Insightful.Originally Posted by Tectrus Moa
Insightful.
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
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 ?
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.
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.
Probably from colonialism. The point is its cultural, they are all NOT purely white, but value the category '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.
I just think the whole race game is stupid. Especially when we're talking about one visible trait.
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...
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.
HANKERING FOR SOME BEEF CURTAINS
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks