@JGoldman10,
JGoldman10 wrote:
Good for YOU, sir:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvf5rVzmHuc[/youtube]
I don't care about that song, but I love that attitude! Good for YOU, JGoldman10! Let's get along! Yes, we disagree about what good argumentation is, but we agree that racisim sucks big green donkey dicks. Let's focus on what we agree on, and leave the rest alone. This is not sarcasm. I'm serious. I hate conflicts, online or in "real" life. Peace to you, whether you wish peace to me or not.
@JGoldman10,
[img]SIGH- McCain kept referring to blacks as "YOU PEOPLE" and he was constantly looking at Obama when he said it in the Debates. [/img]
I find it more likely McCain meant "Democrats" when referring to "YOU PEOPLE". I think he dislikes Democrats more than blacks.
@JGoldman10,
Here is the National Black Republican website - it names many.
http://www.nbra.info/
@manored,
Ummm, you know Da Vinci code is a book of fiction and there are other books and historians that think the same thing. Jokes are so much better when pointing out the obvious.
@FBM,
I DO NOT AGREE with you because I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST.
@JGoldman10,
JGoldman10 wrote:
Good for YOU, sir:
What is?
Ceili wrote:
Ummm, you know Da Vinci code is a book of fiction and there are other books and historians that think the same thing. Jokes are so much better when pointing out the obvious.
I didnt realize it was a joke =)
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
I don't care about that song, but I love that attitude! Good for YOU, JGoldman10! Let's get along! Yes, we disagree about what good argumentation is, but we agree that racisim sucks big green donkey dicks. Let's focus on what we agree on, and leave the rest alone. This is not sarcasm. I'm serious. I hate conflicts, online or in "real" life. Peace to you, whether you wish peace to me or not.
Im afraid discussions dont go anywhere without working arguments, though =)
@JGoldman10,
JGoldman10 wrote:
I DO NOT AGREE with you because I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST.
Agreeing to disagree is close enough. Peace.
@manored,
manored wrote:Im afraid discussions dont go anywhere without working arguments, though =)
This one wasn't going anywhere even with mine, anyway.
I think some bias exists because people ASSUME all blacks and whites living in the US are brought up the same way, or the generalize and think ALL blacks and whites are brought up a certain way.
A black living in the projects is not going to be brought up the same way as a white from the suburbs.
@JGoldman10,
Nor is a white man growing up in the projects going to be the same as a black man growing up in the burbs.
You're statement has nothing to do with race and everything to do with environment.
@JGoldman10,
JGoldman10 wrote:
WHITE PEOPLE or NON-CHRISTIANS do NOT have a box to put me in. I KNOW who I am.
Based upon many of the threads you've started, I tend to think you don't know who you are.
In my opinion, the answer to this thread's initial question is based on the fact that those Black genes that reflect Black features (i.e.,hair texture/skin tone) are "dominant" genes. Meaning that, just like brown eyes are dominant, and curly hair is dominant, a mixed race child will usually exhibit some Black features. Now, since White society has brainwashed itself to think that Caucasian features are preferable by many, it makes for a difficulty to want to have children that look like oneself, if one is White, and have a mixed race child.
Now, even though some people believe that Jews have a "Jewish gene," the reality is that European Jews just have the same genes, dominant or recessive, that White Gentiles have. So, a child reflecting a mix of Jew and Gentile can turn out with a non-descript look from either parent. And, there are many marriages between Jews and Gentiles today, and the children can choose either faith. Prejudice against Jews, I believe, is based on society's need to project its negative traits onto an available scapegoat, or to resent those that seem to have some advantage.
And Asians will likely assimilate in great numbers through intermarriage in the coming decades, since Whites do not look upon marrying an Asian as resulting in children that will not be White.
So reiterating, since many people want to have children that look like themselves, that avenue can cease for Whites, if they mix with Black people. Needless to say, this is a foolish belief, since it just reflects brainwashing from an early age that those traits that are considered more "white" (i.e., straight hair, light eyes, straight nose) have some intrinsic value. So, the answer to the original question that started the thread should be that White folks are the victims of brainwashing.
By the way, in the June issue of Discover magazine there is an article that DNA testing seems to show that the European genome has 1 to 4 % from Neanderthal. And, the Asian genome also mixed with a cousin of Neanderthal. And, only Africans are pure Homo sapiens. Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm (don't that beat all).
I wouldnt call it brainwashing, though in some cases it might be... but in most cases its probaly just cultural. The notion of what is pretty and what isnt is in great part cultural.
@manored,
manored wrote:
I wouldnt call it brainwashing, though in some cases it might be... but in most cases its probaly just cultural. The notion of what is pretty and what isnt is in great part cultural.
Brainwashing, since Black features are not considered neutral, but by many Whites considered less than desirable. Even by some Blacks, so that falls under the heading of brainwashing - Blacks and Whites alike.
And, to parse your "cultural" response, we subscribe to a "culture" due to (early) brainwashing. Sort of like how would killing a nice evergreen tree, minding its own business in the forest, connote everlasting life (on Christmas), if not for the brainwashing that makes us ignore that it is incongruous (or oxymoronic) to kill a tree to symbolize everlasting life.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Brainwashing, since Black features are not considered neutral, but by many Whites considered less than desirable. Even by some Blacks, so that falls under the heading of brainwashing - Blacks and Whites alike.
And, to parse your "cultural" response, we subscribe to a "culture" due to (early) brainwashing. Sort of like how would killing a nice evergreen tree, minding its own business in the forest, connote everlasting life (on Christmas), if not for the brainwashing that makes us ignore that it is incongruous (or oxymoronic) to kill a tree to symbolize everlasting life.
If we call that brainwashing, then any form of education is also brainwashing. I call it culture. Culture is not necessarly good though. There are many stupid, contradictory or outdated things we do due to tradition.
White people are evil.
Just ask Shewolf.
*shrug*
@manored,
manored wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Brainwashing, since Black features are not considered neutral, but by many Whites considered less than desirable. Even by some Blacks, so that falls under the heading of brainwashing - Blacks and Whites alike.
And, to parse your "cultural" response, we subscribe to a "culture" due to (early) brainwashing. Sort of like how would killing a nice evergreen tree, minding its own business in the forest, connote everlasting life (on Christmas), if not for the brainwashing that makes us ignore that it is incongruous (or oxymoronic) to kill a tree to symbolize everlasting life.
If we call that brainwashing, then any form of education is also brainwashing. I call it culture. Culture is not necessarly good though. There are many stupid, contradictory or outdated things we do due to tradition.
No. Education does not have to have a nefarious intent. Brainwashing, as used colloquially, does have a nefarious intent. And, culture that promulgates bigotry (aka, clannishness) does have a nefarious intent. So, whether you call it culture or brainwashing, the result is the same, people's minds come to illogical conclusions.
