 2 features and as far as the color goes that's def something I could never understand considering the majority of caucasians also have dark hair and eyes you know.
 
ReginaStar said:
I think the reason for people saying this largely b/c they identify mixed skin tone and hair as being black when in essence they are truly combination hair and skin tone along with the 2 features and as far as the color goes that's def something I could never understand considering the majority of caucasians also have dark hair and eyes you know.
Click to expand...

Right - it's like the definition of 'whiteness' has also gotten more extreme too as a result of racialist thinking in this country. White is becoming defined as some sort of 'purity' that doesn't even exist in reality except in the most extreme cases in Scandinavia (and probably not even there for much longer). You can even find debates within white identity movements about what constitutes 'true white', with them broken down into camps, a la the 'Nordics' who reject the Balkan/Slavs and Mediterraneans because of their histories of population flow and periods of conquest by Arabs, Mongols and Africans. And these aren't even fringe movements, necessarily, anymore. France's National Front now regularly garners 15% of the vote in national elections, to say nothing about local voting in regions where they are strong.
 
ReginaStar said:
I think the reason for people saying this largely b/c they identify mixed skin tone and hair as being black when in essence they are truly combination hair and skin tone along with the 2 features and as far as the color goes that's def something I could never understand considering the majority of caucasians also have dark hair and eyes you know.
Click to expand...

Had to give you a little rep for this. Bingo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom