White Genetic Annihilation

i think he will chill out after a healthy ban.
people have been disciplined for less than the last angry comment he made in this thread.

he should be glad i'm not mod.

but back to the topic....

no response to this?

Quote:

---

the fact of the matter is that if a white person mates with anything but another white person, their offspring is no longer considered white by whites.

whites identify themselves as being pure. that purity is at the core of white pride and white supremacy.

scientifically speaking, so called "white" genes are recessive and are less likely to be adopted by the offspring of mixed couples.

so the whole argument of "you never get rid of white genes" is irrelevant because according to white society, once you have lost the purity of your whiteness it doesn't matter how small of a percentage of black or asian or indian you have in you, YOU AIN'T WHITE.

therefore if every white person mated with a non-white person there would be no more white people on earth. this is the root of white supremacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you're already crying faggot.
so i know you will walk the "remove sunny as mod" Trail of Tears in admin section.

the fact of the matter is that if a white person mates with anything but another white person, their offspring is no longer considered white by whites.

whites identify themselves as being pure. that purity is at the core of white pride and white supremacy.

scientifically speaking, so called "white" genes are recessive and are less likely to be adopted by the offspring of mixed couples.

so the whole argument of "you never get rid of white genes" is irrelevant because according to white society, once you have lost the purity of your whiteness it doesn't matter how small of a percentage of black or asian or indian you have in you, YOU AIN'T WHITE.

therefore if every white person mated with a non-white person there would be no more white people on earth. this is the root of white supremacy.

PS.
boarz when we get home i'm pulling out my belt.

---

This is true. Only the half white half black ones catch hell. The other half breeds of races are in "good terms" with whites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDiamondFDC

I guess it's time to start killing anybody that isn't white.

---

thats already been started

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you're already crying faggot.
so i know you will walk the "remove sunny as mod" Trail of Tears in admin section.

the fact of the matter is that if a white person mates with anything but another white person, their offspring is no longer considered white by whites.

whites identify themselves as being pure. that purity is at the core of white pride and white supremacy.

scientifically speaking, so called "white" genes are recessive and are less likely to be adopted by the offspring of mixed couples.

so the whole argument of "you never get rid of white genes" is irrelevant because according to white society, once you have lost the purity of your whiteness it doesn't matter how small of a percentage of black or asian or indian you have in you, YOU AIN'T WHITE.

therefore if every white person mated with a non-white person there would be no more white people on earth. this is the root of white supremacy.

PS.
boarz when we get home i'm pulling out my belt.

---

good post

How bout albinos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tectrus Moa

This is true. Only the half white half black ones catch hell. The other half breeds of races are in "good terms" with whites.

---

Insightful.

:i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you're already crying faggot.
so i know you will walk the "remove sunny as mod" Trail of Tears in admin section.

the fact of the matter is that if a white person mates with anything but another white person, their offspring is no longer considered white by whites.

whites identify themselves as being pure. that purity is at the core of white pride and white supremacy.

scientifically speaking, so called "white" genes are recessive and are less likely to be adopted by the offspring of mixed couples.

so the whole argument of "you never get rid of white genes" is irrelevant because according to white society, once you have lost the purity of your whiteness it doesn't matter how small of a percentage of black or asian or indian you have in you, YOU AIN'T WHITE.

therefore if every white person mated with a non-white person there would be no more white people on earth. this is the root of white supremacy.

PS.
boarz when we get home i'm pulling out my belt.

---

The problem is you're dealing with probabilities. If every white person mated with a non-white, chances are they would mate with at least some phenotypically mixed raced people (somewhat visibly white), or phenotypical non-white's with a recessive white gene. Obviously multiple generations of breeding would lead to lower and lower numbers of pure white phenotypes.

But you would still get 'purely' visible white babies. That's what matters to people. That's nature. Racists go off looks, not off genome transcripts or accurate genealogies.

Secondly, your first point makes your second point irrelevant. BECAUSE some racist white people want to have pure white babies they would never mate with anybody who doesn't look white. This somehow contradicts the ladies point that white people want or are envious of black genes??? Also, European in the middle ages to the renaissance thought being pale was a mark of beauty (just look at paintings and how the upper class looked). Being dark was seen as evil or base, mostly because it meant you had work outside for a living. Likely, the modern desire for a tan reflects more on the class demographics than some inherent racial jealousy.


Also, we're forgetting about the environment as it relates to advantage in determining a gene. White people were white because they lived in cold environments with not alot of sun, having less pigment allows more sun into your skin (for vitamin D). Black skin works in opposite fashion, it reflects the harsh and abundant sunshine.

If you were living in Norway getting a hard on for a pale female would advantageous for your children. In Sudan, maybe not so much.


What does this all mean? That race based off skin colour alone is obviously retarded. It's just raw material for drawing up semantic categories like 'white' and 'black'.

Truly, if white 'purity' were to be genetically eliminated, racist would just occupy the next best thing. Even in India now being 'lighter' is seen as superior and desirable, even though everybody has a tint.

you completely missed the point.
the point of this thread was addressing the link between white supremacy and white genetic annihilation.

in a white dominated world you have white and non-white. to a white, what makes a white... white?
answer: not being mixed with a non white.

end of story.

as to the other stuff you posted. there arent enough white people in the world to play that scenario out. white people could easily get mated out of the human genepool without having to be match with a mixed genotype.


where did the Indian skin tone system come from?

the white man lived in cold area THEORY does not hold water for a few reasons.
1. they ate a heavy meat and cows milk diet which provided ample vitamin D.
2. inuits aka eskimoes are not white yet they live in cold areas, that at times don't get ANY sunlight for months on end.
3. whites lived on the italian penisula and the iberian penisula where there is plenty of sun.
4. black people have been living in cold un-sunny places for 1000s of years now why havent they turned white?

i think you took what i said to heart. that was not my aim. but if you can answer those questions for me then that would be cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by check two

How bout albinos?

---

you mean white people? thats what we've been talking about.

Usually ample amounts of Vitamin D can only be gained from the sun and not from food/liquid sources. Many people are lacking in it.

Are "Whites" the evolved version of the Original Man ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you completely missed the point.
the point of this thread was addressing the link between white supremacy and white genetic annihilation.

in a white dominated world you have white and non-white. to a white, what makes a white... white?
answer: not being mixed with a non white.

---

Its more complicated than that. You missed my point that the reality of what skin colour means changes as cultures and trait frequency changes. Simply, if 'white' was to be annihilated, 'white' would change meaning. If a racist power and self identity was based on being white and they looked overtly white and almost no one was truly 'pure' white, don't you think they would invoke a new measure for whiteness? You think 'whites' would pack it in or continue to prolong the subjective, invented category of whiteness?

Also, skin coloun is poly-genetic continuous trait, its not typically mendelian. I don't think what this woman is saying is scientifically true. Lots of different genes go into skin colour and skin colour isn't a discrete trait, like white or black, but a continuum (obviously).

The point is 'whiteness' for the most is already 'annihilated' everybody has been mixed or has an ancestor that isn't a pale zombie. But to me and you, and to every other racist out there it exists, and would exist as a category no matter what kind of breeding goes on, so long as the culture remains unchanged on that point. This is the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

as to the other stuff you posted. there arent enough white people in the world to play that scenario out. white people could easily get mated out of the human genepool without having to be match with a mixed genotype.

---

What scenario? If white people intently only bred with other whites, there would be a very high chance of white babies being around(which is what happens now).

This seems like a silly game anyway. What are we trying to prove here?
Some people find whiteness attractiveness in mates, and some less so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

where did the Indian skin tone system come from?

---

Probably from colonialism. The point is its cultural, they are all NOT purely white, but value the category 'white'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

the white man lived in cold area THEORY does not hold water for a few reasons.
1. they ate a heavy meat and cows milk diet which provided ample vitamin D.
2. inuits aka eskimoes are not white yet they live in cold areas, that at times don't get ANY sunlight for months on end.
3. whites lived on the italian penisula and the iberian penisula where there is plenty of sun.
4. black people have been living in cold un-sunny places for 1000s of years now why havent they turned white?

---

Immigration and the the time needed for evolution cover most of these.

Migration patterns of humans into North America are still a clusterfuck. Possibly coming in waves when the land bridge was open, also you need to consider what route people took and in what manner and in what time frame they did so. Its entirely possible that Inuit were late settlers into the arctic (especially compared to early humans in europe), too late to make a genetic difference.

Many Italians/Spanish have Gallic/Celtic ancestors (or directly gallic) which roamed Europe. The more native Italians and Spaniard are visibly darker, especially in the south.

Again thousands of years isn't long enough. Also, by the modern era most of these selective pressures have been alleviated by technology/civilization/immigration etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

i think you took what i said to heart. that was not my aim. but if you can answer those questions for me then that would be cool

---

I just think the whole race game is stupid. Especially when we're talking about one visible trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you completely missed the point.
the point of this thread was addressing the link between white supremacy and white genetic annihilation.

in a white dominated world you have white and non-white. to a white, what makes a white... white?
answer: not being mixed with a non white.

end of story.

as to the other stuff you posted. there arent enough white people in the world to play that scenario out. white people could easily get mated out of the human genepool without having to be match with a mixed genotype.


where did the Indian skin tone system come from?

the white man lived in cold area THEORY does not hold water for a few reasons.
1. they ate a heavy meat and cows milk diet which provided ample vitamin D.
2. inuits aka eskimoes are not white yet they live in cold areas, that at times don't get ANY sunlight for months on end.
3. whites lived on the italian penisula and the iberian penisula where there is plenty of sun.
4. black people have been living in cold un-sunny places for 1000s of years now why havent they turned white?

i think you took what i said to heart. that was not my aim. but if you can answer those questions for me then that would be cool

---

Haha you're not serious are you. The north pole gets more radiation then the temperate regions. The ice and snow being clear-white reflect the light off making it cold. The north pole gets a ton of UV because of the shape of the magnetic field around the earth, it funnels the radiation down to the poles... aka the auroras. Basically the eskimos have darker skin because they live in a high uv environment. If you've ever been to the arctic you'd know how important it is to wear sunglasses or the more primitive but effective eye protection the natives use. You'll pretty much go blind after a while staring at all white everything.

Your logic is like wondering why you can freeze to death in the desert. Its the same principle. Its also easy to sweat if you over exert yourself in the arctic. Its dangerous because the water on your skin will freeze and then you will.

Have you ever seen an Italian? They aren't pasty. Whites span the gap between Gaelic white Anglo skin and blacks who are lighter. In Europe dark skin has usually been associated with laborers because they're outside. Nobility kept their skin fashionably light. No our fault that you guys happen to be pitch black in comparison. Common sense said you look like you'd be good at farming. Turns out our guess was right. Unfortunately you didn't take too kindly to your natural calling... :p

You do realize that if evolution in some shape or other is true (it is) that it would take 1. a lot longer then thousands, and 2. there isn't much of an environmental pressure to get lighter. By your same logic why does a white person tan if left out in the sun? Why would a black person un-tan? Besides half the black people I know have olive skin tones anyway. I only know they're "black" because of their features. But then a lot of asians have similar features.

boarz you have no idea what you are talking about.
and i refuse to even read that load of bullshit.

anyway, clan regardless of whether you think its dumb or not. the concept of race exists and white supremacy exists.

i do know that mixed kids have a much harder time hating either of the races. oddly enough i do find many mixed kids having a problem with white folks mostly due to the racism they get from white folks because those white folks don't see them as being white and treat them as 2nd class.

i think some mixed cats on this forum should weigh in on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

boarz you have no idea what you are talking about.
and i refuse to even read that load of bullshit.

anyway, clan regardless of whether you think its dumb or not. the concept of race exists and white supremacy exists.

i do know that mixed kids have a much harder time hating either of the races. oddly enough i do find many mixed kids having a problem with white folks mostly due to the racism they get from white folks because those white folks don't see them as being white and treat them as 2nd class.

i think some mixed cats on this forum should weigh in on this.

---

He's basically saying the same thing I said concerning the evolution and frequency and variation and skin colour. I don't know why you're so averse to hearing what he's saying. (other than him being dickish about it) What alternative to explaining skin colour are you proposing?

Never did I say white supremacy doesn't exist nor was I arguing that, in fact I said white supremacy would likely continue even if everybody in the world went a tint darker.

Exactly to your point, the CONCEPT of race exists, but only in the minds of people. The concepts works off real natural differences, but humans throughout history have constructed difference out of different traits.

Its like saying it's true because we believe it. Fine, its a real phenomenom but it doesn't have to be. Stop playing the game. It's racist, or racialist either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

---

Peace Sunny Winters....excellent post. The Doc be droppin' it. It's ill because after I read her book and stuff, I watched the century of self and you can see through what white people say there's truth in what the doc is saying. I'm sure you have the eye to see it. Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

the thread is about the frailness of your existence - not me - or how you or others view the woman in the video - your obviously hurt by the words being conveyed in the flick - and you wanna lash out on me - so, i already won this - if you insist on spazzing out and being disruptive, i'll just carry you out of the classroom by your shoulders - your choice

---

Peace. His reaction isn't the reaction of 'all' however it's a typical reaction.

It's real weak to talk about a person or disqualify them because of what you hear or what other people consider smh. Yeah, that's real weak.

The Doc is on point!!!

Great response.

Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

you're already crying faggot.
so i know you will walk the "remove sunny as mod" Trail of Tears in admin section.

the fact of the matter is that if a white person mates with anything but another white person, their offspring is no longer considered white by whites.

whites identify themselves as being pure. that purity is at the core of white pride and white supremacy.

scientifically speaking, so called "white" genes are recessive and are less likely to be adopted by the offspring of mixed couples.

so the whole argument of "you never get rid of white genes" is irrelevant because according to white society, once you have lost the purity of your whiteness it doesn't matter how small of a percentage of black or asian or indian you have in you, YOU AIN'T WHITE.

therefore if every white person mated with a non-white person there would be no more white people on earth. this is the root of white supremacy.

PS.
boarz when we get home i'm pulling out my belt.

---

Peace.

Excellent response.

this point fails because it proves the immortality of whites in the fact that the mentality and system they have created will never die and we'll still define ourselves by what they call us a million years after their existence.

You can say white have recessive genes this and that but we all know that recessive genes show up on kids too so there's really no point in pretended that mixed people look like black people either. they look mixed.

its just that the american white acknowledges a mixed person as black and because the american white is all dominate and immortal in his beliefs the american black excepts a mixed person as black as well.

meanwhile the rest of the world doesn't, but that doesn't matter because the american white is a god like figure and whatever race he says you are is what race you are.




that's exactly what we're seeing. most africans don't call a mixed person black. which doesn't matter cause they're not american whites

south americans don't call a mixed person black and nor do arabs

non of these ppl matter cause they're not white.




i dont understand what ppl think a more mixed america will be but it's not gonna be the end of white people, it's going to be the end of black people lol


were 12% of the country, they're 75%, if EVERY black person had a mixed kid for 10 generations they're all going to end up looking like white people with curly hair while there would still be some all white ppl to spare.


meanwhile i dont give a rats ass what white society tells you a mixed person isn't black. wtf makes them black?


in fact wtf is black?

who is the black man?


is he divine?
no seriously...

you missed the point. we are talking about white supremacy as it pertains to genetics.
i think u jumped the gun.

its about the notion that white ppl can be 'breed out' or whatever.

that shit's retarded elohle..

put a mix person smack dab in the middle of africa and you'll realize just how white they look.

we know damn well kids inherit genes that are typically recessive, white people are papered up, and unless we wish to be eurocentric in our thinking and breathing mixed ppl don't look like black ppl either, so idk wtf this whole MY GeN3z are Dawminate you're geN3Z are recessive BS is about cause if the mixed kid is a black female nobody in america will reproduce with her and if its male its gonna reproduce with a degenerate white slab of ape for generations until their kids look like italians.

black ppl arre the ones getting breeded out, get your mind right

your whole argument is eurocentric. what does looking black mean? looking like you?
i get the feeling you define black as being sub-saharan west african.

you know better than i do that africa contains a whole spectrum of hues, features and characteristics. but regardless, you look at obama you see a black man. but to get to the point, even if you don't see a black man, I KNOW YOU DONT SEE A WHITE MAN.

when you see any mixed person do you consider them to be white?
neither do white people. this is what this thread is about. white folks fearing being bred out of being white.

i'm gonna list famous mixed people and ask yourself which genes dominated.

redd foxx? halle berry? maya rudolph? alicia keys? hughes brothers? BOB MARLEY? boris kojoe? charlie baltimore? jason kid? jimi hendrix? jordan sparks? lenny kravitz? lisa bonet? mya? megan goode? malcom x? the rock? sade? shemar moore? smokey robinson? tia and tamara mowry? thandie newton? tina turner? tracy ross? tiger woods? rick fox? naomi cambell? grant hill?



stop trying to make these white folks feel better about their weak genes.
a long time ago a young man once told me a bit of good advice...
"no mercy for the dickless"
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...1rzr76.jpg.gif

Jason Kidd is iffy on looking white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by check two

Jason Kidd is iffy on looking white.

---

i put him in there to be fair to the recessive.
vin diesel is another one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

your whole argument is eurocentric. what does looking black mean? looking like you?

---

yes.



black americans are from west and central africa.They can fool the rest of the world long as new york know. the minute they niggas start looking like lazy bone its a wrap.
i think the whole race concept is stupid so im only arguing in terms that make sense to the ppl im arguing with, in reality there's no difference between black and white americans. its not a good or bad thing, but they're the exact same. Where im from mother fucker sit down different based on what state they're from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Where im from mother fucker sit down different based on what state they're from.

---

nebraska?

The point is you have to look at the evolution of ideas not just what they are now in order to understand them. White Supremacy is not caused by color envy. White supremacy is caused by existing nationalism and xenophobia. Europe was originally tribal. Then it went Clan. Then it went into kingdoms. This was primarily facilitated by the Romans. Before the Romans there were Empires, but they were basically confederations held together by the largest and most influential group. For example, the Persian Empire was dozens of different nations and hundreds of clans and tribes. It stretched through tons of different lands. Greece (I tend to use Greece for examples because its the "starting point" of western culture) was organized into City-States which were basically large scale clan holdings of several thousand families. But these states could be divided into tribes of different groups, and of course individual families. Athens was a confederation of ten Tribes. Rome was a tribe the Latini who eventually unified the local tribes into the City of Rome which eventually used a variety of tactics to organize the Italian tribes and eventually expand into totally diverse regions.

But this "western culture" which is at the root of "white supremacy" was always there. But its not about "white" its about my Tribe. Its just its gotten to the point where the tribes unified and grew to the point there are now nationalities, ethnicities, and races. We're moving towards a singularity. But its not going to be homogeneous its going to be a heterogeneous singularity. The point is that there aren't "whites" and "blacks" that's an illusion created by pseudo science. And we shouldn't forget yellow or even black superiority. Orientals are even more xenophobic then Europeans. And blacks can certainly be xenophobic of outsiders even within the larger "black" community.

We're the same race. We're human. Race is species. You're a human boasting some minor adaptations to the African continent. I'm a human with some adaptations to the European Continent. Here we are in America living as one country. The problem is the politics won't allow us to be one society, one people. Its easier to lump people into heritage groups in order to control them. White people? What the fuck does white mean. There are (what I consider) whites in Britain and (what I consider) whites in Afghanistan. The only definition I can use for a European is our hair isn't black. Some of it is, but we've got brown, and blond, and red, and such. We also have more diversity of eye color. But that's really it. But we can't have scientific precision using categorical data. We need to use quantitative data. What can we use as a measure of diversity?

That's how you classify things. You can argue against categorical data. Quantitative data is different. You can argue how you interpret and order it but you can't really argue with the data just how its used. If I'm dividing people by skin color how the fuck do i do that with all the different skin tones. By the current system I'm in the second or third category depending on sun. I'm not chalky but im not bronze. I'm not particularly freckled. That's something that can be categorized. You can certifiably say whether or not there are spots present. But its possible to argue what shade the spots are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

yes.



black americans are from west and central africa.

---

nah - Millions of us were already here in america

This whole theory of losing melanin because of lack of sunlight is frail.
The whole Jacob story is starting to make more n more sense.
It wasent a story at all....

Stay focused blackman.

Eh, my siblings have white kids, my cousins have white kids, my niece is expecting, some of my friends have white kids.
I don't think white people will go extinct any time soon.

In fact I know they won't since it doesn't even take white people to have a white baby


The difference between races is nothing.
A misplaced gene here or there and you may end up with a child of a completely different skin color.
Kind of makes the whole premise of race seem retarded in general, which it is.


Still, there is no science of origin when it comes to biology.

why are Lions considered the Kings of the Jungle and not Tigers ?

they are both cats - big cats

so why was one singled out ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

why are Lions considered the Kings of the Jungle and not Tigers ?

they are both cats - big cats

so why was one singled out ?

---

Because one's domain stretches universally and the other tends to hunt in certain areas.
Though that makes neither one or the other necessarily superior, to the human on-looker we apply the transitive theory of "I see less tigers they must also be prey of the lion, they must be weaker than the lion."

Both have found the ability to thrive in the same place, against the same harsh world and even become something to be admired. Likewise a biased spectator will take away certain things in regard to human beings.
I may see race C. engaging in less procreation and relevance to society, RELATIVE to race B. but that doesn't mean they are in any sort of danger.

In fact, contrary to the spectator they really aren't even in conflict.
I say that as someone who lives in reality though, not what ever realm that crazy bitch exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBoarzHeadBoy

The point is you have to look at the evolution of ideas not just what they are now in order to understand them. White Supremacy is not caused by color envy. White supremacy is caused by existing nationalism and xenophobia. Europe was originally tribal. Then it went Clan. Then it went into kingdoms. This was primarily facilitated by the Romans. Before the Romans there were Empires, but they were basically confederations held together by the largest and most influential group. For example, the Persian Empire was dozens of different nations and hundreds of clans and tribes. It stretched through tons of different lands. Greece (I tend to use Greece for examples because its the "starting point" of western culture) was organized into City-States which were basically large scale clan holdings of several thousand families. But these states could be divided into tribes of different groups, and of course individual families. Athens was a confederation of ten Tribes. Rome was a tribe the Latini who eventually unified the local tribes into the City of Rome which eventually used a variety of tactics to organize the Italian tribes and eventually expand into totally diverse regions.

But this "western culture" which is at the root of "white supremacy" was always there. But its not about "white" its about my Tribe. Its just its gotten to the point where the tribes unified and grew to the point there are now nationalities, ethnicities, and races. We're moving towards a singularity. But its not going to be homogeneous its going to be a heterogeneous singularity. The point is that there aren't "whites" and "blacks" that's an illusion created by pseudo science. And we shouldn't forget yellow or even black superiority. Orientals are even more xenophobic then Europeans. And blacks can certainly be xenophobic of outsiders even within the larger "black" community.

We're the same race. We're human. Race is species. You're a human boasting some minor adaptations to the African continent. I'm a human with some adaptations to the European Continent. Here we are in America living as one country. The problem is the politics won't allow us to be one society, one people. Its easier to lump people into heritage groups in order to control them. White people? What the fuck does white mean. There are (what I consider) whites in Britain and (what I consider) whites in Afghanistan. The only definition I can use for a European is our hair isn't black. Some of it is, but we've got brown, and blond, and red, and such. We also have more diversity of eye color. But that's really it. But we can't have scientific precision using categorical data. We need to use quantitative data. What can we use as a measure of diversity?

That's how you classify things. You can argue against categorical data. Quantitative data is different. You can argue how you interpret and order it but you can't really argue with the data just how its used. If I'm dividing people by skin color how the fuck do i do that with all the different skin tones. By the current system I'm in the second or third category depending on sun. I'm not chalky but im not bronze. I'm not particularly freckled. That's something that can be categorized. You can certifiably say whether or not there are spots present. But its possible to argue what shade the spots are.

---

excellent post bruhz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

nah - Millions of us were already here in america

---

haha aight nigga cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

why are Lions considered the Kings of the Jungle and not Tigers ?

they are both cats - big cats

so why was one singled out ?

---

lions dont live in the jungle

Haven't been reading this thread, but I can say for a fact I don't call mixed people black because I'm afraid of being bred out of existence (why the fuck would I even care?), I would say they are black because most mixed people identify themselves as black. Sometimes a snake is just a snake man.

If anything I'd argue that "mixed" people look "white" most of the time. Most of the half "black" people i know are lighter skinned then a lot of whites I know. They have melanin or whatever, fine, but its hardly noticeable. I can tell they're mixed because of the shape of their face bones. I mean being off white and having curly hair isn't defining you as black, lots of ethnicities have that.

And Lions are the King of the Jungle because they live in packs and make the women do everything. That and their corona of mane, or their golden color, or their fucking huge claws and teeth. Lions have paws like fucking dinner plates. Although Tigers are even bigger.

Also Lions were prevalent in Southern Europe, so the Eurocentric mind understood them better. Then the Romans hunted them to extinction for Lols. Damn Romans. There were Lions in Italy, Greece, and Turkey and Tigers along the Caspian Sea. The Caspian Tiger had fat mutton chops of fur but no they got driven to extinction (although much later). Probably the coolest animal too damn it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBoarzHeadBoy

Also Lions were prevalent in Southern Europe, so the Eurocentric mind understood them better.

---

yeah whatever man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS

Are "Whites" the evolved version of the Original Man ?

---

Without looking at skin color, white and black men seem on average taller than other races. Also black and white men seem to have bigger frames. Even though skin colors are extremes, the 2 races might not be as they share some traits but not necessarily "evolved".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

Without looking at skin color, white and black men seem on average taller than other races. Also black and white men seem to have bigger frames. Even though skin colors are extremes, the 2 races might not be as they share some traits but not necessarily "evolved".

---

At least we can all agree that Asians aren't really people...

wow that lady is pretty stupid lol, that whole chocolates with nuts for valentines day and white people playing with brown balls then little white golf balls statements on the first page just made her seem like a retard..

and yeah sunny, lions were around southern europe way back in the days...i'm from southwestern europe, my city and my country's flag have lions on them..and i'm not just basing it on that