It may be “antiquated” but things like this set the stage for the treatment of blacks in this country, how they are classified, and lastly affected the consciousness of an entire race of people. That stays in families for generations and doesn’t end just because someone claims it is “antiquated”.
The notion of a “drop” of blood in someone’s body being from a different race is silly and completely unscientific. People of differing races who have the same blood type can exchange blood freely and it wouldn’t change their race.
People who are half black and half white are biracial. How could it be otherwise?
[/quote]
You really missed the point of that post that severely?
And…? The hatred that some have for in this country can border on the psychopathic. The hatred can go in any direction.
I never said that only black people can be racist. Hate crimes committed by whites against non-whites are usually highly publicized. Usually the reverse does not get as much media attention. Most whites are oblivious to black racism because the majority of whites do not live in cities anymore.
[/quote]
Um… I don’t get the majority of whites don’t live in cities anymore. I worked in Manhattan while living in NJ (5 years), and have visited all boroughs.
I was born and raised in Chicago.
I have also lived in LA. I was in Dallas for a few months too.
I would say the majority of minorities don’t live in small towns as I have also lived in several small towns (in Illinois, Colorado and Oregon), but there are a whole shitload of Caucasians everywhere I have lived. Granted, there are parts of the cities where minorities are the majority, but that doesn’t mean that whites don’t live in cities anymore.
And…? The hatred that some have for in this country can border on the psychopathic. The hatred can go in any direction.
I never said that only black people can be racist. Hate crimes committed by whites against non-whites are usually highly publicized. Usually the reverse does not get as much media attention. Most whites are oblivious to black racism because the majority of whites do not live in cities anymore.
Um… I don’t get the majority of whites don’t live in cities anymore. I worked in Manhattan while living in NJ (5 years), and have visited all boroughs.
I was born and raised in Chicago.
I have also lived in LA. I was in Dallas for a few months too.
I would say the majority of minorities don’t live in small towns as I have also lived in several small towns (in Illinois, Colorado and Oregon), but there are a whole shitload of Caucasians everywhere I have lived.
Granted, there are parts of the cities where minorities are the majority, but that doesn’t mean that whites don’t live in cities anymore.
[/quote]
I couldn’t even respond to that one. Houston is now majority black in the cities? When did that happen? There were white people everywhere yesterday. Granted this is only the third largest city in the country so maybe all white people have evacuated New York.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
For a long time, whites had a group identity, and now, en masse, their group identity as a group has been replaced with individual identity. When do you hear talk of a “white community” for example that isn’t from some group that is very far outside of the mainstream?
[/quote]
I don’t think I’m understanding you here. What group identity did whites have that no longer exists?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
For a long time, whites had a group identity, and now, en masse, their group identity as a group has been replaced with individual identity. When do you hear talk of a “white community” for example that isn’t from some group that is very far outside of the mainstream?
I don’t think I’m understanding you here. What group identity did whites have that no longer exists?[/quote]
KKK?
Seriously though, Europe is fairly divided along nationality lines. White people identified (and still might) with where their ancestors came from.
Hell, don’t mistake an Irishman for an Englishman. They will both get insulted.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
For a long time, whites had a group identity, and now, en masse, their group identity as a group has been replaced with individual identity. When do you hear talk of a “white community” for example that isn’t from some group that is very far outside of the mainstream?
I don’t think I’m understanding you here. What group identity did whites have that no longer exists?[/quote]
The Irish are pretty pale. Why weren’t they allowed in?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
<<< And finally…who gives a fuck if someone is “black” or not?..They are American. When that becomes a standard response from BOTH sides(or all nationalities in general)…we will have finally accomplished something. >>>[/quote]
This is the longing of true conservatives everywhere. Pride in ones’s heritage is natural and good as long it doesn’t define you out of being American first.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does Obama wear makeup, to make himself darker? In some pics he seems lighter toned, like as if the make up artist was late that day or something.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does Obama wear makeup, to make himself darker? In some pics he seems lighter toned, like as if the make up artist was late that day or something.
I rest my case.[/quote]
Legit question. Answer is most likely yes. Politicians all do when appearing on camera or TV. Well documented that it started with JFK. Polls taken for the radio audience for the first Nixon v JFK debate had scored it overwhelmingly in Nixon’s favor. TV was a different story. Nixon looked tired and worn out. JFK, despite looking awful in person, (whomever said he was a handsome man was lying). Nixon switched to makeup for the subsequent debates. Damage already done.
Between that and the voter fraud in South Texas and the Daley machine in Chicago, Nixon more than likely would have won. Imagine history with that turn of events. The unpledged democratic votes are interesting. That’s another topic
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
he is in fact African.
Now even black posters are saying he was not born in the United States. Thank you for recognizing that.
Thanks…but no thanks. Your ignorance is truly “admiring”…that entire post shows my appreciation for those like you.
[/quote]
I admire Obama. He used the idiots in Black Liberation Theology, gave lip service to all the Left wing morons, got the Chicago Machine (which is corrupt beyond words) to back him (with appropriate kickbacks from the Illinois treasury), and is now POTUS. He climbed on ignorance and corruption, to power, kind of like the king rat.
How he must have laughed when the idiots were dancing in the streets, chanting his name! “Our savior! Our messiah!!” ROFLMAO!!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
he is in fact African.
Now even black posters are saying he was not born in the United States. Thank you for recognizing that.
Thanks…but no thanks. Your ignorance is truly “admiring”…that entire post shows my appreciation for those like you.
I admire Obama. He used the idiots in Black Liberation Theology, gave lip service to all the Left wing morons, got the Chicago Machine (which is corrupt beyond words) to back him (with appropriate kickbacks from the Illinois treasury), and is now POTUS. He climbed on ignorance and corruption, to power, kind of like the king rat.
How he must have laughed when the idiots were dancing in the streets, chanting his name! “Our savior! Our messiah!!” ROFLMAO!!!
[/quote]
You know what you’re problem is? Only it’s not a problem in the usual sense because I think you do it on purpose.
You say a lot of things I agree with if they were understood with the clarifications I would include if I were saying them. You, however, leave open the possibility and in some cases what you have to know is going to be the probability of having the worst interpretation given to your statements.
In essence you design your posts so as to allow you to later say there was no racist intent while coaxing the charge of racism from those you know will take them that way.
I said a long time ago I didn’t think you were a true racial hater and I still don’t, but you like to play semantic games that keep the disdain flowing in your direction because I think you think it is illustrating a point. While I understand this strategy I am forced to pronounce it in my opinion ineffective.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does Obama wear makeup, to make himself darker? In some pics he seems lighter toned, like as if the make up artist was late that day or something.
I rest my case.
Legit question. Answer is most likely yes. Politicians all do when appearing on camera or TV. Well documented that it started with JFK. Polls taken for the radio audience for the first Nixon v JFK debate had scored it overwhelmingly in Nixon’s favor. TV was a different story. Nixon looked tired and worn out. JFK, despite looking awful in person, (whomever said he was a handsome man was lying). Nixon switched to makeup for the subsequent debates. Damage already done.
Between that and the voter fraud in South Texas and the Daley machine in Chicago, Nixon more than likely would have won. Imagine history with that turn of events. The unpledged democratic votes are interesting. That’s another topic
[/quote]
ALL politicians wear make-up…HH is trying to be a slick troll…nothing more. And it started way before JFK.
edit For some reason(well there is a reason),Warren Harding comes to mind…did he wear makeup to make himself lighter? In pictures other than the one posted,he looks darker…hmmm?
