Pioneer1

richardmurray I see:) i am dictatorial in my style, I stifle imagination with the structure of my posts ok I your commentary did not attack or offend the post. Talking about who contest beauty pageants is within the topic of beauty pageants. My point is that these two black owned beauty pageants have emphasized women who can not be deemed yella/white/mulatto while not excluding the range of all black women which are all shades of brown. And since they both exists in the usa, which is a white european country, I think they are fine examples of black ownership that is honest to the larger situation of black people. Your point is well taken. However my commentary that points out OTHER aspect of "Black" beauty contests doesn't divert or cloud out your point. My offense to your point, is that your talking about black media pundits, not the black owned beauty pageants. How so? I'm not about to go back to the beginning of this thread and read everything I said through a magnifying glass, however regardless as to whatever you took from it...my focus was that we need to make sure the Black women were BLACK women. Not identity thieves. Said pundits are mostly male, who are on white owned media outlets usually, with their most beautiful black woman is the yellaist black woman narrative... Exactly. They are brainwashed too. See my point. Chev Okay. I have to go back and read the full thread! Lol... You don't have to, just read my first few posts to see where I was going. Yes, Vanessa obviously shows some mixed traits, but man! She is Black IMO. She shows more than just "some" mixed traits....she's clearly MORE White than she is Black. And her father....in that photo atleast....is a straight up White man....lol. That's why I prefer the term "AfroAmerican" for people like her. She is part of our culture and ethnic group. I have family members who look just like her. She's part of our culture and has an African lineage, despite the amount of White ancestry she has. But racially speaking...she's not a Black woman. I fee it's an insult to Black women to point to HER as an example. Well, as a dark skinned Sista, I can certainly appreciate your views!!! However, @Pioneer1 history does not lie and some light skinned Black' people have been severely oppressed for being Black or of the Black American culture. Well you're an anomaly....lol. Most dark skinned sistaz I grew up with HATED the preferential treatment so many light skinned and mixed women got in the community in terms of jobs, marriage, and acting positions....especially in music videos. They didn't see light skinned people as being oppressed or victims of colorism. Yes...to WHITE people...they were still "niggers" and they faced racism from them...but from the Black community? A few snide remarks and resentment by darker skinned people is nothing compared to the GLORY and UPLIFTMENT some lighter skinned people often have gotten in our community in the past. Many if not most of the past leader in the AfroAmerican community have been light skinned and mixed from WEB Dubois to Huey Newton and Malcolm X and currently Minister Farrakhan. There's a reason for that. It taps into the subconscious love and respect many of our people have for light/white skin.

Beyonce Shakira Besides one being CALLED "Black" and the other being CALLED White....what is the phenotypical difference between these two women?

Chev I just showed you the origins of TWO DIFFERENT groups of people in the same Biblical book of Genesis. One in the first chapter, and the other in the second. Lol.... But you wanna sit up there and act like you didn't see what you just read, huh? "That ain't in MY Bible. I don't know WHAT he talkin' bout."

Chev You are pushing White Supremacy with your White reference for the name 'Adam' This isn't white "supremacy"....it's an actually FACT that the word "Adam" means "red" in Hebrew. You don't want to accept this FACT. , and this is exactly what the Bible said that we 'Blacks' would do. Well can you please show me the SCRIPTURE that says "Blacks" would do "such and such". I want to see those very words. Not some "interpretation. Your reference is from the 'White man's book whether or not it is stated to be a Hebrew dictionary'. The Bible ITSELF is a White man's book because it was White men who gave it to us. Who gave the Americans slaves....out Ancestors...the Bible? It was passed down to us from them FROM White folks. Even if you believe that Adam means 'Red' It's not a matter of "belief"....Adam MEANS RED. It's a FACT...plain and simple. If you want more Biblical evidence, Jacob's brother Esau was also called "Edom" because he was red and hairy. Edom and Adam both mean RED and they are the same Hebrew word with different vowels in English. that does not negate the fact that all black males have 'red' blood and some black males show this RED SKIN TONE even though they are very dark skinned like some of my own relatives that I have seen. Show me a picture of a dark skinned Black person with "red" skin tone. You're making things up to fit the scriptures. You're lying again about the Bible. The Bible does say that Adam is the beginning and gives a complete lineage up to Jesus Christ. Oh really????? Genesis Chapter 1 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis Chapter 2 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. If we were read these scriptures LINEARLY and as they are: 1. God CREATED male and female together and this as on the 6th day. Later on 2. Lord God FORMED a man from the dust of the Earth called "Adam" and he was alone! 3. In chapter 1 MEN AND WOMEN were created together. In the 2nd Chapter we read about ONE MAN who was MADE ALONE And it was decided that it wasn't good for him to be alone and later on Eve was made for him. ONE group were males and females CREATED TOGETHER ANOTHER group was a man who was FORMED from dirt or dust and later on a woman made for him from his rib So there were people created BEFORE Adam...who was a MADE man.

Chev Confusing Then allow me to offer some clarity....lol. Although both concepts often overlap...... One is more focused on RACE and NATIONALITY : Black American The other is more focused on ETHNICITY: AfroAmerican The Black race who are American citizens!!! What a thought. I guess then, due to many freed Blacks during Chattel Slavery times, they would fit your description of 'A Black American citizen'. However; Some would, some wouldn't. ALL of them would be "AfroAmericans". But only those who are of predominant African decent would qualify as "Black". Free or not, the obvious Mulattos and Quadroons wouldn't qualify as "Black American" but they would definitely qualify as AfroAmerican because they are of our culture and lineage and history. People with light skin and wavy hair and keen features usually have too much White ancestry to qualify as being called "Black" anything. As far as who you're calling "Black Indians"............. There obviously were plenty of Black people (actual Black....lol) here through out the Americas for generations before Columbus and the other Europeans, but I wouldn't call them "Indians". Indians or those brown skinned people with straight hair whom we call "Native Americans" are clearly of a separate race. Just because White folks have tried to steal their identity, doesn't mean they were Black. They were much darker...but weren't Black. They were brown skinned...in my cases dark brown skinned....but still weren't Black folks. [1] The first and ORIGINAL Black American of the Black race would be an American Indian and a Native American of the Black race. [2] The first and Original Black American 'citizen' would then come before 1865 could be well, --who knows?-- Both freed Blacks and some left over Black Indians that did not get killed off or massacred and were part of the American government as Bounty Hunters or scouts or something like that perhaps. I tell my husband, at times, 'You know, you are truly, as an American Indian and a Black Indian at that, --the Original African American--, way before the DOS were forced over here on slave ships'. AfroAmericans are the descendants of enslaved Africans who are primarily Black but mixed with other races to various degrees. Black American citizens, whether or not they came recently from places like Nigeria, or Ethiopia, or Brazil, etc. and became Black American citizens, no matter, they would still be referred to as AfroAmerican. An AfroAmerican can also be 'An AfroAmerican citizen' as well, so what's the distinction? No, they aren't AfroAmericans. AfroAmericans are strictly those who hail from the lineage of enslaved Africans....regardless of racial admixture afterwards. Black Americans are ANY Black people....Nigerian, Brazilians, or even AfroAmericans....with a predominant amount of African or Black features and look Black AND have or acquired American citizenship. If they aren't an American citizen, they aren't Black Americans. Remember, both groups: AfroAmericans AND Black Americans tend to overlap eachother at times We are all mixed no matter what time period we came from. All of us people of African descent are mixed with something, but at one point, we came from Africa. So no matter if the term is 'Black' or 'African' as it applies to African origins, meaning the continent of Africa, it doesn't seem to be a difference. True, but some are more mixed than others. Some are mixed to the point of no longer being considered Black. In my opinion their MUST be a demarcation line set for BOTH race and ethnicity. Somebody has to "gate keep" our lineage and culture to preserve it. Somebody has to "gate keep" the Black race to preserve it too. So, I think these terms, [1] Black American, [2] Black American citizen, and [3] AfroAmerican, can be used interchangeably, however, the term FBA might be more unique in its definition in relation to chattel slavery and also American Indians and Native Americans that are of African 'Black' descent. The problem with "FBA" or Foundational BLACK American is that many of them aren't actually Black racially. Beyonce and Shemar Moore would be considered FBA....but neither is Black phenotypically. That's why I like the term AfroAmerican to describe those of us from that specifical lineage. It includes people of various phenotypes and admixtures as long as their ancestry came through American Slavery.

frankster No they are not....but land and geography do influence genes - those influences are then passed on Truth Poor choice as an example Professional Sommeliers or Wine Connoisseur can and do....as it is part of how they make their living. Well thanks for educating me. I didn't know that. It comes down to where you wish to stop.....but we know the source is African Do we KNOW this or simply BELIEVE this? In other words..... How does one "know" something without experience or direct observation? Who is alive today to have experienced or directly observed the first human or humans and where they were located before spreading to other parts of the planet? If nobody is; then all people are doing is hypothesizing and theorizing. Yes...Race as a social construct is a convention....where in varies attributes are agreed upon as it constituents. just as one can predicated a whole new race on individuals who have red hair or eleven fingers True on all three assertions. Infact, the reality of their being multiple races IS defended by this very ideology you just offered! Troy Of course I don’t believe in multiple races! I thought I made that abundantly clear over the years. And there are those who are sufficiently powerful enough to exploit the nonsensical belief, people have in multiple races and use it as a tactic to divide us for their personal benefit. Then you truly don't believe that race is a social construct. If you did, you'd acknowledge it but assert that you DIDN'T AGREE with their being multiple races....because of what it implies. But being a construct, you'd still accept it as a reality. To proclaim that the concept of race or multiple races as "social constructs" then turn around and deny it's existence because to accept it would suggest that one is perpetuating racism -sounds like denial as well as cognitive dissonance.

Chev Adam as 'a white man' is not possible unless he came from the anatomically straight YDNA haplogroup with origins from one Black African male individual of which all males today come from. The very word ADAM literally means "red" or "of blood". Any Hebrew dictionary will confirm this. The color link to the story of creation and its key word ‘adam’ comes by the word ‘adom,’ red. The close connection between the physical, perceptual elements becomes now even tighter: red, adom is the color of dam, blood. The chain: Adam-adama-dam-adom, men-ground-blood-red is the metaphorical mirror of God’s language in the physical word. Hebrew Word of the Day - Red - אָדֹם It's the literal description of so-called White people --- who are not actually "white" but pinkish or red colored....especially in hot climates like Africa or the Middle East. As opposed to the Black, Brown, and Yellow people who don't or rarely blush unless they're MIXED with "adam" ancestry...lol. In other regions and cultures like North East Africa...the people called "White" in America are often called "red" people. You're correct in suggesting that the first man or human couldn't be White because Black people couldn't have come from them. But you're speaking of Adam as if HE was the first man or human, when he was not. Adam was NOT the first man and the Bible doesn't even say he was the first man. According to the Bible, Cain left and went to the land of Nod and found a wife. If Adam and Eve were the first and only people on the planet where did Cain find a wife and enough people to populate a city after he allegedly built one? I don't agree with all of the Bible but it does contain a lot of truth. The main problem is people have been INTERPRETING it in a very narrow way that has led to confusion. Just as the Holy Bible states repeatedly, White Supremacy is professed and forwarded by millions of both, Black Africans and Whites who do not believe in the truth as it is confirmed with science and genetics and agrees with the Bible. We have free choice and free will. Well just remember that the same White folks who wrote or edited the Bible hundreds of years ago are the same White people who are writing the scientific text books. So BOTH of them may have to be taken with a grain of salt....lol. It wouldn't be wise to whole heartedly trust ANYTHING that comes from the hands of your open enemy whether it's religious OR scientific. It's not the Mayan Indians who gave the world the Bible and modern Scientific books.....but White folks. It's not the Nigerians who gave the world the Bible and modern Scientific books....but White folks. It's not the Eskimos or Hindus or Congolese who is putting out this material for us to debate over...but White folks. The same people. Yes the Ethiopians have an original scripture, but that's not the Bible that WE have.....the King James version. The script is different and it's not in English. I'm not sure if what the Ethiopians have is "holy" or not...but what WE'RE reading.....the KJV.....is without a doubt a book from the hands of White folks.

Chev Within this context, I think @Pioneer1 may have brought in some confusion and issues that was not intended for this thread!!! This thread was to highlight the advancement of Black women in these pageants. But although I did NOT read any of his post yet, I do plan to though, go back and read his post, because I recognized from other comments the contention that was presented and I do understand why @Pioneer1 would interject some of these contentions, but I know it is frustrating though. If confusion was brought in, that wasn't my intention. However our brother richarmurray may have to learn not to be so dictatorial as to demand that everybody march lock-n-step with HIS train of thought in every thread he produces. Thought...like speech...flows. When you start putting narrow limits and boundaries on it, you're intending to stifle creativity. Maybe my mistake was apologizing in advance...lol. Maybe I should have said what I had to say and he wouldn't have been offended by it. Anyway, as for what I said...... I simply stated that when we talk about Black beauty pageants, we need to make sure that the contestants are actually BLACK. Not mixed or damn near White like a lot of women are who are held up as representations of "Black beauty". Vanessa Williams....whom you just brought up...is a GREAT example. She's clearly mixed race and in my opinion is more White than Black. If you want to call her "Miss America"....because any particular race isn't specified for THAT pageant. But it would be crazy as hell to call a woman who looks as White as she does "Miss Black America". It would be an insult to the Black race in general and Black women in specific for a seeming "white" woman to steal the glory and win the prize over very beautiful brown skinned and dark skinned women. No other group would allow that. There are many Black Latinas, but when they choose a "Miss Latina" they aren't going to choose one. They choose women who look like the MAJORITY of their women.....brown with straight hair.

Nice grandstand.....lol.........but I didn't see an ANSWER to my question anywhere up there. Music is a social construct, and there are multiple genres of music. Politics is a social construct, and there are multiple political parties. Since you believe that race is a social construct, do you believe that there are MULTIPLE RACES? The question is quite clear and concise.

Troy I didn't say being a male or woman was a social construct. First thing's first....... Before we agree on what race is "based on" you must first acknowledge that there ARE multiple races among humanity.

Troy and Cynique Well..... Since both of you have your minds made up about what you THINK I believe or represent....regardless as to what I actually say/type....why waste time with explanations, evidence, and proof of my assertions? I'm going to let you two have eachother.....lol.

Troy I'm learning one cannot have a meaningful conversation with others on a given subject if there is not a basic foundation of shared knowledge. Nor can you have a meaningful conversation on a given subject with others if your mind is already made up and you refuse to entertain an alternative point of view...lol. Gender is a social construct. It's based in PSYCHLOGY and SOCIOLOGY...not genetics. There is no DNA or genes that you can point to as traits of a "gender". frankster Where Humanity is Cream Then Flavor is like unto ethnicity You can make that comparison. Or perhaps you can say that the COLOR of the ice cream is the race where as the FLAVOR of it is it's ethnicity....lol. Racial categorization is quite fluid. Isn't that one of the advertised purpose of those genealogy companies to ascertain where you ancestors originate....like Ancestor.com and 23andme. Yes. And I question THAT as well. Current understanding among the lay public is that they can..... Genes aren't tied to land or geography. You can determine who descended from WHO but not necessarily from WHERE any more than you can determine whether the wine you drink came from grapes descended from those grown in California or France. My personally opinion is that is not exactly what they do or are doing They are aggregating current DNA as to where they are most abundant in the so-called old world..... It has little bearing on where your ancestors originated from but more on where your DNA co hurts are now..... Exactly. They are taking DNA samples and matching them with where on the planet there seems to be a pool of others with those same genes and THEORIZING that as the "origin" of that particular group. Going by that method.... Most AfroAmericans will show "origins" of being from the Southern United States. But then going further back....it can also show "origins" of being from the Caribbean. But going further back...it can also show "origins" of being from West Africa. But going further back....we know that most West Africans migrated to that region from Northern and Eastern Africa and THAT will be the new "origin". It goes on and on. When you combine Migration patterns History Anthropology Archeology and Genealogy....then you can make a very accurate guess as to where your ancestors are from WHICH ancestors? That's the issue. My Parents are my Ancestors......and so are my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grand Parents. One time period will show ONE geographical location but another time period before familial migration will show ANOTHER geographical location. That's the point I'm getting at. You can only know who came from WHO....but not the region those genes originated from. That maybe so....but Race has no basis in genetics. Skin color does. Hair texture does .....race is usually predicated on these characteristics among others. They both have a different history and relationship with the particular Land....that must be weight - and negotiated. In other words, you're not sure...lol.

In that Friday comparison..... It's interesting how most of the women seem to look better NOW than they did 30 years ago...lol. Most women don't like showing their age.

Well....... That didn't last long, lol. Nobody can say I didn't TRY to make peace!

This is from back in the 30s.......... Some scenes clearly show the body doubles of both Oliver and Stanley together. What was it called back then before the age of "Artificial Intelligence"???

aka Contradiction Actually, the "subject" of this thread was about Miss Black America. But you couldn't stick to that, I guess. It appears that some of these rich Black female athletes aren't interested in anything Black....not even their own hair.

Del Lol....are you sure you posted that in the right thread?

So why didn't you mention THEM as an "aphrodisiac"??? Why did you dwell on Italian men and Nordic blonde men??? When it came to White men, you give their various regional and ethnic differences respect: Italian, Nordic. When it came to Black men, you lumped us all together: Random Black guys When it came to White men you described one as "something else" and "powerful" and the other as "interesting". When it came to Black men guys (you don't give them the respect of calling them men) they were simply "comfortable to be around".......like a family pet.

Was it me who said it..... Or did YOU say you used to get drunk and get on stage trying to sing and embarrassed yourself and others back during your "salad tossing" days????

frankster Yes....One human Race Genetically... There is no "one human race" any more than there is one ice cream flavor. Genes can be traced back....Y-chromosome DNA and Mitochondrial DNA - passed on by Father and Mother respectively. I understand, but can they be traced back to their LOCATION OF ORIGIN? Humans are divided social politically geographically...these division were and are human doings. True They are also divided sexually and racially and religiously. Some divisions are natural, others are man made. The now current devision is about Power and Resource by various factions of humanity. As was the case through out most of human history. Race and racism is a socio-political ideology predicated on ethnic differences.. Some would argue that ethnic differences ARE racial differences too, since both ethnic and race come from the same Greek root word "ethnos". So is Sexism a socio-political ideology predicated on sexual differences.. Sex and ethnicity exist outside of isms. How so? Xenophobia is a form of ethnic hatred or prejudice. So is tribalism. All human beings are more similar to other humans beings than too any other existing living beings.....hence the Human race All ice cream is similar in that it's all cold and creamy. But it still comes in different flavors...lol. The social-political ideology of race races and racism was created to facilitate social power hierarchy exploitation and persecution. By constructing and enforcing an artificial divisions they can have a in group(included) and an out group(other, excluded). The divisions already existed, they didn't construct them. They exploited them. Associating with and categorizing yourself as belong to is two different thing Associating deals with relationship context and proximity Categorizing deals with shared qualities or similar characteristics for classification We do not pick our family members...we have little choice in the matter We do often pick our friends....we have more of a choice in the matter Facts. No.....not by Nature But as a result of Enforced Social Engineering and Political Manipulation. By nature as well. Those of the same race share the same phenotype, and will usually share the same preferences for tastes, smells, hair styles, foods, color coordination, etc... Black people around the planet tend to like spicier food than Whites regardless of the culture both are raised in. Black people around the planet tend to be more fertile than Whites regardless of the culture both are raised in. No....they should not take. That must be negotiate with your current relatives occupying the land. What about those BORN on the land? Does the White baby BORN on that land have the same rights as a Black baby BORN on that land, since...you claim...they're both "African"?

aka Contradiction This is what you call "projecting". These are things that White women say (or used to say) about WHITE MEN back during the women's movement. In an attempt to be like your White female friends, you want to take those same negative attributes and attach them to a BLACK MAN. ....while hyping up the sexuality and masculinity of White men. I know you like to drink whiskey, smoke cheap ass Salem cigarettes, go bar hopping and making a fool of yourself on stage. I know THAT much about you....lol

Who a person "prefers" and who a person sees as superior are often 2 different things. I know women who prefer to be with abusive unemployed men whom they claim "ain't shit" over educated men with good jobs because of how it makes THEM feel. But they still believe those men that they don't prefer ARE actually better than who they're with.

I'm sure it doesn't make a difference to you. It has become increasingly clear that as a group: you have a much higher regard for White males than for Black males While you're right that beauty and other positive traits can be found among all racial groups; because of your position...you enhance and promote the positive traits of White males and disregard their negative ones, while doing the opposite for Black males.