Muhammad Ali on Interracial Marriage
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I can tell the two apart clearly you cannot i know the difference between a biracial person and a light skinned black person. Your random sampling of africans PROVES NOTHING because it depends on the section of africa that your sample is being taken from. Not all africans are that dark a random sample from nigeria will look different from a random sample from senegal. Have you been to africa? i have and can tell you the difference between the tribes based on how they look.
The whole african americans being lighter than africans thing is mostly ? and ignorance coming from people who have never even been outside of america. Most african american are dark brown to black and do not look like the picture you used.
NO it doesn't depend on the section of Africa. That's the point. The Africans that African Americans descend from largely came from a very specific region in Africa. The picture I put up there contains people from various different places in West Africa which is the region we African Americans descend from. You can look at the group and see there are variations and differences between their looks, but if you are really going to try and argue that those people are as varied in appearance as the group of African Americans I posted, then we can stop this discussion now because you're just arguing to argue whether it's supported by reality.
Furthermore, I have been to West Africa and I went to school with many West Africans both in undergrad and grad. So you ain't saying ? to me. Again, if you're really going to act like the variations in phenotypic traits in West Africa is as varied as with African Americans, we can just stop this discussion cause you're lying to yourself. As for your claim that most African Americans are dark brown to black, I'm just going to ignore that because it's nonsense. I grew up around nothing but black people in SC. Went to an HBCU in FL. Did some work as part of a black internship out in Cali. And I now live near DC, a chocolate city. And in every single one of those experiences and in every region I've ever been to, black skin tones have covered a wide spectrum. As a matter of fact it's something that's celebrated within the community. Just look at a black magazine like Essence or Ebony. Frankly, most of the claims you're making aren't based in any truth. You have this skewed perception of reality, and all your arguments are based on that rather than anything that really exists.
You are trying to make it seem as if the picture you presented of african american represent the average skin color for them. i disagree with you MOST AA'S are not that red and most mullatoes are not that dark the picture you put fourth is not a true portrayal of reality.
Are african americans just like africans physically No I NEVER said that or implied it, however you do MOSTLY STILL LOOK AFRICAN. Africans has the greatest amount of phenotypic variations not america americans.
Most african americans come from these groups igbo akan yoruba and smaller amounts of bakongo mandinka and wolof. so pulling at random in west africa IS A bad idea if you want to know where AA'S CAME FROM and what the people they came from looked like. most of you came from nigeria. In fact still to this day most africans look igbo.
I don't feel like arguing this anymore, but I will point out that you are mistaken about what I'm trying to present. I'm not saying most AA's are red. Neither picture I posted supports that. In both pics, there were a couple red, a could dark skinned, and mostly medium brown. That's typical of AAs.
Also, I know you responded in another post but I'm not going point by point anymore. So I'll just say here that I posted pics of Yoruba and Igbo peoples and while there is some variety there, it certainly doesn't compare to what's typically seen in AA's. Again, I'm not saying that AA's are mixed to the extent that people in Latin America are, but we are mixed enough to the point that you can't just make these claims that biracial people are the enemy.
Past that, we can agree to disagree.
biracial does not equal black there is a difference and that is part of what you don't understand during slavery in the usa most black slave owners were only half black. therefore i am right when i say mix breeds have a history of being the enemy.
FOH Biracial in this country has always equated to black. It's written in the Constitution for goodness sake. If you're really going to act like biracial people weren't mistreated and disenfranchised in this country, then you're just delusional. Maybe to people like you biracial wasn't equated to black, but America as a country certainly didn't feel that way. Like I said before, this whole "biracial" nonsense just started. I didn't even hear people claiming that until Tiger. Before that everyone that was mixed just considered black. In fact, when I was younger, mixed was almost like an insult. People only called mixed kids "mixed" when they wanted to separate and alienate them. Once again, that only proves that ? goes both ways.
And once again, stop listing ? and claiming it's factual without providing proof. I'm sorry. I can't take your word for it because a lot of the stuff you're saying is flat out wrong. That said, I don't doubt there were a lot of mulattos that were against blacks back then. You're talking about a time where the white man was specifically implementing divide and conquer tactics to keep slaves in line. So sure, I can believe that in the slave days, the children of the Masters had more allegiance to their own family members and the people with the power than the ones out there in the fields. But you can't apply that beyond Reconstruction because the dynamics were completely different. It was no long a Master vs Slave relationship. At that point, it was a Black vs White thing, and as noted before, as far as America was concerned, any black in you, made you black.
? ...
You are making my head hurt. You have a lot to learn.
Are you mixed? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I can tell the two apart clearly you cannot i know the difference between a biracial person and a light skinned black person. Your random sampling of africans PROVES NOTHING because it depends on the section of africa that your sample is being taken from. Not all africans are that dark a random sample from nigeria will look different from a random sample from senegal. Have you been to africa? i have and can tell you the difference between the tribes based on how they look.
The whole african americans being lighter than africans thing is mostly ? and ignorance coming from people who have never even been outside of america. Most african american are dark brown to black and do not look like the picture you used.
NO it doesn't depend on the section of Africa. That's the point. The Africans that African Americans descend from largely came from a very specific region in Africa. The picture I put up there contains people from various different places in West Africa which is the region we African Americans descend from. You can look at the group and see there are variations and differences between their looks, but if you are really going to try and argue that those people are as varied in appearance as the group of African Americans I posted, then we can stop this discussion now because you're just arguing to argue whether it's supported by reality.
Furthermore, I have been to West Africa and I went to school with many West Africans both in undergrad and grad. So you ain't saying ? to me. Again, if you're really going to act like the variations in phenotypic traits in West Africa is as varied as with African Americans, we can just stop this discussion cause you're lying to yourself. As for your claim that most African Americans are dark brown to black, I'm just going to ignore that because it's nonsense. I grew up around nothing but black people in SC. Went to an HBCU in FL. Did some work as part of a black internship out in Cali. And I now live near DC, a chocolate city. And in every single one of those experiences and in every region I've ever been to, black skin tones have covered a wide spectrum. As a matter of fact it's something that's celebrated within the community. Just look at a black magazine like Essence or Ebony. Frankly, most of the claims you're making aren't based in any truth. You have this skewed perception of reality, and all your arguments are based on that rather than anything that really exists.
You are trying to make it seem as if the picture you presented of african american represent the average skin color for them. i disagree with you MOST AA'S are not that red and most mullatoes are not that dark the picture you put fourth is not a true portrayal of reality.
Are african americans just like africans physically No I NEVER said that or implied it, however you do MOSTLY STILL LOOK AFRICAN. Africans has the greatest amount of phenotypic variations not america americans.
Most african americans come from these groups igbo akan yoruba and smaller amounts of bakongo mandinka and wolof. so pulling at random in west africa IS A bad idea if you want to know where AA'S CAME FROM and what the people they came from looked like. most of you came from nigeria. In fact still to this day most africans look igbo.
I don't feel like arguing this anymore, but I will point out that you are mistaken about what I'm trying to present. I'm not saying most AA's are red. Neither picture I posted supports that. In both pics, there were a couple red, a could dark skinned, and mostly medium brown. That's typical of AAs.
Also, I know you responded in another post but I'm not going point by point anymore. So I'll just say here that I posted pics of Yoruba and Igbo peoples and while there is some variety there, it certainly doesn't compare to what's typically seen in AA's. Again, I'm not saying that AA's are mixed to the extent that people in Latin America are, but we are mixed enough to the point that you can't just make these claims that biracial people are the enemy.
Past that, we can agree to disagree.
biracial does not equal black there is a difference and that is part of what you don't understand during slavery in the usa most black slave owners were only half black. therefore i am right when i say mix breeds have a history of being the enemy.
FOH Biracial in this country has always equated to black. It's written in the Constitution for goodness sake. If you're really going to act like biracial people weren't mistreated and disenfranchised in this country, then you're just delusional. Maybe to people like you biracial wasn't equated to black, but America as a country certainly didn't feel that way. Like I said before, this whole "biracial" nonsense just started. I didn't even hear people claiming that until Tiger. Before that everyone that was mixed just considered black. In fact, when I was younger, mixed was almost like an insult. People only called mixed kids "mixed" when they wanted to separate and alienate them. Once again, that only proves that ? goes both ways.
And once again, stop listing ? and claiming it's factual without providing proof. I'm sorry. I can't take your word for it because a lot of the stuff you're saying is flat out wrong. That said, I don't doubt there were a lot of mulattos that were against blacks back then. You're talking about a time where the white man was specifically implementing divide and conquer tactics to keep slaves in line. So sure, I can believe that in the slave days, the children of the Masters had more allegiance to their own family members and the people with the power than the ones out there in the fields. But you can't apply that beyond Reconstruction because the dynamics were completely different. It was no long a Master vs Slave relationship. At that point, it was a Black vs White thing, and as noted before, as far as America was concerned, any black in you, made you black.
Biracial people were called black but they were treated differently than full blacks depending on the era and situation. Yeah they were mistreated and as soon as they got a chance to mistreat other blacks they took it. Like i said most black slave owners were mullatoe. THERE is a difference between mullatoes and lighter skinned blacks you refuse to believe this. A black person having mixed ancestry does not make them biracial. even posy slavery mixed and lighter skinned blacks were considered better by the white social order. -
Biracial people were called black but they were treated differently than full blacks depending on the era and situation. Yeah they were mistreated and as soon as they got a chance to mistreat other blacks they took it. Like i said most black slave owners were mullatoe. THERE is a difference between mullatoes and lighter skinned blacks you refuse to believe this. A black person having mixed ancestry does not make them biracial. even posy slavery mixed and lighter skinned blacks were considered better by the white social order.
Yeah, biracial people were treated differently, but that wasn't always a good thing. And there are non-biracial people that betrayed the race when they got the chance too. So what's your point? And again, I'm going to need proof that most black slave owners were mulatto. On top of that, from my readings, a large portion of black slaveowners only owned slaves "on the books." In reality, their "slaves" were family members they bought and gave freedom. So historians typically believe it's difficult to get a fair count of how many true black slave owners there actually were.
And I don't really get the point you're trying to make with the biracial vs light skinned. You acknowledge that they were both considered better by white social order. Even within the black community there existed a complex about them based on skin tone. So where is the big difference you claim exists.
Anyway, I'm going to let you and Civic have this. It's one thing to argue and disagree. That's cool. But both of you are getting condescending with it, which is ridiculous given that you're both just pulling stuff out of your ? and presenting it as fact. Seriously, both of you have claimed something was fact like a dozen times, and I haven't seen one iota of evidence provided suggesting any of it's true. I can claim my ? smells like cherries and act like you're just an ignorant fool because you don't agree. That doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying is complete ? and the same goes for pretty much everything you two are saying. -
? ...
You are making my head hurt. You have a lot to learn.
Are you mixed?
Yes he is. That's why he's responding with titangraph after titangraph. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Biracial people were called black but they were treated differently than full blacks depending on the era and situation. Yeah they were mistreated and as soon as they got a chance to mistreat other blacks they took it. Like i said most black slave owners were mullatoe. THERE is a difference between mullatoes and lighter skinned blacks you refuse to believe this. A black person having mixed ancestry does not make them biracial. even posy slavery mixed and lighter skinned blacks were considered better by the white social order.
Yeah, biracial people were treated differently, but that wasn't always a good thing. And there are non-biracial people that betrayed the race when they got the chance too. So what's your point? And again, I'm going to need proof that most black slave owners were mulatto. On top of that, from my readings, a large portion of black slaveowners only owned slaves "on the books." In reality, their "slaves" were family members they bought and gave freedom. So historians typically believe it's difficult to get a fair count of how many true black slave owners there actually were.
And I don't really get the point you're trying to make with the biracial vs light skinned. You acknowledge that they were both considered better by white social order. Even within the black community there existed a complex about them based on skin tone. So where is the big difference you claim exists.
Anyway, I'm going to let you and Civic have this. It's one thing to argue and disagree. That's cool. But both of you are getting condescending with it, which is ridiculous given that you're both just pulling stuff out of your ? and presenting it as fact. Seriously, both of you have claimed something was fact like a dozen times, and I haven't seen one iota of evidence provided suggesting any of it's true. I can claim my ? smells like cherries and act like you're just an ignorant fool because you don't agree. That doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying is complete ? and the same goes for pretty much everything you two are saying.
Any betrayal is bad, no matter who does it that is why race mixing is bad. Light skinned black people don't necessrially have white parents and more times than not they are raised by people who fully consider themselves to be part of the black race. biracial people come from both heritages and either love them both or love only one side. That is what makes dealing with them treacherous.
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
Like i said earlier when the american mulatoe population begins to get larger they will start considering themselves to be a distinct group and will no longer care about the concerns of black people. This has happened else where in the world and i see no reason why it should not happen right here in america. In england often they don't identify as black/african, in latin america they don't identify as black/african. America will be next it's only a matter of time.
@LONIOUS MONK if you are mixed and can't deal with this i am sorry but it's the truth.
-
LOL@ this is only time when mulattoes get ethered.
Outside of the internet, they're like ? 's gift. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Biracial people were called black but they were treated differently than full blacks depending on the era and situation. Yeah they were mistreated and as soon as they got a chance to mistreat other blacks they took it. Like i said most black slave owners were mullatoe. THERE is a difference between mullatoes and lighter skinned blacks you refuse to believe this. A black person having mixed ancestry does not make them biracial. even posy slavery mixed and lighter skinned blacks were considered better by the white social order.
Yeah, biracial people were treated differently, but that wasn't always a good thing. And there are non-biracial people that betrayed the race when they got the chance too. So what's your point? And again, I'm going to need proof that most black slave owners were mulatto. On top of that, from my readings, a large portion of black slaveowners only owned slaves "on the books." In reality, their "slaves" were family members they bought and gave freedom. So historians typically believe it's difficult to get a fair count of how many true black slave owners there actually were.
And I don't really get the point you're trying to make with the biracial vs light skinned. You acknowledge that they were both considered better by white social order. Even within the black community there existed a complex about them based on skin tone. So where is the big difference you claim exists.
Anyway, I'm going to let you and Civic have this. It's one thing to argue and disagree. That's cool. But both of you are getting condescending with it, which is ridiculous given that you're both just pulling stuff out of your ? and presenting it as fact. Seriously, both of you have claimed something was fact like a dozen times, and I haven't seen one iota of evidence provided suggesting any of it's true. I can claim my ? smells like cherries and act like you're just an ignorant fool because you don't agree. That doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying is complete ? and the same goes for pretty much everything you two are saying.
Any betrayal is bad, no matter who does it that is why race mixing is bad. Light skinned black people don't necessrially have white parents and more times than not they are raised by people who fully consider themselves to be part of the black race. biracial people come from both heritages and either love them both or love only one side. That is what makes dealing with them treacherous.
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
Like i said earlier when the american mulatoe population begins to get larger they will start considering themselves to be a distinct group and will no longer care about the concerns of black people. This has happened else where in the world and i see no reason why it should not happen right here in america. In england often they don't identify as black/african, in latin america they don't identify as black/african. America will be next it's only a matter of time.
@LONIOUS MONK if you are mixed and can't deal with this i am sorry but it's the truth.
Yeah, I'm mixed. But I'm not sensitive about it. If you guys could present a decent argument for your case, I'd be fine with it. The problem is, you guys aren't. And then you got people like Civic saying I have a lot to learn. A lot to learn about what? Ya'll are slanging nonsensical propaganda and passing it as fact. If that is what you considered dropping knowledge, then the White Supremacists have been doing that for years because you guys are basically borrowing pages from their playbooks. Case in point, their favorite tactic is to take the actions of a subset of blacks and use it to denigrate the entire race. That's exactly what you're doing to mullatos.
I do agree that what you say about mullatos seeing themselves at a distinct group at some point. That's the nature of the melting ? . However, that's different from calling them traitors which you're doing. They won't be betraying blacks. They will be finding their own identity, which means being unaligned with any group in particular. So, again there is no reason to make them out to be the enemy as you are doing.
Anyways, you're already defeated your own point. You acknowledge betrayal is bad no matter who does it. Therefore, if mixed people as a group are bad because some are betrayers then it logically follows that nonmixed people as a group are bad because some are betrayers. So in the end you're no proving anything other than people in general can be pretty ? .
-
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Biracial people were called black but they were treated differently than full blacks depending on the era and situation. Yeah they were mistreated and as soon as they got a chance to mistreat other blacks they took it. Like i said most black slave owners were mullatoe. THERE is a difference between mullatoes and lighter skinned blacks you refuse to believe this. A black person having mixed ancestry does not make them biracial. even posy slavery mixed and lighter skinned blacks were considered better by the white social order.
Yeah, biracial people were treated differently, but that wasn't always a good thing. And there are non-biracial people that betrayed the race when they got the chance too. So what's your point? And again, I'm going to need proof that most black slave owners were mulatto. On top of that, from my readings, a large portion of black slaveowners only owned slaves "on the books." In reality, their "slaves" were family members they bought and gave freedom. So historians typically believe it's difficult to get a fair count of how many true black slave owners there actually were.
And I don't really get the point you're trying to make with the biracial vs light skinned. You acknowledge that they were both considered better by white social order. Even within the black community there existed a complex about them based on skin tone. So where is the big difference you claim exists.
Anyway, I'm going to let you and Civic have this. It's one thing to argue and disagree. That's cool. But both of you are getting condescending with it, which is ridiculous given that you're both just pulling stuff out of your ? and presenting it as fact. Seriously, both of you have claimed something was fact like a dozen times, and I haven't seen one iota of evidence provided suggesting any of it's true. I can claim my ? smells like cherries and act like you're just an ignorant fool because you don't agree. That doesn't change the fact that what I'm saying is complete ? and the same goes for pretty much everything you two are saying.
Any betrayal is bad, no matter who does it that is why race mixing is bad. Light skinned black people don't necessrially have white parents and more times than not they are raised by people who fully consider themselves to be part of the black race. biracial people come from both heritages and either love them both or love only one side. That is what makes dealing with them treacherous.
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
Like i said earlier when the american mulatoe population begins to get larger they will start considering themselves to be a distinct group and will no longer care about the concerns of black people. This has happened else where in the world and i see no reason why it should not happen right here in america. In england often they don't identify as black/african, in latin america they don't identify as black/african. America will be next it's only a matter of time.
@LONIOUS MONK if you are mixed and can't deal with this i am sorry but it's the truth.
Yeah, I'm mixed. But I'm not sensitive about it. If you guys could present a decent argument for your case, I'd be fine with it. The problem is, you guys aren't. And then you got people like Civic saying I have a lot to learn. A lot to learn about what? Ya'll are slanging nonsensical propaganda and passing it as fact. If that is what you considered dropping knowledge, then the White Supremacists have been doing that for years because you guys are basically borrowing pages from their playbooks. Case in point, their favorite tactic is to take the actions of a subset of blacks and use it to denigrate the entire race. That's exactly what you're doing to mullatos.
I do agree that what you say about mullatos seeing themselves at a distinct group at some point. That's the nature of the melting ? . However, that's different from calling them traitors which you're doing. They won't be betraying blacks. They will be finding their own identity, which means being unaligned with any group in particular. So, again there is no reason to make them out to be the enemy as you are doing.
Anyways, you're already defeated your own point. You acknowledge betrayal is bad no matter who does it. Therefore, if mixed people as a group are bad because some are betrayers then it logically follows that nonmixed people as a group are bad because some are betrayers. So in the end you're no proving anything other than people in general can be pretty ? .
The fact that most black slave owners in america were mulatoe and that there are many instances in history like the haitian revolution and if you look at modern day latin america black people are marginalized there and over in africa you have the mix breed north sudan committing genocide on south sudan. There is more than enough proof if you would open your ? eyes and look YOU ARE JUST IN denial . Mulatoes find their own identity and in the process black/ african people get ? . there is enough historical precedence for US to say that mulatoe people tend to be traitors more than anyone else.
I am not making this ? up i have used modern day examples and historical ones IF you are not with us you are against us. LIKE I SAID EARLIER WE DON'T NEED LESS BLACK FAMILIES,race mixing creates less black families and gives us another group of people we have to compete with economically an politically therefore the people who race mix are doing us a disservice, they are traitors to our cause. All betrayal is bad but the effects of race mixing is worse than any other betrayal. Because it weakens the group and creates people who cannot be trusted. -
@theLONIOUSMONK YOU ARE not one of us and to make it worse you clearly don't want to be. Yellow slave boys who support race mixing can never be down with team black. Do you want your own identity? ok but don't bother yourself with black concerns or with black history afterall you have your own identity
-
The fact that most black slave owners in america were mulatoe and that there are many instances in history like the haitian revolution and if you look at modern day latin america black people are marginalized there and over in africa you have the mix breed north sudan committing genocide on south sudan. There is more than enough proof if you would open your ? eyes and look YOU ARE JUST IN denial . Mulatoes find their own identity and in the process black/ african people get ? . there is enough historical precedence for US to say that mulatoe people tend to be traitors.
I am not making this ? up i have used modern day examples and historical ones IF you are not with us you are against us. LIKE I SAID EARLIER WE DON'T NEED LESS BLACK FAMILIES,race mixing creates less black families and gives us another group of people we have to compete with economically an politically therefore the people who race mix are doing us a disservice, they are traitors to our cause. All betrayal is bad but the effects of race mixing is worse than any other betrayal. Because it weakens the group and creates people who cannot be trusted.
It's ok. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit and that's fine. Once again providing a couple examples of mulattos betraying blacks doesn't not prove that mulattos as a group are betrayers. You cite the hatian revolution as a historical example of mixed people doing ? up ? . I cite the African Slave Trade as an example of nonmixed people doing ? up ? . You cite the Sudan genocide as a modern day example of ? up ? perpetrated by mixed people. I cite the Civil War in the Congo as a modern day example of nonmixed people doing ? up ? to each other. There is more than enough proof. You're right. More than enough proof that mixed people are just like nonmixed people. If given the chance some of them will do just about anything for their own advancement.
As far as your reason for hating race mixing, I understand it. I don't agree, but your reasoning at least in that matter is sound. The problem is once again, that if mixed people become this group that is competing with and trying to usurp the black race, it's because people like you have taken a strong stance of alienating and trying to excommunicate mixed people. As it stand, mixed people in the US by and large identify themselves as black. The only one trying to define them as something else is you.@theLONIOUSMONK YOU ARE not one of us and to make it worse you clearly don't want to be. Yellow slave boys who support race mixing can never be down with team black. Do you want your own identity? ok but don't bother yourself with black concerns or with black history afterall you have your own identity
I'm not really sure where this even comes from. Regardless of my background. I've never identified myself as anything other than black. So saying black is something I don't want to be is silly. And being that you don't define who is or who isn't black nor do you enforce those divisions, I can't really say I care about what you say. I have my identity. I'm a black man. Do I have some white in my lineage? Yes, as does the majority of African Americans as has already been proven. Once again, you show the stupidity of your argument and your stance. You try and tell me what I want or what I seek based on your own silly hangups regarding biracial people and it doesn't fit. But it's all good, if nothing else, your silly ranting is entertaining.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The fact that most black slave owners in america were mulatoe and that there are many instances in history like the haitian revolution and if you look at modern day latin america black people are marginalized there and over in africa you have the mix breed north sudan committing genocide on south sudan. There is more than enough proof if you would open your ? eyes and look YOU ARE JUST IN denial . Mulatoes find their own identity and in the process black/ african people get ? . there is enough historical precedence for US to say that mulatoe people tend to be traitors.
I am not making this ? up i have used modern day examples and historical ones IF you are not with us you are against us. LIKE I SAID EARLIER WE DON'T NEED LESS BLACK FAMILIES,race mixing creates less black families and gives us another group of people we have to compete with economically an politically therefore the people who race mix are doing us a disservice, they are traitors to our cause. All betrayal is bad but the effects of race mixing is worse than any other betrayal. Because it weakens the group and creates people who cannot be trusted.
It's ok. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit and that's fine. Once again providing a couple examples of mulattos betraying blacks doesn't not prove that mulattos as a group are betrayers. You cite the hatian revolution as a historical example of mixed people doing ? up ? . I cite the African Slave Trade as an example of nonmixed people doing ? up ? . You cite the Sudan genocide as a modern day example of ? up ? perpetrated by mixed people. I cite the Civil War in the Congo as a modern day example of nonmixed people doing ? up ? to each other. There is more than enough proof. You're right. More than enough proof that mixed people are just like nonmixed people. If given the chance some of them will do just about anything for their own advancement.
As far as your reason for hating race mixing, I understand it. I don't agree, but your reasoning at least in that matter is sound. The problem is once again, that if mixed people become this group that is competing with and trying to usurp the black race, it's because people like you have taken a strong stance of alienating and trying to excommunicate mixed people. As it stand, mixed people in the US by and large identify themselves as black. The only one trying to define them as something else is you.@theLONIOUSMONK YOU ARE not one of us and to make it worse you clearly don't want to be. Yellow slave boys who support race mixing can never be down with team black. Do you want your own identity? ok but don't bother yourself with black concerns or with black history afterall you have your own identity
I'm not really sure where this even comes from. Regardless of my background. I've never identified myself as anything other than black. So saying black is something I don't want to be is silly. And being that you don't define who is or who isn't black nor do you enforce those divisions, I can't really say I care about what you say. I have my identity. I'm a black man. Do I have some white in my lineage? Yes, as does the majority of African Americans as has already been proven. Once again, you show the stupidity of your argument and your stance. You try and tell me what I want or what I seek based on your own silly hangups regarding biracial people and it doesn't fit. But it's all good, if nothing else, your silly ranting is entertaining.
There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.
-
You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
-
There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.
I understand what you're saying perfectly. Everything you're saying is just illogical. All you've proved so far is that there has been a history of some mixed people betraying the Black race. That's true. As I pointed out, history shows that nonmixed people have betrayed the Black race too. In other words, whether mixed or nonmixed, under the right circumstances and depending on the character of the people involved, betrayal will happen. What you've not proven is that all mixed people are betrayers, and that's not something you can prove considering that mixed people have been a part of every black movement that has occurred in or outside of this country and many of them did not result to any sort of betrayal. Again, if there are numerous examples of nonmixed people betraying the race and numerous examples of mixed people who didn't betray the race, it requires a childlike lack of logic to draw the conclusion that mixed people are uniquely treacherous.
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment about my last paragraph. I didn't make any distinction between lightskinned and mullato there. I have a biracial parent. So yes, that would define me as biracial. However, I do and have always considered myself a black person, and the point of my last paragraph is that your opinions on that matter are irrelevant to me. I know what I am, and your silly generalizations and illogical statements won't change that.You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
I'm not in favor or against race mixing. I acknowledge that everyone has the right to be with who they want and it's not my place to tell them who they should or shouldn't be with. I believe it's important and natural to want to preserve the culture, so I think all people should at least try to be with someone like them. But I acknowledge that it does not always play out that way. That said, I also don't agree that because someone comes out mixed that they are going to be against black people like you seem to believe.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.
I understand what you're saying perfectly. Everything you're saying is just illogical. All you've proved so far is that there has been a history of some mixed people betraying the Black race. That's true. As I pointed out, history shows that nonmixed people have betrayed the Black race too. In other words, whether mixed or nonmixed, under the right circumstances and depending on the character of the people involved, betrayal will happen. What you've not proven is that all mixed people are betrayers, and that's not something you can prove considering that mixed people have been a part of every black movement that has occurred in or outside of this country and many of them did not result to any sort of betrayal. Again, if there are numerous examples of nonmixed people betraying the race and numerous examples of mixed people who didn't betray the race, it requires a childlike lack of logic to draw the conclusion that mixed people are uniquely treacherous.
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment about my last paragraph. I didn't make any distinction between lightskinned and mullato there. I have a biracial parent. So yes, that would define me as biracial. However, I do and have always considered myself a black person, and the point of my last paragraph is that your opinions on that matter are irrelevant to me. I know what I am, and your silly generalizations and illogical statements won't change that.You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
I'm not in favor or against race mixing. I acknowledge that everyone has the right to be with who they want and it's not my place to tell them who they should or shouldn't be with. I believe it's important and natural to want to preserve the culture, so I think all people should at least try to be with someone like them. But I acknowledge that it does not always play out that way. That said, I also don't agree that because someone comes out mixed that they are going to be against black people like you seem to believe.The Lonious Monk wrote: »There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.I understand what you're saying perfectly. Everything you're saying is just illogical. All you've proved so far is that there has been a history of some mixed people betraying the Black race. That's true. As I pointed out, history shows that nonmixed people have betrayed the Black race too. In other words, whether mixed or nonmixed, under the right circumstances and depending on the character of the people involved, betrayal will happen. What you've not proven is that all mixed people are betrayers, and that's not something you can prove considering that mixed people have been a part of every black movement that has occurred in or outside of this country and many of them did not result to any sort of betrayal. Again, if there are numerous examples of nonmixed people betraying the race and numerous examples of mixed people who didn't betray the race, it requires a childlike lack of logic to draw the conclusion that mixed people are uniquely treacherous.
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment about my last paragraph. I didn't make any distinction between lightskinned and mullato there. I have a biracial parent. So yes, that would define me as biracial. However, I do and have always considered myself a black person, and the point of my last paragraph is that your opinions on that matter are irrelevant to me. I know what I am, and your silly generalizations and illogical statements won't change that.
Why would i say that ALL MIXED RACE PEOPLE ARE TRAITORS DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENSE? no. I am dealing with an informed generalization based on history and like i already told you just because black people have betrayed black people that does not invalidate my statement that mixed race populations tend to backstab african/black people and when you do it it has greater effect. You still do not get part of that i am saying if you have one biracial parent and one black parent then you are not biracial. You can call yourself whatever the ? you want to that does not make it so.You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
I'm not in favor or against race mixing. I acknowledge that everyone has the right to be with who they want and it's not my place to tell them who they should or shouldn't be with. I believe it's important and natural to want to preserve the culture, so I think all people should at least try to be with someone like them. But I acknowledge that it does not always play out that way. That said, I also don't agree that because someone comes out mixed that they are going to be against black people like you seem to believe.
If you don't stand against evil then you are for it. I am speaking on a larger level the individual is less important in this discussion. I am talking about historical trends and patterns when there is enough mixed people they will begin to oppress black people, blacks by ourselves have tratiors we don't need to create more -
Why would i say that ALL MIXED RACE PEOPLE ARE TRAITORS DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENSE? no. I am dealing with an informed generalization based on history and like i already told you just because black people have betrayed black people that does not invalidate my statement that mixed race populations tend to backstab african/black people and when you do it it has greater effect. You still do not get part of that i am saying if you have one biracial parent and one black parent then you are not biracial. You can call yourself whatever the ? you want to that does not make it so.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.
I understand what you're saying perfectly. Everything you're saying is just illogical. All you've proved so far is that there has been a history of some mixed people betraying the Black race. That's true. As I pointed out, history shows that nonmixed people have betrayed the Black race too. In other words, whether mixed or nonmixed, under the right circumstances and depending on the character of the people involved, betrayal will happen. What you've not proven is that all mixed people are betrayers, and that's not something you can prove considering that mixed people have been a part of every black movement that has occurred in or outside of this country and many of them did not result to any sort of betrayal. Again, if there are numerous examples of nonmixed people betraying the race and numerous examples of mixed people who didn't betray the race, it requires a childlike lack of logic to draw the conclusion that mixed people are uniquely treacherous.
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment about my last paragraph. I didn't make any distinction between lightskinned and mullato there. I have a biracial parent. So yes, that would define me as biracial. However, I do and have always considered myself a black person, and the point of my last paragraph is that your opinions on that matter are irrelevant to me. I know what I am, and your silly generalizations and illogical statements won't change that.You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
I'm not in favor or against race mixing. I acknowledge that everyone has the right to be with who they want and it's not my place to tell them who they should or shouldn't be with. I believe it's important and natural to want to preserve the culture, so I think all people should at least try to be with someone like them. But I acknowledge that it does not always play out that way. That said, I also don't agree that because someone comes out mixed that they are going to be against black people like you seem to believe.The Lonious Monk wrote: »There being full blooded blacks who have done bad things does not mean that mullatoes are not traitors. My examples are long periods in history so stop trying to down play them like they are nothing. Black people have always tried to absorb you mix breeds but in the end you betray us. The last paragraph just proves that you don't understand my argument at all most likely because you don't want too. If you have one white parent you are not a light skinned black person you are a mullatoe. i don't have any hang ups about biracial people i know that they are they don't know what they are.
You can't logically argue with me because you don't understand what i am saying.I understand what you're saying perfectly. Everything you're saying is just illogical. All you've proved so far is that there has been a history of some mixed people betraying the Black race. That's true. As I pointed out, history shows that nonmixed people have betrayed the Black race too. In other words, whether mixed or nonmixed, under the right circumstances and depending on the character of the people involved, betrayal will happen. What you've not proven is that all mixed people are betrayers, and that's not something you can prove considering that mixed people have been a part of every black movement that has occurred in or outside of this country and many of them did not result to any sort of betrayal. Again, if there are numerous examples of nonmixed people betraying the race and numerous examples of mixed people who didn't betray the race, it requires a childlike lack of logic to draw the conclusion that mixed people are uniquely treacherous.
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment about my last paragraph. I didn't make any distinction between lightskinned and mullato there. I have a biracial parent. So yes, that would define me as biracial. However, I do and have always considered myself a black person, and the point of my last paragraph is that your opinions on that matter are irrelevant to me. I know what I am, and your silly generalizations and illogical statements won't change that.
Why would i say that ALL MIXED RACE PEOPLE ARE TRAITORS DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENSE? no. I am dealing with an informed generalization based on history and like i already told you just because black people have betrayed black people that does not invalidate my statement that mixed race populations tend to backstab african/black people and when you do it it has greater effect. You still do not get part of that i am saying if you have one biracial parent and one black parent then you are not biracial. You can call yourself whatever the ? you want to that does not make it so.You cannot support race mixing and support black people at the same time they cancel each other out.
I'm not in favor or against race mixing. I acknowledge that everyone has the right to be with who they want and it's not my place to tell them who they should or shouldn't be with. I believe it's important and natural to want to preserve the culture, so I think all people should at least try to be with someone like them. But I acknowledge that it does not always play out that way. That said, I also don't agree that because someone comes out mixed that they are going to be against black people like you seem to believe.
If you don't stand against evil then you are for it. I am speaking on a larger level the individual is less important in this discussion. I am talking about historical trends and patterns when there is enough mixed people they will begin to oppress black people, blacks by ourselves have tratiors we don't need to create more
And once again, there is the lapse in your logic. The historical trends and patterns show that there is plenty of betrayal within the black community both by mixed and nonmixed people. To your credit you even acknowledge this. So knowing that producing offspring be they pure breed or mixed can result in making some betrayers, your idea that eliminating mixing will eliminate treachery is flawed. Like you said, nonmixed blacks have traitors, so more will be created regardless of whether they are pure or mixed.
I wouldn't go as far as saying mixed breeding is evil. To me that's either a silly statement or one devoid of understanding what evil means. However, if you're talking on the large level instead of the individual, then I'd agree it's a bad thing. I don't think there should be this mass movement to interbreed between the races because despite all the bad that comes from having distinct cultures and such, I think there is merit to the different cultures and it would be a great loss for them to be replaced by some great mish mash. -
so what? that does not mean mixed race populations are not generally speaking bad for the black race. can you quote where i said that not producing mix offspring will end treachery among black people? i never said that.
black people race mixing is evil, it's like ignoring a crying child ignoring your responsibility is evil black men have a responsibility to black women and vice verse. Together we have a responsibility to future generations of black children.
we need to get rid of the black traitors and we need to get rid of the mixed ones, the latter will be easier because we don't have to create them.
-
so what? that does not mean mixed race populations are not generally speaking bad for the black race. can you quote where i said that not producing mix offspring will end treachery among black people? i never said that.
black people race mixing is evil, it's like ignoring a crying child ignoring your responsibility is evil black men have a responsibility to black women and vice verse. Together we have a responsibility to future generations of black children.
we need to get rid of the black traitors and we need to get rid of the mixed ones, the latter will be easier because we don't have to create them.
If all your faults with mixed people are just as prevalent among nonmixed people then your ire with mixed people is pointless.
We can agree to disagree on the evilness of mixed breeding. I do agree you have a responsibility towards the betterment of the people you identify with. I don't agree that that extends to having to be with someone from that group in the event that you connect better with someone else. No one should have to suffer through a mediocre relationship just to put on some false showing of racial solidarity. Besides, as I pointed out before, mixed children raised as black children don't tend to think of themselves as anything other than black, so that pairing wouldn't hurt the black race at all depending on how the child is raised.
I suppose your last statement is at least sound in it's reasoning. That said, if you concentrated more on weeding out traitors as opposed to what the racial background of said traitors are, you'd be a lot more productive. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »so what? that does not mean mixed race populations are not generally speaking bad for the black race. can you quote where i said that not producing mix offspring will end treachery among black people? i never said that.
black people race mixing is evil, it's like ignoring a crying child ignoring your responsibility is evil black men have a responsibility to black women and vice verse. Together we have a responsibility to future generations of black children.
we need to get rid of the black traitors and we need to get rid of the mixed ones, the latter will be easier because we don't have to create them.
If all your faults with mixed people are just as prevalent among nonmixed people then your ire with mixed people is pointless.
We can agree to disagree on the evilness of mixed breeding. I do agree you have a responsibility towards the betterment of the people you identify with. I don't agree that that extends to having to be with someone from that group in the event that you connect better with someone else. No one should have to suffer through a mediocre relationship just to put on some false showing of racial solidarity. Besides, as I pointed out before, mixed children raised as black children don't tend to think of themselves as anything other than black, so that pairing wouldn't hurt the black race at all depending on how the child is raised.
I suppose your last statement is at least sound in it's reasoning. That said, if you concentrated more on weeding out traitors as opposed to what the racial background of said traitors are, you'd be a lot more productive.
All the faults that i find in the existence of mixed people are not just as prevalent among nonmixed people. Mullatoes by their very existence create extra problems for black people they create another issue we have to deal with. Many Mixed race children NOW THINK the way you describe, i don't believe that they will still think that way 40 years from now. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »so what? that does not mean mixed race populations are not generally speaking bad for the black race. can you quote where i said that not producing mix offspring will end treachery among black people? i never said that.
black people race mixing is evil, it's like ignoring a crying child ignoring your responsibility is evil black men have a responsibility to black women and vice verse. Together we have a responsibility to future generations of black children.
we need to get rid of the black traitors and we need to get rid of the mixed ones, the latter will be easier because we don't have to create them.
If all your faults with mixed people are just as prevalent among nonmixed people then your ire with mixed people is pointless.
We can agree to disagree on the evilness of mixed breeding. I do agree you have a responsibility towards the betterment of the people you identify with. I don't agree that that extends to having to be with someone from that group in the event that you connect better with someone else. No one should have to suffer through a mediocre relationship just to put on some false showing of racial solidarity. Besides, as I pointed out before, mixed children raised as black children don't tend to think of themselves as anything other than black, so that pairing wouldn't hurt the black race at all depending on how the child is raised.
I suppose your last statement is at least sound in it's reasoning. That said, if you concentrated more on weeding out traitors as opposed to what the racial background of said traitors are, you'd be a lot more productive.
All the faults that i find in the existence of mixed people are not just as prevalent among nonmixed people. Mullatoes by their very existence create extra problems for black people they create another issue we have to deal with. Many Mixed race children NOW THINK the way you describe, i don't believe that they will still think that way 40 years from now.
Well I don't have a time machine, so I can't say. But I work tutor at black schools and have taught both mixed and nonmixed kids. I haven't seen any trend of mixed kids separating themselves, so I guess only time will tell.
-
-
Colorism is real.....
Hybrid vigor is real.......
Which is why so many hybrids are in visible professions.....
From my experience (dark skinned) black folks kick up the most negative ? about (dark skinned) black folks......
-
There is no such thing as hybrid vigor in humans
-
There is no such thing as hybrid vigor in humans
There is........
Susanne Malveaux.......
And the hybrids that Ali couldn't get enough of........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQPjEPY4n-A&list=LL5N1gd93uNHIcPD0edkry3g