Will The Real Kamala Harris Please Stand Up!

[nels]

 

[aka Contrarian]

@nelsI was wondering when you'd show up with your portfolio of links and Youtube videos, ready to slander Kamala, who has all but sewed up the Democratic nomination for president.

Yes, she's a flawed, tainted candidate. But she's our flawed, tainted candidate, and if she can defeat that Spawn of Satan, then she's OK with me.

You don't send a Pollyanna saint to kick ass, you send a ruthless super bitch! If Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS, this country would be in much better shape today.

[ProfD]

18 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

 ...Kamala, who has all but sewed up the Democratic nomination for president....Yes, she's a flawed, tainted candidate. But she's our flawed, tainted candidate....

I think she's partially ours.  Only because whenever they mention her race, half the emphasis is placed on the fact that she's Asian.

[aka Contrarian]

@ProfD when I said "our" I didn't mean that as a black person. I meant it as a Democrat. 

I don't care what Harris's pedigree is as long as she can give tRump a run for his money. Black Retrumpicans have taught me that "all skin folk ain't kinfolk".

And I'd actually feel more confident with a strong, capable white male running against tRump! Then I wouldn't have to listen to blacks whine about what black voters expect; which is EVERYTHING. 

[ProfD]

22 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

@ProfD when I said "our" I didn't mean that as a black person. I meant it as a Democrat. 

Understood. 

22 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

And I'd actually feel more confident with a strong, capable white male running against tRump! Then I wouldn't have to listen to him whine about what black voters expect; which is EVERYTHING. 

Interesting. As I mentioned in the other thread, Black folks really don't have any expectations or demands of politicians.  That's been our real problem. 

[Pioneer1]

I'll take Kamala over Trump.....but I don't have too much confidence in her.
Her choice in marriage says a lot about her.

 

[ProfD]

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Her choice in marriage says a lot about her.

People with political aspirations marry for very different reasons other than love or lust. 

 

Notice how the bastards are trying to make a big deal of the fact that VP Harris doesn't have children. That's when they're not throwing around DEI.

 

The former POTUS running mate, clown azz JD Vance even had some slick sh8t to say about VP Harris too. 

 

The shade is going to come down heavy on VP Harris as she tries to win the presidency. The Obamas finally endorsed her yesterday. 

 

[Pioneer1]

When I hear that name....JD Vance....I think of JD "Boss" Hogg of the Dukes of Hazzard

"We're gonna git them Duke Boys one way or another..."



I don't know why Kamala married him, however the fact that she's not FBA nor has she chosen to marry into an AfroAmerican family is very telling.
It makes me question how strong her emotional and intellectual connection is with us.

Now, in fairness......
The fact that she doesn't use her husband's last name is ALSO very telling.
 
Like I said, I think she's better than Trump....but still.
If my girl Michelle doesn't change her mind.......uh.....if she doesn't.....and I hope she does....we'll just have to hope she beats Trump by a landslide and see what happens when she gets in office.
 

[ProfD]

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

When I hear that name....JD Vance....I think of JD "Boss" Hogg of the Dukes of Hazzard

It makes me question how strong her emotional and intellectual connection is with us.

She's a social climber aka politician. They are not connected to anyone who isn't helping them.

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Now, in fairness......
The fact that she doesn't use her husband's last name is ALSO very telling.

As I mentioned in another thread, it's a marriage of political convenience. 

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If my girl Michelle doesn't change her mind.......uh.....if she doesn't.....and I hope she does....

Forget it bro. Neither she nor firmer POTUS Obama are interested in returning to DC.

 

The Obamas  are making a sh8t ton of money and living their best lives away from politics. They're better than good.

 

[Pioneer1]

As I said before, I prefer her over Trump....however one of the things I don't like about Kamala achieving the highest office in the land is the image it gives Black girls.

When you look at her, and that other SCOTUS Justice they just put on, it tells Black girls that if they want to to be successful and rise to the top....let go of them Black men and marry yourself a White man.

Leave them loud mouthed ashy ass niccaz behind and get yourself a nice quiet zaddy with education (and preferably some money) who'll just stand by your side and smile as you achieve your dreams.

[aka Contrarian]

@Pioneer1So you have a problem if high profile black women do what their black male counterparts do, which is to marry a white person. Puleeze.

I, myself, am tired of the role model onus  placed on successful Blacks. Kids should be able to look no further than their parents when seeking their role models. lf that fails, I advise using a little imagination and initiative and simply aspire to be the best you can be. Screw trying to be like someone famous. All famous people aren't paragons in private.  And not all wanna-bes become gonna-bes.  Those are the breaks.

 

The same with that tired ol cliche about wanting to "see people who look like  me" in every scenario. If you wanna see somebody who resembles you, then look in the damn mirror and keep on truckin'.

 

Yes, I'm negative.  I'm also tired of the younger generations expecting  Life to be tailored to their self centered needs. Put your friggin' phones down and be your own inspiration!  

[Pioneer1]

44 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

@Pioneer1So you have a problem if high profile black women do what their black male counterparts do, which is to marry a white person. Puleeze.

I, myself, am tired of the role model onus  placed on successful Blacks. Kids should be able to look no further than their parents when seeking their role models.

"Should" is the operative word.
What kids "should" do and what they ACTUALLY do are often two separate things.

Children tend to emulate what they SEE the adults in their environment doing...whether they "should" do so or not.
And because Black children tend to watch more television and consume more media than other children, they often see more adults in the media than they see their working parents...and thus tend to emulate THEM.

Not just children, people in general tend to emulate those whom they see as successful.
If little Black girls....many of whom don't have a father or even a father figure of ANY race in their lives see a woman "of color" occupying the highest office of the land and they constantly see a happy faced White man standing by her side grinning next to her...what type of message do it send them subliminally?





"Take that one....Willie Brown"

[ProfD]

@aka Contrarian is right on several fronts.

 

A list of  successful Black men have been marrying Beckys and Karens for a long time now. 

 

Successful Black women aren't going to wait around forever for a Black man to get his sh8t together. 

 

I don't know if Montel Williams and Willie Brown were interested in making  VP Harris a wife back in the day. Willie Brown did help her climb the ladder though.

 

The 1st role models in a child's life should be their parents. If the children were unfortunate enough to be conceived by crash dummies, they will have a tougher row to hoe.

 

However, there's no shortage of positive role models all around including books, magazines and internet.

 

Whatever children choose to watch on TV is a function of the same people...parent(s). By extension, that also includes the village.

 

Dr. John Henrik Clarke also told us to look in the mirror if we need a friend.

[aka Contrarian]

@ProfDThank you for your input.  "Should" may be the operative word for Pioneer's reaction to a point I wasn't trying to make but, as usual, his response was irrelevant. You, I, and everybody else already know  what determines the role models that children adopt.

Pioneer's holding black women to a different standard than black men was what provoked my post, and this was something  he neglected to  address he was so busy posting pictures. 

The observations I subsequently expressed after chiding him for his double standard were just me blowing off steam and required no explanatory response from him.

 

Furthermore, the role model most single black girls look up to is a sista who managed to snare herself  a brotha with a good job and a car. Having a white husband doesn't necessarily send  a positive message. 

[Pioneer1]

ProfD

 

A list of  successful Black men have been marrying Beckys and Karens for a long time now. 

A long time as in....since the 1960s.
Which is a mere fraction of the time White men have been banging Black women in this nation and continue to do so.
 

Successful Black men marrying White women is DIFFERENT than successful Black women marrying White men.
It usually means different things for different reasons.


 

Successful Black women aren't going to wait around forever for a Black man to get his sh8t together. 
 

Since when have they waited?
At what point and time in this nation were Black women who wanted a White man as a husband or lover NOT allowed to be with one?

As a I alluded to earlier, even during Slavery White men and Black women openly had sexual relationships with eachother.
Usually forced, but still open.

 

 

However, there's no shortage of positive role models all around including books, magazines and internet.
 

And in all 3 modes of media, the message is being pushed for Black women to ABANDON Black men and seek White men (or eachother) to attain success in this society.

How many videos have you seen lately advising Black women to "divest" from Black men and "invest" in a relationship with White men to better their interests?

How many videos have you see advising Asian or Latina women to do the same?

 

 

 

 

 

Cynique

Thank you for your input.  "Should" may be the operative word for Pioneer's reaction to a point I wasn't trying to make but, as usual, his response was irrelevant. You, I, and everybody else already know  what determines the role models that children adopt.

Pioneer's holding black women to a different standard than black men was what provoked my post, and this was something  he neglected to  address he was so busy posting pictures. 

The observations I subsequently expressed after chiding him for his double standard were just me blowing off steam and required no explanatory response from him.

You're absolutely correct there's a DOUBLE STANDARD when it comes to interracial relationships.
As it SHOULD be.
Most societies hold their women to a different standard than it holds the men, FOR GOOD REASON.
 

As you know, when a woman sleeps with a man (unless it's for prostitution) she usually gives her HEART to that man and will do anything for him out of love and dedication.

For men, sleeping with a woman is usually just sexual gratification.
Pleasure.
You saw this during Slavery where White men routinely had sex with and raped Black women while at the same time STILL hating both her and the Black man and not hesitating to harm or kill both.

Most INTELLIGENT societies will absolutely hold men and women to different standards for their sexual behavior and choices.

 

Furthermore, the role model most single black girls look up to is a sista who managed to snare herself  a brotha with a good job and a car. Having a white husband doesn't necessarily send  a positive message. 
 

That was back in 1985.
Today, things are different.

 

The image being pushed on little Black girls today is:

1. Find yourself a successful NON-BLACK man to build your life with

or

2. Embrace EACHOTHER as Black women (lesbianism) 

[Chevdove]

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

 

 

Successful Black women aren't going to wait around forever for a Black man to get his sh8t together. 

 

True!

 

Today, I believe it is good to look at the individual and determine if there is integrity, specifically, cultural integrity.

If a Black person has integrity about their cultural identity then, their spouse should not be an hindrance. 

I don't know too much about Kamala Harris yet, but she seems to be a positive person. 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

How many videos have you seen lately advising Black women to "divest" from Black men and "invest" in a relationship with White men to better their interests?

How many videos have you see advising Asian or Latina women to do the same?

 

 

It does seem to be a lot of inter-racial relationships highlighted in media today. 

Black relationships and Black families have came under so much fire in America, so I understand your point @Pioneer1, but for now, Kamala Harris is in a crucial position to combat against Trump. 

[Chevdove]

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You saw this during Slavery where White men routinely had sex with and raped Black women while at the same time STILL hating both her and the Black man and not hesitating to harm or kill both.

Most INTELLIGENT societies will absolutely hold men and women to different standards for their sexual behavior and choices.

 

That is wrong though. Both genders should respect each other in relationships because it would build a better society.

Also, even though the issue of slavery and White Supremacy is a reality and Black females were completely demoralized under this government, it does not mean that Black men have not disrespected Black women. In slavery, especially, Black men called 'Bucks' were encouraged to also rape Black females and this has absolutely affected us today negatively. This kind of disrespect that Black women have endured might be part of the reason some Black women have problems with relationships 'all around'. 

And regarding 'all White men', even though this may be hard to understand, nevertheless, there are other men, even white men, that view Black women as being attractive and worthy of building a loving relationship, merely because 'a real man is just that--a real man'. 

It's been my experience that a 'real man' will be attracted to females for various reasons, and a woman's race or color is a secondary issue. 

Attraction is initially a physical aspect and then other factors like a woman's culture and other attributes comes into awareness later. 

I think it is impossible to stop a Black man, White man, Hispanic man, etc. from seeing women from different cultures or ethnicities as being beautiful and the same goes for women. 

[ProfD]

@Pioneer1 and @Chevdove, slavery was a circumstance that rendered Black folks totally powerless.

 

White men were dominating every aspect of the slave's lives including sexually. 

 

White men were having their way with Black women not always by consent. 

 

White men used Black men as bucks  in forcing them to impregnate women as a form of breeding. 

 

White men would also use buck-breaking which was raping a Black man to emasculate the males, instill fear and keep slaves in line.

 

This is a detour from this particular thread.  Back to the regularly scheduled program...

 

 

 

 

[aka Contrarian]

Here's my 2 cents.  There are  more single women among Blacks than  any other ethnicity and that's because sistas have to share black men with white women. White women face no such dilemma. White men are not bypassing them to marry black women. Even among celebrities. So this is a non issue imo.

 

In any case, who could blame black women if they seek to diversify their choices in men, considering the contentious relationship they have with black males. I don't think it's  a big deal. It's simply a sign of the times. Like everyone else, black women should be free to marry whomever they please. All this BS about high achieving black women sending the wrong message by marrying outside their race is just that. Bull shit. 

 

If the example of a black female role model being a sista who has snared a brotha with a car and a good job is a dated idea, so is all this blather about slavery still influencing  the dynamic between  black women and white men in the year 2024, especially considering what a black career woman brings to the tabie.

  Whether successful or not, black women have earned the right to marry any color man they choose, They have no obligation to assuage the egos of black men or to inspire impressionable black females who, when all is said and done, would still prefer a black NBA baller over a white hockey star.  

 

My problem with Kamala having a white mate is purely political. This image could cost her votes among the superficial crowd. 

 

[Troy]

On 7/29/2024 at 10:53 AM, aka Contrarian said:

My problem with Kamala having a white mate is purely political.

How do you know this? You don’t think they are knocking boots? Do you not think she is in love with her man?

[aka Contrarian]

 

@Troy: I think you misunderstood my statement. In saying that my problem with Kamala having a white husband was "purely political", I meant that my problem was purely political,  not her marriage. My objection was  based on the possibility that such a marriage could  cause her to lose the vote of people who disapprove of interracial marriage.  Get it?  I wasn't saying her marriage was purely political. (Especially since her husband isn't a politician.)

[frankster]

I am Going to Vote for Kamala... because she is half Black and a Woman.

What are the Qualification Required to be President?..

35 yrs of age or older Natural born Citizen lived in the USA for at least 14 yrs -  her qualifications are Indisputable

 

Two Individuals has been SELECTED for us - of which we must choose one to be our next President....

 

Should she win....

Do I want her to do something specifical for black people....yes

Am I expecting her to do something special and specific for Black people...No

Am I expecting her to promise something special and specific for Blacks....No - that would be tantamount to political suicide.

 

Politicians are not what most of us expect or are taught that they are...

Politicians are first and foremost creatures of Moneyed interest/issues(donors/pacs) and Popularity(electorate).

African Americans are less than 14% of the Electorate(2020)... Asian Americans out number us on that count.

African American contribution represent less than 14% of funds received for political Campaigns....

 

If we want Kamala to do something for us Blacks then we must continue to agitate organize and institute..

Support your local and national movements on issues that are close and dear to you  with your intellect time and or money...even when they not perfect.

 

For Me the primary black issues are Affirmative Actions and Reparations  (Includes Africa and The Diaspora)

 

[ProfD]

@frankster, your understanding of the game is on point.

 

You're right.  The reality and most likely outcome in terms of expectations from politicians should not stop Black folks from 1) becoming more organized with our political capital and 2) demanding tangible benefits in exchange for getting folks into political offices including the White House.

 

Every 4 years, the media blitz wants to know how Black folks plan to vote.

 

No other group of people are singled out, pandered to, guilted or berated for whether or not they choose to vote.

 

Nobody cares how Asians, Arabs, East and West Indians, Hispanics, LGBTQIA+, etc., plans to vote.  

 

There is no campaign for [insert group here] to get their booty, chopsticks, crocs, turban, taco or rainbow flag to the polls.

 

If the Black vote is so crucial to getting elected, candidates should be willing to provide tangible benefits. 

 

Of course, Black folks have to put an agenda on the table.  Quid Pro Quo.

[Pioneer1]

20 hours ago, frankster said:

I am Going to Vote for Kamala... because she is half Black and a Woman.

 

 

I too support her over Trump, however I'm curious as to why you crossed out the "half" part?
Do you NOT consider her only half Black....but fully Black instead?

 

 

 

Cynique

 

Here's my 2 cents.  There are  more single women among Blacks than  any other ethnicity and that's because sistas have to share black men with white women. White women face no such dilemma. White men are not bypassing them to marry black women. Even among celebrities. So this is a non issue imo.

 

What???

 

What do you mean "White women face no such dilema" when so many White men have abandoned White women for Asian wives and mail-order brides?

No, White women are dealing with the same thing but they just aren't as vocal about it....all over the television, movies, and now internet disrespecting their men in public over it.

You have to damn near PULL it out of them that they even NOTICE the large amount of White men complaining about them and how fat, loud, and masculine White women in the West are compared to Asian and other foreign women.

 

 

 

In any case, who could blame black women if they seek to diversify their choices in men, considering the contentious relationship they have with black males. 

 

I can blame those who do....depending on the REASONS they do it.

If Black women choose to mate with men of other races simply because she sees them as other MEN and believes in giving all men an equal chance, then NO....I don't blame them.
In their minds, they are simply being fair.

 

However if they choose men of other races to mate with because they feel those men are "better"...then that's a sickness that must be dealt with.

If you are Black but don't think Black men are good enough for you:
1. What does that say about your Daddy who MADE you?
2. What does that say about YOU yourself?

 

 

 

 

If the example of a black female role model being a sista who has snared a brotha with a car and a good job is a dated idea, so is all this blather about slavery still influencing  the dynamic between  black women and white men in the year 2024, especially considering what a black career woman brings to the tabie.

 

The fact that she was ALLOWED to come to the table says a lot, though.
And more importantly, WHO is allowing her to come to the table....and who ISN'T being allowed to come to the table?
 

The reason she IS successful a lot of times isn't simply because of HER hard work and intelligence, but because White men who don't see her as big of a threat ALLOW her talents to shine and benefit her.  Where as a lot of Black males who are talented and smart are TARGETED and prevented from even getting through the door...let alone brought to the table.

I've seen it before on jobs, where intelligent ambitious Black men have their careers sabotaged by jealous men of other races.
I've seen this done less often to Black women, who's biggest threat seems to come from other White women.
 

[aka Contrarian]

Not that I really care, but how pioneer describes the curremt state of American white womanhood is so glaringly the exception and not the rule that it only requires one word to refute it. "Ridiculous!" HaHa.

Caucasian women are still among the most desired  females in the world. Great numbers of their menfolk are not deserting them in order to marry mail order brides or other ethnicities. Not according to my sources.

 

When it comes to the subject of the designated role of African American women in this country, pioneer is too subjective to be taken seriously. So I won't do so.  HaHa

He insists that black women are, and always have been used by white men, and he recommends that sistas opt to send the right message by standing by their men and refraining from succumbing to the sickness of honestly evaluating a white husband prosoect. And, in consideration of their downtrodden fathers, sisters must repent and obediently become crutches for the legions of limping black men, who those mean ol white guys are aways mistreating.  

There's your assgnment, black females. Now hop to it like good girls! 

 

I'm done. Time to go back to more urgent matters like fretting over the dumb-ass Democrats. They got it wrong. Kamala is not the one. She ignites too much controversy. Dems  lacked the insight to foresee this.

[Pioneer1]

Different women are desired for different purposes.

 

Some women are desired as "trophies", while others are desired for sexual gratification, and others desired as ideal home-makers.

This is on an individual level and somewhat on a cultural and even racial level.

 

Yes, White women as a group tend to be desired....as "trophies" to a lot of men.
Although in the United States East Asian women are held up more as trophies by White men.

However for sexual enjoyment, Black women tend to be the most desired by men of all races.

I didn't say as trophies, or as ideal house-wives, but as the most ideal to have sex with.

 

Not saying that I agree with any of these generalities, but those have been my OBSERVATIONS over the years.

[ProfD]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Different women are desired for different purposes.

In the grand scheme of things, most cisgender men desire women for the same reason and purpose. Any *difference* is just a flavor choice. 

 

That's also why most men truly do not recognize or respect women even when they're in *power* positions. 

 

Subconsciously, men will never really see women as their equal.

 

America is great at providing the illusion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). It's a front on all levels. Especially between gender.

[Pioneer1]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

 

America is great at providing the illusion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). It's a front on all levels. Especially between gender.

They are great at providing the illusion when it comes to including women and Latinos.
When it comes to including straight Black men as part of their "diversity" program....they don't even PRETEND to give a damn.

Back in the 70s and 80s they would hire Black women to kill two birds with one stone (hiring a woman and hiring a Black person), but since the LGBTQIA+ movement....they said screw that, we'll just hire gay white men and lesbian white women and call THAT diversity!

As far as seeing women as equals.
I can't speak for all or even most men, but I can honestly say that I see women as equal to men both biologically and in terms of divinity.
However I definitely believe we have different roles to serve and duties to perform and we function best when we function within those natural capacities.

Men tend to be the best protectors and providers.
Women tend to be the best caretakers and nurturers.

However when the occasion arises where the opposite may occur, those talents and inclinations shouldn't be punished but acknowledged and respect.

If a woman is better at making money and using weapons, then SHE should be the breadwinner and protector of the family.
If a man is better at baking the bread and raising the children, then HE should be the stay-at-home parent and maintain the home.

This isn't the "usual" case, but when it is.....it should be accepted as just one piece or tile in the beautiful mosaic of society.

[frankster]

On 8/3/2024 at 7:21 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I too support her over Trump, however I'm curious as to why you crossed out the "half" part?

How do you define "black" as in a racial category?

Since there is no biological basis for race....we are often using ethnic characteristics as a base for socially construct race.

American(Nationality) as an ethnicity is split in two Cultural and Phenotypical divide.....Black and White mostly based on how you Present and Represent

In this time or on this occasion or for this purpose "half "only serves to divide...us Black American people

 

 

On 8/3/2024 at 7:21 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Do you NOT consider her only half Black....but fully Black instead?

We are all composed of varying proportion of multiply Races(ethnicities)...at what fraction do you become one or no longer of the other?

Do you really know anybody that is "fully black"  or "fully white"?

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

How do you define "black" as in a racial category?

 

I personally define a Black person is one who is PREDOMINATELY (key word) of Sub-Saharan African descent.

 

 

Since there is no biological basis for race....we are often using ethnic characteristics as a base for socially construct race.

 

I agree with the second part of your statement, but not the first.
I believe there is absolutely a biological basis for race.
Just ask 23andMe....lol.

 

 

 

American(Nationality) as an ethnicity is split in two Cultural and Phenotypical divide.....Black and White mostly based on how you Present and Represent

In this time or on this occasion or for this purpose "half "only serves to divide...us Black American people

 

Have we not already been divided as a people?
Going back to the "paper bag" tests and light skinned vs dark skinned?
 

I'd argue that perhaps we (those calling ourselves "Black Americans) NEED to be divided from eachother somewhat because we don't need people who have the luxury of "code switching" whenever it's convenient for them.

Mixed when it's convenient...
"Black" when it's convenient...

We are all composed of varying proportion of multiply Races(ethnicities)...at what fraction do you become one or no longer of the other?
 

I'd agree that most of us are composed of varying races, not sure about ethnicities....since ethnicity is based on culture more so than biological factors.

I actually had a deep discussion with a young lady a couple weeks ago who insisted that she was "half Catholic"...lol.
But this is why I said earlier that I consider a Black person a person of PREDOMINATELY Sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Do you really know anybody that is "fully black"  or "fully white"?

Hard to say.
I know quite a few Africans from places like South Sudan and Congo with...as far as anyone knows...absolutely no Caucasian admixture what so ever.

But is anyone "fully male" or "fully female"?
Both sexes have various degrees of both testosterone and estrogen, so it's a matter of which hormone predominates and what sexual organs are more pronounced.
 
 

[frankster]

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

How do you define "black" as in a racial category?

 

I personally define a Black person is one who is PREDOMINATELY (key word) of Sub-Saharan African descent.

How do you recognize this predominance?

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Since there is no biological basis for race....we are often using ethnic characteristics as a base for socially construct race.

 

I agree with the second part of your statement, but not the first.
I believe there is absolutely a biological basis for race.
Just ask 23andMe....lol.

Present your evidence or proof of the biological basis of race?

think we had this conversation before

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

American(Nationality) as an ethnicity is split in two Cultural and Phenotypical divide.....Black and White mostly based on how you Present and Represent

In this time or on this occasion or for this purpose "half "only serves to divide...us Black American people

 

Have we not already been divided as a people?
Going back to the "paper bag" tests and light skinned vs dark skinned?

Yes we are....

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'd argue that perhaps we (those calling ourselves "Black Americans) NEED to be divided from eachother somewhat because we don't need people who have the luxury of "code switching" whenever it's convenient for them.

So you recommending more division..

passing is only for those who present as white .....not those who present as mixed.

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Mixed when it's convenient...
"Black" when it's convenient...

In America Mixed has always meant Black

Those who present as mixed.....say they feel as if they do not belong or accepted  to/by either race.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

We are all composed of varying proportion of multiply Races(ethnicities)...at what fraction do you become one or no longer of the other?
 

I'd agree that most of us are composed of varying races, not sure about ethnicities....since ethnicity is based on culture more so than biological factors.

I actually had a deep discussion with a young lady a couple weeks ago who insisted that she was "half Catholic"...lol.
But this is why I said earlier that I consider a Black person a person of PREDOMINATELY Sub-Saharan African ancestry.

okay but that still does not mean fully or totally.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Do you really know anybody that is "fully black"  or "fully white"?

Hard to say.
I know quite a few Africans from places like South Sudan and Congo with...as far as anyone knows...absolutely no Caucasian admixture what so ever.

I was referring to born Americans?

 

58 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

But is anyone "fully male" or "fully female"?
Both sexes have various degrees of both testosterone and estrogen, so it's a matter of which hormone predominates and what sexual organs are more pronounced.
 

Anatomically and Biological Yes.....Most humans are of one sex

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

How do you recognize this predominance?

 

I don't always, but usually through phenotype.
Phenotype is the PRIMARY basis of race.

 

Present your evidence or proof of the biological basis of race?

 

I present to you Webster's Dictionary definition of Race:

Quote

 

race
1 of 3
noun (1)
ˈrās 
 any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race 

 

 

 

 

 

So you recommending more division..

 

Initially....yes.
And ultimately EXCLUSION....to eliminate and heal some of the division.
 

Once mixed and non-Black people who are currently accepted as Black in our community are EXCLUDED from identifying as and being accepted as Black, then what will follow is less confusion and division among us.

 

In America Mixed has always meant Black
 

Most Latinos are mixed, but they usually aren't considered Black.
Even most of those mixed with Black ancestry aren't usually considered Black.

And what about White/Asian mixes?

Most Native Americans are also mixed but aren't considered Black.

You may want to re-think that one, lol.

 

 

Those who present as mixed.....say they feel as if they do not belong or accepted  to/by either race.
 

True.
What does that have to do with them NOT being Black?



 

okay but that still does not mean fully or totally.
 

???
Who set the standard as "fully" or "totally"?
Not me.
 

I say and will continue to say that you should claim the race you PREDOMINATELY present as phenotypically.
Even if you do have  a White parent, if you present as a Black person phenotypically then as far as I'm concerned you ARE Black...not mixed.

[frankster]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

How do you recognize this predominance?

 

I don't always, but usually through phenotype.
Phenotype is the PRIMARY basis of race.

There is no phenotype that is exclusive to any one race....

if so inform me

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Present your evidence or proof of the biological basis of race?

 

I present to you Webster's Dictionary definition of Race:

race
1 of 3
noun (1)
ˈrās 
 any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race 

Thats not proof .......thats a definition

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

So you recommending more division..

 

Initially....yes.
And ultimately EXCLUSION....to eliminate and heal some of the division.

The thing with divisions is that it tends to lead to enmity and more division.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Once mixed and non-Black people who are currently accepted as Black in our community are EXCLUDED from identifying as and being accepted as Black, then what will follow is less confusion and division among us.

Since they are not accepted by whites and half their family is black.....i think you will end up with more confusion

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

in America Mixed has always meant Black
 

Most Latinos are mixed, but they usually aren't considered Black.
Even most of those mixed with Black ancestry aren't usually considered Black.

 

In the USA They once were considered black then white then black again....just as Polish Irish ad Italians were not always considered white.

You have dark skinned and African descent latino and light skinned and European descent latino

The Term Latino means of Latin American descent or ethnicity....especially one whose native language is Spanish 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

And what about White/Asian mixes?

Most Native Americans are also mixed but aren't considered Black.

You may want to re-think that one, lol.

I am referring to black white mixes....

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Those who present as mixed.....say they feel as if they do not belong or accepted  to/by either race.
 

True.
What does that have to do with them NOT being Black?

They are not white either .......

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

okay but that still does not mean fully or totally.
 

???
Who set the standard as "fully" or "totally"?
Not me.

The you are back to were we are all degrees of white or black and the difference is arbitrary.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I say and will continue to say that you should claim the race you PREDOMINATELY present as phenotypically.
Even if you do have  a White parent, if you present as a Black person phenotypically then as far as I'm concerned you ARE Black...not mixed.

You are entitled to your own definition.....all members of society may not always see like you do 

 

[aka Contrarian]

Imo, race is many-faceted and fluid. I tend to agree with those who say it is a social construct. (It would certainly have to be if, as Pioneer claims about blond blue eyed Polish and red haired green eyed Irish people at one time not being considered white, is true!?) I suspect these immigrants were just looked upon as second class citizens.

 

To me, hair texture is a very good race marker. The nappy black hair gene seems to be a dominant one, and in my experience, a "giveaway" when race is in question. 

And surely sociology and  psychology should be given as much attention as anthropology when evaluating and deconstructing race. 

Since having scientific credentials is obviously not a requirement in this discussion, I submit that blackness can also be a state of mind, a mystique, a certain demeanor, a special vibe, a unique blend of traits stemming from the survival techniques  that had their origin  within the confines of the slavery culture.  That's our identity.

As for the pedigree of America's  slave descendant population, we are actually a hybrid breed that could be classified as a subdivision of the Negroid race.

 

Of course, as Troy is always quick to remind us, the current school of scientific thought contends that there is only one race; the human one. And that our samenesses far  exceed our differences.

 

Kamala Harris has an Asian mother and a Black father. She is, what she is. It's as much about context as about biology. 

[ProfD]

Throughout recorded history, it seems humans have always sub-divided themselves into tribes based on continent, country, culture, ethnicity, etc.

 

Race may be a social construct derived several hundred years ago but it is definitely used to differentiate groups of people and place them into tribes based on skin color. 

 

At one point in time, Americans identified themselves by ethnicity until it became socially beneficial to close ranks and classify themselves as white.

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

There is no phenotype that is exclusive to any one race....
if so inform me

 

Tight nappy hair is the exclusive property of the African/Black race, lol.

 

 

 

You ain't going to find this hair on ANY other race except African...lol.

 

 

Thats not proof .......thats a definition

 

It is absolutely proof...that you simply don't want to accept.

Race is a categorization based upon phenotype, which is based upon genetics...biology.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing with divisions is that it tends to lead to enmity and more division.

 

Sometimes it does....and sometimes that's a GOOD THING.
Sometimes division PREVENTS more enmity and violence.
 

Would you NOT recommend division (separation/divorce) between a woman and an abusive spouse if it would eventually save her life?

 

 

 

 

Since they are not accepted by whites and half their family is black.....i think you will end up with more confusion

Since their White side of the family doesn't accept them...does that mean the Black side MUST?

The Black community isn't a JUNK YARD.
Some place for people things to go when they don't fit in or aren't wanted anywhere else.

No, calling people "Black" who clearly don't LOOK Black and AREN'T Black is what leads to confusion.
Little dark skinned Black girls seeing yellow skinned people with straight hair like Beyonce constantly being called "beautiful Black woman" when they don't look anything like her and know they never will.



 

They are not white either .......
 

Right, so they should start their own category, not be FORCED into one they don't belong in.
They say necessity is the mother of invention.


 

Cynique
 

 I tend to agree with those who say it is a social construct. (It would certainly have to be if, as Pioneer claims about blond blue eyed Polish and red haired green eyed Irish people at one time not being considered white, is true!?)
 

1. I agree that race IS a social construct.
But it's not ONLY a social construct, but a social construct based on biology.
 

2. I didn't make claims about Polish and Irish people at one time not being considered White, frankster did.


 

To me, hair texture is a very good race marker.
 

It seems you beat me to it, with this statement...lol.

Another would be GREEN eyes.
There are fully Black people who are occasionally born with blue eyes, but the ONLY people I've seen with green eyes are Caucasians.

 

As for the pedigree of America's  slave descendant population, we are actually a hybrid breed that could be classified as a subdivision of the Negroid race.
 

This is where it gets a little complex.
I refer to our people as AFROAMERICANS...an ETHNIC GROUP...not a race.
We are composed of MULTIPLE races and combinations, where African/Black predominates.

Which is why I accept Kamala Harris as an AfroAmerican but I don't consider her Black.


 

Of course, as Troy is always quick to remind us, the current school of scientific thought contends that there is only one race; the human one.
 

There is no such thing as "one race".
By definition, race is a CATEGORY...which means there must be multiple options to choose from.
That's like saying there is only "one species" or "one choice".
If there is only one...it's NOT a choice, or option, or category.

 

[frankster]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

There is no phenotype that is exclusive to any one race....
if so inform me

 

Tight nappy hair is the exclusive property of the African/Black race, lol.

 

 

 

You ain't going to find this hair on ANY other race except African...lol.

True because its a trait....a phenotype is a collection of traits - curly or coily hair type

These people are definitely not black.....but brown

They are Africans We are all Africans and Africans have the widest genetic diversity....these are some of the most unmixed peoples

In other words these traits are in all humans.....just to varying levels and degrees of expression - Genotype

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

Thats not proof .......thats a definition

 

It is absolutely proof...that you simply don't want to accept.

Race is a categorization based upon phenotype, which is based upon genetics...biology.

No its not

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The thing with divisions is that it tends to lead to enmity and more division.

 

Sometimes it does....and sometimes that's a GOOD THING.
Sometimes division PREVENTS more enmity and violence.
 

Would you NOT recommend division (separation/divorce) between a woman and an abusive spouse if it would eventually save her life?

Yes....but only after their is no chance of reconciliation

The division you are recommending is more of an abandonment of people facing or enduring oppression in their time of need.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Since they are not accepted by whites and half their family is black.....i think you will end up with more confusion

Since their White side of the family doesn't accept them...does that mean the Black side MUST?

The Black community isn't a JUNK YARD.
Some place for people things to go when they don't fit in or aren't wanted anywhere else.

No, calling people "Black" who clearly don't LOOK Black and AREN'T Black is what leads to confusion.
Little dark skinned Black girls seeing yellow skinned people with straight hair like Beyonce constantly being called "beautiful Black woman" when they don't look anything like her and know they never will.

Abandoning people in their time of need is truly a  despicable act...

In the picture you posted of Africans who are not black but brown....would you divide out/against these san people?

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They are not white either .......
 

Right, so they should start their own category, not be FORCED into one they don't belong in.
They say necessity is the mother of invention.

Those type of classification and categorization has always been used as a means to oppress

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

[Chevdove]

On 8/4/2024 at 6:13 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Have we not already been divided as a people?
Going back to the "paper bag" tests and light skinned vs dark skinned?
 

I'd argue that perhaps we (those calling ourselves "Black Americans) NEED to be divided from eachother somewhat because we don't need people who have the luxury of "code switching" whenever it's convenient for them.

Mixed when it's convenient...
"Black" when it's convenient...

 

yes, this is so contentious. I just watched a documentary about a tour guide who showed that very issue that showed up on my channel. 

 

On 8/5/2024 at 7:57 AM, aka Contrarian said:

 

 

Kamala Harris has an Asian mother and a Black father. She is, what she is. It's as much about context as about biology. 

 

Absolutely agree.  A person's culture, imo, should be part of how a person identifies. 

 

 

[Chevdove]

On 8/5/2024 at 7:26 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Tight nappy hair is the exclusive property of the African/Black race, lol.

 

 

Yes! This is an absolute genetic trait that exclusively is attributed to people of African descent.

The key genetic aspect of this trait would be that it will NEVER be separated from other dominant African traits.

So far, in thousands of years, it has NOT occurred. Since GENES tend to travel in pairs, it has become obvious by observation that this trait of 

nappy hair is on a particular gene that is situated very close to another gene/allele that is a dominant trait that Africans tend to express. Therefore, this trait will never be separated and become an expression on any other human that has intermixed in such a way that their has been mutations that blocked out other typical African traits. 

 

CURLY or COILY HAIR anyone 'race' can express that trait, but NOT nappy hair.

NAPPY HAIR or WOOLY HAIR genetically speaking is the only kind of hair that LOCKS. 

This was my thesis in college. I studied different types of animal and human hair, etc.

It is the seal of the living God in the forehead [i.e. top of the head]. 

Under a microscope African hair looks extremely unique in how it LOCKS and has angles. It does not coil, it locks. 

 

 

 

 

[Chevdove]

KAMALA HARRIS looks Black IMO.

Racially, her father is Jamaican and again, IMO, that makes her Black. 

Her mother is from India and I don't know if she defined herself as being 'Black' though. 

I read that her mother and father separated when she was five years old and that it was a bitter separation and so, her mother 

raised her as a single mother. Tough!

 

So, my question is did Kamala identify as being Black American as she grew up?

Did she fill out her racial category as being Black/African American in her early school years or what?

 

 

[ProfD]

 

VP Kamala Harris is Black if these are her parents.

 

It has been reported that her Indian mother identified as white on a census form several decades ago.

 

Her father identifies as a Jamaican-American. He's Black just like Bob Marley was despite complexion.

 

Several decades ago, golfer Tiger Wioods  went through the same identity confusion.

 

I wonder if it's only American Blacks who have this affliction of self-identity confusion. 

 

Black folks can self-identify however they choose but one thing is certainly clear...white folks will always see them as Black people and they will treat them accordingly.

[frankster]

Interesting side note

First thing is that Indians was in ancient and pre-colonial times considered Ethiopians

Some Indians Historians of Dravidian ethnicity trace their ancestry back to modern day East Africa....Ethiopia Eritrea Somalia and Djibouti - Horn of Africa

K Harris mother is from the Indian State of Tamil Nadu which is in the South of Indian....Tamil Nadu is the Blackest State in India - in my opinion. 

Tamil  is believed to be one of the oldest language in the World....Residents of Tamil Nadu are mostly of the Dravidian Ethnic group

Though K Harris mother says she is of the Brahmin Caste....One could say(not necessarily true) that the Brahmins are the whitest caste in India

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Yes! This is an absolute genetic trait that exclusively is attributed to people of African descent.

Thanks for the reveal Chevron Dove..

Traits can also be exclusive to an individual....as in idiosyncratic - usually based in/on a particular gene expression

What gene is responsible for this genetic trait that is exclusive to and only found in Africans?

Aren't we all of African Descent?

 

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

The key genetic aspect of this trait would be that it will NEVER be separated from other dominant African traits.

How so?

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

So far, in thousands of years, it has NOT occurred. Since GENES tend to travel in pairs, it has become obvious by observation that this trait of 

nappy hair is on a particular gene that is situated very close to another gene/allele that is a dominant trait that Africans tend to express.

That is why science does not rely on observation alone....The earth looks flat but is it?

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Therefore, this trait will never be separated and become an expression on any other human that has intermixed in such a way that their has been mutations that blocked out other typical African traits. 

Aren't Traits also a result of genetic variation and gene expression due to geography.

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

 

CURLY or COILY HAIR anyone 'race' can express that trait, but NOT nappy hair.

NAPPY HAIR or WOOLY HAIR genetically speaking is the only kind of hair that LOCKS. 

Define this genetically speaking LOCKS that is exclusive to Black Africans?

Coily means tightly curled as in LOCKS

Kinky Frizzy wooly nappy springy bushy are all basically afro.....3a-4c

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

This was my thesis in college. I studied different types of animal and human hair, etc.

Congratulations....I respect the accomplishment

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

It is the seal of the living God in the forehead [i.e. top of the head]. 

True...the Halo of Angels and the fully bloomed Crown Chakra

Is this seal of the Living God exclusive to Africans with Afro Hair?

 

10 hours ago, Chevdove said:

Under a microscope African hair looks extremely unique in how it LOCKS and has angles. It does not coil, it locks. 

 under a microscope....is that still phenotype?

African Hair runs the spectrum from straight to coily....As African hair is the  mother of all types of Human Hair.

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

True because its a trait....a phenotype is a collection of traits - curly or coily hair type

These people are definitely not black.....but brown

They are Africans We are all Africans and Africans have the widest genetic diversity....these are some of the most unmixed peoples

 

You're being intellectually dishonest with that statement.
Almost NOBODY is "Black" if you want to use actual skin pigment as the standard as to who is "Black" and who isn't.
Most people on the planet are various shades of brown.

 

No, when we say "Black" we are talking about those of Sub-Saharan African origin, and I think you know that.

 

 

In other words these traits are in all humans.....just to varying levels and degrees of expression - Genotype

 

Ok...to different levels and degrees of expression.
Depending on what level they are at, is how they are racially classified.

 

BTW....the expression of it is not "genotype" but PHENOTYPE.

 

 

 

Yes....but only after their is no chance of reconciliation

 

Who determines how many "chances" are left, and also who determines what constitutes as a "chance" for reconciliation.

 

 

The division you are recommending is more of an abandonment of people facing or enduring oppression in their time of need.

There "time of need"????
 

1. Who "needs" to identify as a particular race?
Germany has been defeated and the Nazis no longer pose a major threat, so who is threatening people with harm if they don't identify as a particular race?

 

2. How is LYING to people about what race they are or allowing THEM TO LIE about what race they identify as...helping them in their time of need?

 

 

 

 

Abandoning people in their time of need is truly a  despicable act...

 

You must not be a parent of an adult child, especially a spoiled/selfish/undisciplined one, lol.
 

If you were, you'd know sometimes strategic abandonment is one of the BEST things you can do for them.

 

 

 

 

In the picture you posted of Africans who are not black but brown....would you divide out/against these san people?

 

I've already addressed the question as to the racial use of the word "Black".

 

 

 

 

Those type of classification and categorization has always been used as a means to oppress

 

So has the sword and other weapons.
Does that mean that we shouldn't take control over them and use them for our own good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chevdove

 

 

CURLY or COILY HAIR anyone 'race' can express that trait, but NOT nappy hair.

 

Excellent observation.
Which is why I posted the picture of the San people I posted above as opposed to the pictures that frankster posted.

My picture showed people with truly NAPPY hair.
Very tightly coiled.

Unlike the pictures he show of people with merely curly hair that can be found among Europeans as well as Africans.

 

Strangely enough, you don't find any type of kinky or curly hair among Native Americans or East Asians.

 

 

 

 

 

I read that her mother and father separated when she was five years old and that it was a bitter separation and so, her mother raised her as a single mother. Tough!

 

Yeah...
One more reason why I would have rather had Michelle Obama instead of Kamala.

On top of having a White husband, when you read her story....it's similar to Barack Obamas of having to be raised by their non-Black mother because their Black daddy "ran off" somewhere.

 

The imagery is just not what it should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ProfD

 

Her father identifies as a Jamaican-American. He's Black just like Bob Marley was despite complexion.

 

You know Bob Marley was mixed race, though.

Kamala....although better than Trump....is just not Black enough for me, lol.
 

[frankster]

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

True because its a trait....a phenotype is a collection of traits - curly or coily hair type

These people are definitely not black.....but brown

They are Africans We are all Africans and Africans have the widest genetic diversity....these are some of the most unmixed peoples

 

You're being intellectually dishonest with that statement.

no I am not...

Based on your interpretation of colorism....it is a reasonable question to ask

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Almost NOBODY is "Black" if you want to use actual skin pigment as the standard as to who is "Black" and who isn't.

I Agree

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Most people on the planet are various shades of brown.

I agree

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

No, when we say "Black" we are talking about those of Sub-Saharan African origin, and I think you know that.

I know that is what you meant....but I felt it necessary to point out that these relatively light skinned people are native to Africa south of the Sahara

 

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

In other words these traits are in all humans.....just to varying levels and degrees of expression - Genotype

 

Ok...to different levels and degrees of expression.
Depending on what level they are at, is how they are racially classified.

Yes...Race is ascribe to various biological features especially as an aggregate with other features common to an ethnicity or geographic region.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

BTW....the expression of it is not "genotype" but PHENOTYPE.

Genotype is what is pass on from parent to child....Which gene is expressed depends on diet and geography - Epigenetics

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes....but only after their is no chance of reconciliation

 

Who determines how many "chances" are left, and also who determines what constitutes as a "chance" for reconciliation.

The parties involved.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

The division you are recommending is more of an abandonment of people facing or enduring oppression in their time of need.

There "time of need"????
 

1. Who "needs" to identify as a particular race?
Germany has been defeated and the Nazis no longer pose a major threat, so who is threatening people with harm if they don't identify as a particular race?

Africans and peoples who present as black are still under threat from White racism.

Basically it is a further dividing of the oppress...so as to weaken and foster internal strife and turmoil.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

2. How is LYING to people about what race they are or allowing THEM TO LIE about what race they identify as...helping them in their time of need?

The whole idea of Race is a biological lie....

It is a social construct introduce to divide human beings along lines of their differences....so as to oppress use and abuse for purposes as of greed a section of humanity.

Most humans are 99.9% identical in their genetic make up.....

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Abandoning people in their time of need is truly a  despicable act...

 

You must not be a parent of an adult child, especially a spoiled/selfish/undisciplined one, lol.

Yes I am.....yet I never abandon them in their time of need...... only in their time of want

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you were, you'd know sometimes strategic abandonment is one of the BEST things you can do for them.

True..

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

In the picture you posted of Africans who are not black but brown....would you divide out/against these san people?

 

I've already addressed the question as to the racial use of the word "Black".

if i am wrong please correct me as to my supposition on your behalf.

I will take that to mean you would not ....even though they are of a light complexion.

My guess is you would not abandon theses people because you know that they are Africans

So to you their Africanness  is more important than their humanity....this is so because you ascribe to the ideology of Races.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Those type of classification and categorization has always been used as a means to oppress

 

So has the sword and other weapons.
Does that mean that we shouldn't take control over them and use them for our own good?

Then we should use it to divide the racist oppressors....not ourselves.

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Chevdove

 

 

CURLY or COILY HAIR anyone 'race' can express that trait, but NOT nappy hair.

 

Excellent observation.
Which is why I posted the picture of the San people I posted above as opposed to the pictures that frankster posted.

My picture showed people with truly NAPPY hair.
Very tightly coiled.

Unlike the pictures he show of people with merely curly hair that can be found among Europeans as well as Africans.

 

Strangely enough, you don't find any type of kinky or curly hair among Native Americans or East Asians.

I posted people of the same Khoi San people who treat their hair....to demonstrate that what they have is a afro hair

Please....peppercorn or peasy hair you posted is mostly a result of washed untreated uncombed hair

 

[ProfD]

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You know Bob Marley was mixed race, though.

Absolutely. Bob Marley always self-identified as a Black man. Despite having  few white women smoke with him.

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

no I am not...

Based on your interpretation of colorism....it is a reasonable question to ask

 

You didn't ask a question, you made an intellectually dishonest statement by declaring those San people "brown instead of black".

Choosing to focus on their skin color rather than their African racial identity as some sort of weird attempt to confuse the argument.

 

 

 

 

I know that is what you meant....but I felt it necessary to point out that these relatively light skinned people are native to Africa south of the Sahara

 

Well thank you for pointing that out.

 

 

 

Yes...Race is ascribe to various biological features especially as an aggregate with other features common to an ethnicity or geographic region.

 

Thank you for expounding on something you claimed you didn't believe in the existence of...lol.

Race is absolutely real.
You can disagree with it, but to DENY it is unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

Genotype is what is pass on from parent to child....Which gene is expressed depends on diet and geography - Epigenetics

 

You're not wrong, but you're jumping from one end of the spectrum to the other.

My point is, when you're talking about the EXPRESSION of genes..you're talking about PHENOTYPE.

 

 

 

Africans and peoples who present as black are still under threat from White racism.

 

Correct.
What we choose to identify as or NOT identify as is of little important to the White racist, because they can clearly see who you are....which is not them...and will practice racism accordingly.

How or what Black presenting people identify as is of very little importance to them.

 

 

 

 

Basically it is a further dividing of the oppress...so as to weaken and foster internal strife and turmoil.

 

Ok, so you're ASSUMING that all victims of White racism are or atleast SHOULD be united.
You assume they even CAN unite.

 

Brown Arabs
Yellow Asians
And Brown Latinos 

Are also victims of White racism like AfroAmericans and Africans, yet THEY TOO are racist themselves and see themselves as separate from us.

So simply being a victim and fellow oppressee of White racism isn't enough to strengthen or unify people, let alone grant victory over racist oppressors.

 

 

 

 

 

The whole idea of Race is a biological lie....

It is a social construct introduce to divide human beings along lines of their differences....so as to oppress use and abuse for purposes as of greed a section of humanity.

 

You're overlooking the simple.

Race is CATEGORIZATION.

It's a way of categorizing people based on their phenotypical difference.
Phenotypical difference are based on GENES which are biological.

 

You can disagree with the process or whether or not it should be done all you want, but you can't call it a "lie" because it's not a lie, it's an actual fact.

 

 

Most humans are 99.9% identical in their genetic make up....

 

Ok?
There is an extremely close genetic make-up between men and women also, that mean SEX/GENDER doesn't exists and is a biological lie?

 

 

 

I posted people of the same Khoi San people who treat their hair....to demonstrate that what they have is a afro hair

Please....peppercorn or peasy hair you posted is mostly a result of washed untreated uncombed hair

 

Untreated uncombed???

I've known a lot of people who've gone months without their hair being untreated an uncombed...but it doesn't bead up and nap up like that....lol.

Look at the average homeless Black man on the street with kinky hair that hasn't been washed or treated in probably years, I bet you won't find anything on his head looking like those San people...lol.

 

 

"I know I ain't washed up in a while....
but i KNOW my shit ain't go look like that!"


The most that will happened to the average curly or kinky hair that remains unwashed or untreated is that it will grow out and mat up or turn to dreads, but it will never get NAPPY or BEADY.
That's a genetic trait.

 

Their hair is beaded and nappy by NATURE, not because it was "untreated" or uncombed.

[frankster]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

no I am not...

Based on your interpretation of colorism....it is a reasonable question to ask

 

You didn't ask a question, you made an intellectually dishonest statement by declaring those San people "brown instead of black".

Choosing to focus on their skin color rather than their African racial identity as some sort of weird attempt to confuse the argument.

How could I be dishonest when you yourself said we are all shades of Brown?????

They are definitely not what we typically understand to be "sub saharan" black....if anybody is being intellectual dishonest here it you.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I know that is what you meant....but I felt it necessary to point out that these relatively light skinned people are native to Africa south of the Sahara

 

Well thank you for pointing that out.

You are welcome

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Yes...Race is ascribe to various biological features especially as an aggregate with other features common to an ethnicity or geographic region.

 

Thank you for expounding on something you claimed you didn't believe in the existence of...lol.

Race is absolutely real.
You can disagree with it, but to DENY it is unacceptable.

Race has no biological basis....Race is a social convention

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Genotype is what is pass on from parent to child....Which gene is expressed depends on diet and geography - Epigenetics

 

You're not wrong, but you're jumping from one end of the spectrum to the other.

My point is, when you're talking about the EXPRESSION of genes..you're talking about PHENOTYPE.

Yes ...which gene and how it expresses itself is based on epigenetics

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Africans and peoples who present as black are still under threat from White racism.

 

Correct.
What we choose to identify as or NOT identify as is of little important to the White racist, because they can clearly see who you are....which is not them...and will practice racism accordingly.

True

How we  self identify is very important to us and who we are....

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

How or what Black presenting people identify as is of very little importance to them.

True.

But it is very important and to us how we Identify ourselves

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Basically it is a further dividing of the oppress...so as to weaken and foster internal strife and turmoil.

 

Ok, so you're ASSUMING that all victims of White racism are or atleast SHOULD be united.
You assume they even CAN unite.

Well yes they should be.....but i am not so naive to believe they all will

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Brown Arabs
Yellow Asians
And Brown Latinos 

Are also victims of White racism like AfroAmericans and Africans, yet THEY TOO are racist themselves and see themselves as separate from us.

True...to differing degrees

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

So simply being a victim and fellow oppressee of White racism isn't enough to strengthen or unify people, let alone grant victory over racist oppressors.

True

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The whole idea of Race is a biological lie....

It is a social construct introduce to divide human beings along lines of their differences....so as to oppress use and abuse for purposes as of greed a section of humanity.

 

You're overlooking the simple.

Race is CATEGORIZATION.

It's a way of categorizing people based on their phenotypical difference.
Phenotypical difference are based on GENES which are biological.

Phenotypical differences are more based on diet and geography than genes alone....for example the same genes that is responsible for hair color can give blond or black depending on the environment in utero and out - genetic variation

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

You can disagree with the process or whether or not it should be done all you want, but you can't call it a "lie" because it's not a lie, it's an actual fact.

I do disagree....and it is a biological lie

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Most humans are 99.9% identical in their genetic make up....

 

Ok?
There is an extremely close genetic make-up between men and women also, that mean SEX/GENDER doesn't exists and is a biological lie?

 Gender is Social....Man made

Sex is biological...Nature Made

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

I posted people of the same Khoi San people who treat their hair....to demonstrate that what they have is a afro hair

Please....peppercorn or peasy hair you posted is mostly a result of washed untreated uncombed hair

 

Untreated uncombed???

I've known a lot of people who've gone months without their hair being untreated an uncombed...but it doesn't bead up and nap up like that....lol.

Yes thats because that pepper corn stage is temporary and most evident soon after a very(near bald) low cut then only wash do not treat or comb....

I left out that detail as it tells me you are not entirely familiar with black hair....it says a lot about who you are

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Look at the average homeless Black man on the street with kinky hair that hasn't been washed or treated in probably years, I bet you won't find anything on his head looking like those San people...lol.

 

 

"I know I ain't washed up in a while....
but i KNOW my shit ain't go look like that!"

If you look closely you will see that the peppercorns are growing out

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The most that will happened to the average curly or kinky hair that remains unwashed or untreated is that it will grow out and mat up or turn to dreads, but it will never get NAPPY or BEADY.
That's a genetic trait.

I gave you the recipe...

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Their hair is beaded and nappy by NATURE, not because it was "untreated" or uncombed.

So is all afro.....before it is grown treated and combed regularly

[Chevdove]

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:

Interesting side note

First thing is that Indians was in ancient and pre-colonial times considered Ethiopians

Some Indians Historians of Dravidian ethnicity trace their ancestry back to modern day East Africa....Ethiopia Eritrea Somalia and Djibouti - Horn of Africa

K Harris mother is from the Indian State of Tamil Nadu which is in the South of Indian....Tamil Nadu is the Blackest State in India - in my opinion. 

Tamil  is believed to be one of the oldest language in the World....Residents of Tamil Nadu are mostly of the Dravidian Ethnic group

Though K Harris mother says she is of the Brahmin Caste....One could say(not necessarily true) that the Brahmins are the whitest caste in India

 

@frankster That is very interesting!

One of my ancestors, my Great-grandmother is from East Africa. She was a slave child.

Another, my Great-grandfather was from India. He was light skinned though and was not a slave. 

Ethiopians, many of them over here keep telling my son that he looks Ethiopian. 

And many Arab people tell my son the same thing, that he looks either Egyptian or Ethiopian. 

So, I can relate to what you have said. 

 

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:

What gene is responsible for this genetic trait that is exclusive to and only found in Africans?

Aren't we all of African Descent?

 

Yes, we are all of African Descent, I agree but only when it comes to our male origins. 

I don't know the actual gene that has this allele for 'African hair' but, I am positive that geneticist do know. It would definitely be a specific gene.

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:

That is why science does not rely n observation alone....The earth looks flat but is it?

 

Yes, that is so true and that is why Geneticist would know the exact gene associated with 'African hair type' -- the type of hair that locks. In other words, they can see the gene association with the E1b1 groups and that their genes have that very gene expression that causes the phenotype of nappy hair, and then they can see other haplo groups and that they do not have that on their genes at all. So it's not only observation but, scientist can see the gene expression in association with the phenotype of Black African people that also have other dominant traits associated with people in Sub-Saharan Africa. So, they know that nappy hair will never be in certain other haplo groups due to mutations that have occurred. And obviously the degree and percentage of melanin a human expresses in their genetics is absolutely connected to this gene expression, even in albino people of African descent. 

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:

Aren't Traits also a result of genetic variation and gene expression due to geography.

 

Not when it comes to 'hair that locks'. That genetic trait is firmly attached to a certain degree of melanin and also certain other dominant genetic traits located on a certain gene. For example, a Black or dark sknned Aboriginal Australian versus another dark skinned Australian with an afro will show a distinction in their phenotype in certain ways. If a person has no thick lips, or no thick hips, or no rounded nose, etc. then, they will probably have no nappy hair. 

 

If a person has thick lips, thick hips, rounded nose, they can also have bone straight hair, but not the other way around. With no obvious traits that are predominant of most people of African descent then they will not have nappy hair because this trait is firmly attached to genes with certain predominant traits and a certain degree of melanin that you see in people of the African continent. Australian aboriginals, Boons, with nappy hair have distinct traits that can be seen versus the ones that have bone straight hair. 

 

[Chevdove]

 

 

 "Define this genetically speaking LOCKS that is exclusive to Black Africans?

Coily means tightly curled as in LOCKS

Kinky Frizzy wooly nappy springy bushy are all basically afro.....3a-4c"

 

 No hair that LOCKS does NOT coil. 

Yes, coily does mean curled and can be tightly coiled but that is completely different from hair that locks. 

All those terms you wrote, Kinky, frizzy, 'frizzly', wooly, nappy, bushy, and afro, and more terms too refer to hair that locks NOT curly though.

 

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:
On 8/11/2024 at 12:37 AM, Chevdove said:
This was my thesis in college. I studied different types of animal and human hair, etc.

Congratulations....I respect the accomplishment

 

Thank you much!

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:
On 8/11/2024 at 12:37 AM, Chevdove said:
It is the seal of the living God in the forehead [i.e. top of the head]. 

True...the Halo of Angels and the fully bloomed Crown Chakra

Is this seal of the Living God exclusive to Africans with Afro Hair?

 

Absolutely! I've seen depictions of angels painted with straight hair though, and they also have the halo painted around their heads.

So, this too would be truth, in that 'not all angels have Afros'! 

 

On 8/11/2024 at 1:07 PM, frankster said:
On 8/11/2024 at 12:37 AM, Chevdove said:
Under a microscope African hair looks extremely unique in how it LOCKS and has angles. It does not coil, it locks. 

 under a microscope....is that still phenotype?

African Hair runs the spectrum from straight to coily....As African hair is the  mother of all types of Human Hair.

 

idk. I guess it would depend. If your are looking at an amoeba or a one cell organism, that wouldn't be defined as a phenotype or genes.

Genes are located on chromosomes and there are several. Chromosomes are located within the nucleus, so a high powered microscope would be used...

I need to 'remember'! LOL, or go pick up my books and review!

 

Melanin 'cells', I think I am saying this correctly-- melanocytes are in skin cells and I had to take a course called 'Histology' to study different types of skin cells in humans and animals. 

 

I vaguely remember looking in microscopes and studying hair strands embedded in skin cells, at the root, or something like that. So, the color of hair, or phenotype, I don't remember.

 

But when I was trained as an environmental scientist, I had to study different types of human hair and asbestos fibers, and animal fur, etc. and so, I guess that could be defined as phenotype. idk. 

 

So then, yes, there is many types of human hair and African hair varies, but 'it's not actually the mother of all types of human hair, but the 'father' of all original MODERN HUMAN HAIR.'

 

The variation of hair type and hair color comes from females. 

Coily or curly hair stems from hybridization and the variation between straight hair and hair that locks would be wavy hair, curly hair [i.e. coily hair] and especially 

COMBINATION HAIR and this is due to polygenetics. 

Coily hair sort of looks like it wraps around or makes spirals, downward spirals, but hair that locks, looks so distinct under the microscope. 

It looks like it has 'angles' and it does not coil. It's jaggered and it's much thinner than straight or coily hair. 

AND it NAPS, meaning, it forms KNOTS. It does not tangle, but it knots up; it snatches up.

AND what is also EXCLUSIVE to nappy, wooly, hair that locks, is that it's difficult to free up individual hair strands without certain types of oil, and one especially that will free up nappy hair from LOCKING is LANOLIN, oil that comes directly from LAMBS and is why LAMBS have always been associated with

African people and the Biblical Hebrew Israelites. 

The ancient Cushites as well as all ancient Kemet are linked to the symbol of the Ram, or lamb for this reason--LAMB'S WOOL and 

LAMB OIL; lanolin-- because of that dominant African trait of having pre-dominantly woolly hair.

 

But as you said, African people have varied hair type, nappy hair is just a dominant trait that goes back to the Original humans. 

One of my sons, had nappy hair when he was young, later, he lost all of his naps!!!

I don't know what in the heck happened!

I used to cornrow his hair, so I know!

 

 

[Chevdove]

On 8/11/2024 at 2:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Excellent observation.
Which is why I posted the picture of the San people I posted above as opposed to the pictures that frankster posted.

My picture showed people with truly NAPPY hair.
Very tightly coiled.

Unlike the pictures he show of people with merely curly hair that can be found among Europeans as well as Africans.

 

Strangely enough, you don't find any type of kinky or curly hair among Native Americans or East Asians.

 

 

 

"Strangely enough, you don't find any type of kinky or curly hair among Native Americans or East Asians.

 

I can see the San people have nappy hair.

I don't know much about East Asians, but the museums here in America are suspect.

However, the few that I've been to, especially in Virginia show paintings and some show Natives with 'soft Afros' like my late father-in-law who was Native American. He had a soft Afro. And another tribe were depicted in some depictions that showed that some of them had, at the very least, combination hair type; the Mohawk of the Iroquois Confederation. 

And then my maternal ancestors, the Tuscarorans, were definitely 'watered down' but they were Negroes. America does not teach the truth, but they teach confusion.

 

The American Indians had a major problem with Colorism even long before the Europeans came over here and it was really bad. Even though it has not been taught well, however, it is in the books that before they decided to enslave the Africans, Many American Indians were enslaved. And as Black Americans today, we should be able to realize that the kind of Indians we see in films with the straight hair, were not common on the slave plantations. It was not until very late that in places like Louisiana, I guess, where some slaves were heavily inter-mixed with European ancestry. My Great grandmother probably did have straight hair though, --she kept it tied back in a bun. But here is one very famous depiction of Tuscarorans, although this painting has been copied several times. Nevertheless, it should become obvious that, for the most part, they did NOT have straight hair. 

 

 

 

The Tuscarora War was the result of decades of settler encroachment on Tuscarora land. Other Native groups reinforced colonial forces in the war and took Tuscarora slaves back to their homelands.

https://www.wunc.org/race-demographics/2019-10-08/unlearning-colonial-north-carolina