Races

[monoxide_child]

What is "tribalism" in your view Caladan, and why do you think it is a modern phenomenon?

yes i too would like the answer to this

 

[Caladan]

so basically what you're saying is that mullatto children shouldn't exist, which i agree with, not gonna say i really have a problem with black people, but these half-breed kids is something that wouldn't have happened without "society" and "civilization" telling us that we should be "tolerant" of "other races"
there was a racial study done on children that could crawl really well but could not yet walk, the kids were seperated from adults for a short moment, supervised with mirrored glass, and it was found that each kid ended up crawling pretty quickly towards the other kids of his own skin tone, the babies instictively seperating themselves into racial groups,
also up untill about 1700, there were lots of Europeans walking around that actually believed that black people were actually a whole different species than white people, it was this belief that led to the creation of the "elves" in fantasy fiction, the ones where they look like humans except in differences in skin tone/hair and eye color

Hahahaha. have you read the mythology on elves? It developed mainly in ireland. I'm not sure there was any mention about laws forbidding people from intermarrying with the elves however, despite the fact that they were considered a different race. Remember, the ancient native americans also thought the spaniards were a race of men with horse body parts (Satyrs?). Mullato is an offensive word. Mixed children have ALWAYS existed.
Regarding the behaviour of children, studies have also shown that if children are left on their own without adult supervision, they quickly descend into barbarism. According to your logic then, we should all abandon civilisation and return to survival of the fittest barbarism?

 

[Caladan]

in america you've got these extremely promiscuous people that don't have sex with their own race

you've got these black guys that call themselves "pimp" and brag about the huge number of women that they slept with last week, but with some of these black pimps, it's all white women

then you've got these blue-eyed-blonde girls that end up being really slutty, but they only fuck black guys

i can understand going the whole 9 yards and dating someone for several months, and that couple being a "bi-racial couple" according to you, this should happen all the time

but what i can't understand is the guys and girls that have a different sex partner every single night, but insistently refuse to sleep with their own race, this would not have happened if it hadn't been for the civil rights movement in the 60's, before that, a black person and a white person having sex with each other just wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have been acceptable, but now it's not only acceptable, it's the statis quo, even though it's not really natural, this is a clear example of "civilization" overpowering "mother nature"

Hang on a minute, let's analyse this logically. Let's start from the post slavery era. If there was no jim crow and the accompanying oppression and blatantly racist laws that followed, America would be a proper melting pot, not quite white, yet not black. As it is, what is referred to as white america is extremely unalike any european nation because of the amounts of mixing between white people of various different european nationalities that has happened.
Equating interracial relationships to "pimps" and blue-eyed blondes is a bit of an over-simplification don't you think? Not all black guys associate themselves with these pimps, and not all white women regard themselves as the blue-eyed-blondes you referred to.


The civil rights movements was not primarily about getting people to intermarry, that just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The civil rights was about equality for black people, and the cancellation of the (dis)advantages based on race. The reason why people didn't intermarry before the civil rights movements is because of the miscegenation laws that were passed by the blatantly racist governments of the day, and because of harassment by the KKK. NOT because people didn't want to.

That said - I don't beleive anyone should be pressured into an ioterracial relationship, neither do I beleive anyone should be pressured out of one. Everyone should be free to choose their parents regardless of racial background.

 

[Caladan]

what?
actually i would say that "civilization" is the product of "tribalism"
the "tribes" of white people created "civilization" only after seperating themselves from the "tribes" of black people

Get this right - White people did NOT create civilization. Every society in existence created some form of civilization and culture at some point. What currently counts as western civilization is NOT "white" civilization, but an adaptation (and possible improvement) of other civilisations that have existed previously.

 

[10293847]

Geography can create boundaries and so can lifestyle differences, religion, etc.

No, I don't agree. It's a perspective more than a boundary. When the European explorers looked past their shores into the seemingly endless sea, for example, they may have seen it as a boundary at first, but it wasn't something that they saw as an impossible task. They probably saw it more as an opportunity and something exciting and new to discover. It was this excitement that overtook their fears and allowed them to leave their shores. I mean discovery is inherent in man. It's the reason why the first humans left Africa and colonized every space of this planet.

Like I said, I'm not against someone who chooses to isolate themselves from others, I just think it's a pretty crappy existence.

I think the famous Norwegian ethnographer and adventurer Thor Heyerdahl explained it best:

"Boundaries?", he is quoted as asking, "I have never seen one but I hear that they exist in the minds of most people."

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because this thread is already 15 pages too long.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Richard Dawkins:

Our recent worldwide diaspora out of Africa has taken us to an extraordinarily wide variety of habitats, climates and ways of life. It is plausible that the different conditions have exerted strong selection pressures, particularly on externally visible parts, such as the skin, which bear the brunt of the sun and the cold. ....

In theory, that could be the full explanation for our superficial and visible variety, covering deep similarity. But it doesn't seem enough to me. ... I want to suggest that this heightened discriminability has evolved by sexual selection, [and that] our cultures, and sometimes our religions, encourage us to discriminate against outsiders, especially in choosing mates, those superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us.
... people tend to mate with others speaking the same language and praying to the same gods. So different languages and religions can play the role of food plants, or of mountain ranges in traditional geographical speciation. Different languages, religions and social customs can serve as barriers to gene flow.

There is controversy here. Some people think the initial separation has to be geographical, while others, especially entomologists, emphasise so-called sympatric speciation, meaning that the initial separation, whatever it is, is not geographical. Many herbivorous insects eat only one species of plant. They meet their mates and lay their eggs on the preferred plants. Their larvae then apparently “imprint” on the plant that they grow up eating, and they choose, when adult, the same species of plant to lay their own eggs. So if an adult female made a mistake and laid her eggs on the wrong plant, her daughter would imprint on that wrong plant and would, when the time came, lay her eggs on plants of the same wrong species. Her larvae then would imprint on the same wrong plant, hang around the wrong plant when adult, mate with others hanging around the wrong plant and eventually lay their eggs on the wrong plant.

In the case of these insects, you can see that, in a single generation, gene flow with the parental type could be abruptly cut off. A new species is theoretically free to come into being without the need for geographical isolation. Or, another way of putting it, the difference between two kinds of food plant is, for these insects, equivalent to a mountain range or a river for other animals. I am suggesting that human culture—with its tendency to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups—also provides a special way in which gene flow can find itself blocked, which is somewhat analogous to the insect scenario I have just outlined above.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12850

 

[Caladan]

Richard Dawkins:







http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12850

Not sure what that's supposed to answer, but those are just theories. Nothing proven. It in no way supports your beleifs that interracial mixing is bad.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Not sure what that's supposed to answer, but those are just theories. Nothing proven. It in no way supports your beleifs that interracial mixing is bad.

It mentions the long established fact that speciation occurs through physical separation which can occur through geographic isolation or through a change of lifestyle that leads some within the species to mate amongst their newly divergent group and not with others. Over thousands of years or longer this results in a new species.

 

[Caladan]

It mentions the long established fact that speciation occurs through physical separation which can occur through geographic isolation or through a change of lifestyle that leads some within the species to mate amongst their newly divergent group and not with others. Over thousands of years or longer this results in a new species.

Fact?? Since when does the phrase "I am suggesting" signify fact? Perhaps you misquoted what you posted, because that is in no way fact, it has absolutely no scientific backing.

Besides, Richard Dawkins is not exactly known for being an absolute in his field. There is a fair bit of speculation, and contrary arguments to his theories.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Fact?? Since when does the phrase "I am suggesting" signify fact? Perhaps you misquoted what you posted, because that is in no way fact, it has absolutely no scientific backing.

Besides, Richard Dawkins is not exactly known for being an absolute in his field. There is a fair bit of speculation, and contrary arguments to his theories.

It's a fact that speciation occurs through separation. That was not what Dawkins was "suggesting" as it is as well established as any scientific fact. He was "suggesting" that humans could have separated into different races in more ways than merely geographic isolation - ie that we also have the possibility of isolation due to lifestyle divergence which could have the same effect as the standard geographic isolation.

It's like if I said I "suggest" that people can get sick by thinking negative thoughts - while I also accept that they get sick through disease. It wouldn't mean that the idea of people getting sick through disease was not established as a fact, nor would it mean that there is only one way to get sick.

Basically: speciation happens. You agree that is a fact don't you? The problem seems to be that you want to believe speciation is entirely or mostly caused by mixing of different strains.

This begs the question: (apart from did you make that up in your own head) where did the different strains come from - how did they become different?

This mixing idea would mean that the evolutionary tree would not be branching ever outwards but instead be a case of a whole lot of branches (which came from nowhere) mingling and becoming ever fewer. It makes no logical sense. Which isn't to say that hybridization doesn't ever occur in nature, but only that in the rare situation where a little hybridisation occurs on the periphery of a species this galvanises further divisions like a catalyst, and any resultant odd genes that give a survival advantage or are neutral but dominant can go on to spread amongst the population.

As an example, our ancestors in Europe may have interbred in a very limited way with Neanderthals, and certain genes may have been picked up and found their way into the rest of the population. (Neanderthals only evolved to be human in Europe). After that it was separation and kladogenesis as usual. In fact it never would have stopped.

 

[Caladan]

It's a fact that speciation occurs through separation. That was not what Dawkins was "suggesting" as it is as well established as any scientific fact. He was "suggesting" that humans could have separated into different races in more ways than merely geographic isolation - ie that we also have the possibility of isolation due to lifestyle divergence which could have the same effect as the standard geographic isolation.

It's like if I said I "suggest" that people can get sick by thinking negative thoughts - while I also accept that they get sick through disease. It wouldn't mean that the idea of people getting sick through disease was not established as a fact, nor would it mean that there is only one way to get sick.

Basically: speciation happens. You agree that is a fact don't you? The problem seems to be that you want to believe speciation is entirely or mostly caused by mixing of different strains.

This begs the question: (apart from did you make that up in your own head) where did the different strains come from - how did they become different?

This mixing idea would mean that the evolutionary tree would not be branching ever outwards but instead be a case of a whole lot of branches (which came from nowhere) mingling and becoming ever fewer. It makes no logical sense. Which isn't to say that hybridization doesn't ever occur in nature, but only that in the rare situation where a little hybridisation occurs on the periphery of a species this galvanises further divisions like a catalyst, and any resultant odd genes that give a survival advantage or are neutral but dominant can go on to spread amongst the population.

As an example, our ancestors in Europe may have interbred in a very limited way with Neanderthals, and certain genes may have been picked up and found their way into the rest of the population. (Neanderthals only evolved to be human in Europe). After that it was separation and kladogenesis as usual. In fact it never would have stopped.

Right. I agree that speciation occurs, whether due to geography, or due to lifestyle/preferences. See, I'm not debating the cause of racial differences. My argument with you is the fact that you feel that such differences that have arisen MUST be maintained. In other words, you beleive that races should be kept the way they are, which is totally against nature, and against man's ability to choose. From your theory, certain traits may have been considered attractive or preferrable at some point in history due to certain socio-economical influences. If these influences then change, why ever should these features still be considered attractive? Racial mixing is a fact of life and a force of nature. New racial influences come into play, and new strains enter into the gene pool.

You speak about a whole lot of branches mixing and becoming fewer. Why does this make no logical sense? Look at the eurasian continent (particularly europe and arabia), the landmass that has experienced the highest amount of human interaction over the years, are the inhabitants not obviously far more alike than others? Yes you claim it's the same race. I argue that europe has had migrations of several structural and racially different tribes over the course of history. But wars, trade, and other forms of socialization has led to a massive reduction in cultural and racial differences. This hasn't happened as much in much of africa (Apart from maybe south africa where Shaka Zulu did his magic. South africa currently has one of the lower tribal differences in any significant area in africa due the Zulu empire)

Your statement "Neanderthals only evolved to be human in Europe". This is not fact. You need to rephrase it such - Neanderthals only been discovered/proven to evolve to be human in Europe.

See here - I am not denying cladogenesis. That definitely occurred. I am however insisting cladogenesis, and the results thereof are not a total situation. The Ashanti in west africa are quite distinct facially, and structurally from the Touareg in Mali or the Somali on the horn. They are so different that they can be called a different race. The only similarity between them is that they are considered to be black. Does your "protectionist" perceptions extend to them as well? How about between Gaul and Celt? Between Slav and Viking?? Or did these different tribes all split from the same single initial caucasian couple?

 

[razoredge]

all cultures, ethnics and races have always opposed cross breeding, its natural, get over it.

the desire for a eurphoric planet of entirely inter mixed humans for the sake of loosing this simple opposition is obsurd and makes me think of the movie Pleasentville where everyones behiavior is identical and pathetically plastic.

 

[Caladan]

all cultures, ethnics and races have always opposed cross breeding, its natural, get over it.

the desire for a eurphoric planet of entirely inter mixed humans for the sake of loosing this simple opposition is obsurd and makes me think of the movie Pleasentville where everyones behiavior is identical and pathetically plastic.

Oh please, stop speaking in extremes. That will never happen, there will always be differences. What is unnatural is trying to stop them.

I say: Do not encourage them, but do not stop them. And don't say "all cultures", how many cultures do you know anyway?

My issue with all of you clamouring for a halt to racial mixing is that your reasons, ALL OF THEM, are based on a false sense of superiority, a racist ideology from the jim crow era. If racial mixing is wrong, then let's stop it in all it's forms - any kind of tribal mix should be banned. No french-german unions, no Anglo-irish unions, no scotti-welsh unions. Let everything come under the microscope. Let's preserve ALL racial identity such as there is.

 

[razoredge]

As we know, babies are born under various circumstances and it seems the percentage born to truely "in love" parents is sadly lower than it should be. I cant condemn anyone for what is truely in their hearts, but I do question why some reach out to another race. Barrack was mentioned, how did his parents fare ? Sure one could say "well it didnt hurt him any... look at him today". Still apparently not a conception of love, so regardless of race if looking from the eyes of parents its natural to want your children to have true love or devotion before commiting to a birth. So if there is doubt parents/family and friends may very well "oppose" such a relationship... regardless of race... which is going to be another hurtle for a pair to overcome when the going gets tuff.

Being in the US I feel I know many US versions of many cultures. The Italians always want their children to marry Italian and its very common to go that way too. Hispanic are no different. The Chinese and Japanese have no problem identifying the difference between them and remain mostly self segregated. Arabic, forget about it, they seem to be the most into their self isolation, appear to hate everything about this country they moved to and its people, and are clearly here for their own interests as a people/culture and want to talk about religious commitment... the "Christians" have nothing on them. Irish/English/Scots/Welch is all the same breed not surprising that this has occured to the extent it has.

My point is I see no reason to expect people to stop opposing it. There certainly is not a reason to make people stop opposing it. Same as there is no valid reason to stop parents from disciplining their children, yet we are forced to let them run wild and unruley or pay with our future as worthy human beings. Its the stuff crammed down our throats that we "opposers" are pissed off about.

I have no false sense of superiority, its more than clearly evident to the open eye various characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the various "breeds"... as well as seeing nothing is always carved in stone.

I dont recall any time in history that Africa, South America or Asia met a influx of massive amounts of white people with open arms. Some of us live in countries where the exact opposite is forced upon us and we really dont understand why. So clamour we will. I could just imagine the clamouring in these other countries if millions of whites showed up and set up "camp". We have no reason to... why ? because we... at one time... made our places of residence/countries the best they could possible be for our people.

All that said, I have a cousin, a fair skinned redhead that married a girl from the Phillipeans he met in Guam through the military. They had two sons, now out of school who have done well for themselves and they are a very happy family. But his parents were abit flipped out at the time, I was not, I trusted his judgement and it all didnt take place in a short period of time. There was no Woops there, they were dating a few years before coming here to marry and have a family.

Good and bad examples can always be found in anything, its the forced stuff that has become unbearable. The movies, TV shows and commercials with casts of intentionally... perfectly mixed ratios, so obviously used as a way to desensitize people, as if this is how our entire country is, but it isnt that way. Its the Californaication of America stuffed down our throats. Any species communes with the likes of its own kind and this is how the overall country really is. Its the federal college grants for foreigners when we struggle to get grants for our own children. Its the hireing of foreigners for the politically correct purpose of simply hiring them as opposed to our own. Sometimes making special jobs just for them. Its also the hiring of "minority" races over better qualified and/or harder working white people... because its LAW that an employer do so.

So yeah, there is lots of clamouring that reaches into every facet of the race issue and its not just by whites, but we are the only ones expected to "accept".

 

[Norsemaiden]

Oh please, stop speaking in extremes. That will never happen, there will always be differences. What is unnatural is trying to stop them.

I say: Do not encourage them, but do not stop them. And don't say "all cultures", how many cultures do you know anyway?

My issue with all of you clamouring for a halt to racial mixing is that your reasons, ALL OF THEM, are based on a false sense of superiority, a racist ideology from the jim crow era. If racial mixing is wrong, then let's stop it in all it's forms - any kind of tribal mix should be banned. No french-german unions, no Anglo-irish unions, no scotti-welsh unions. Let everything come under the microscope. Let's preserve ALL racial identity such as there is.

I would like to make clear that I don't make any racial comparisons in the sense of race A being "superior" to race B. Non whites seem to have an inferiority complex however and appear to want to copy whites in various ways and be admired by us, while of course many whites like to look and behave like non-whites for equally insane reasons.

I know that whatever race I would be, I would be content to be of that race and would wish to promote my kind. I fully respect anyone of any race who feels that way, because that is how Nature made us. If there was some genuine "master race" that really deserved to be regarded with awe and who really had many admirable qualities (apart from the fact that wanting to be "master" over your inferiors is a massive flaw and never a good thing) - say a race of strong intelligent creative aliens with green skin and blue hair, who we could interbreed with - then I would NOT want my ethnicity to mix with them or live amongst them or sacrifice our own existence for their sake.

"Superiority" is only any use as a concept to make us feel special, in which case every ethnicity should (and does) feel superior to every other. Self esteem is necessary to fuel the will to live.

Caladan, I agree with you that we shouldn't call a halt to evolution - ie force all people to stay just as they are today. Evolution cannot be stopped. It is beyond humans to stop it, we can slow it by thwarting natural selection, but even this is like building a dam which will one day burst with devastating results unless we use humane means to figure out who Nature would not allow to live. Evolution would continue to make each ethnicity branch into further groups, and eventually further races (the unsuccessful going extinct as did our more apelike ancestors).

There are various theories on how humans would evolve based on our artificial lifestyles and the characteristics that are likely to proliferate.

 

[monoxide_child]

Hahahaha. have you read the mythology on elves? It developed mainly in ireland. I'm not sure there was any mention about laws forbidding people from intermarrying with the elves however, despite the fact that they were considered a different race. Remember, the ancient native americans also thought the spaniards were a race of men with horse body parts (Satyrs?). Mullato is an offensive word. Mixed children have ALWAYS existed.
Regarding the behaviour of children, studies have also shown that if children are left on their own without adult supervision, they quickly descend into barbarism. According to your logic then, we should all abandon civilisation and return to survival of the fittest barbarism?

when the vikings sailed south to the equator, the peoples on the beach of africa, thought that their blue-eyes and blonde hair and pale skin were the result of "evil-ness" making them different colors than "good" people, the phrase "blue eyed people are evil" actually appears in a text that was published in the same year that adolph hitler was born, in africa to this very day there are people that teach their children that blue-eyed people are evil. the myths of the elves came from areas where all the people had the same hair/eye color/skin tone, imagine having brown eyes with no telivision or internet, and seeing someone with blue-eyes for the first time in your life when you're 30, that's how the myths about "elves" got started

what is the politically correct word for "mullatto"? at the time i made that post, i thought "mullatto" WAS the politically correct word, i didn't want to call them "half-breeds" "zebras" oreos" cuz those terms would have been way more offensive than "mullatto"

no, my logic is to start having "plato's republic" (maybe something else similar) come into existence where everyone wishing to raise children must go through "parenting classes" before being given custody of a child

 

[monoxide_child]

I would like to make clear that I don't make any racial comparisons in the sense of race A being "superior" to race B. Non whites seem to have an inferiority complex however and appear to want to copy whites in various ways and be admired by us, while of course many whites like to look and behave like non-whites for equally insane reasons.

I know that whatever race I would be, I would be content to be of that race and would wish to promote my kind. I fully respect anyone of any race who feels that way, because that is how Nature made us. If there was some genuine "master race" that really deserved to be regarded with awe and who really had many admirable qualities (apart from the fact that wanting to be "master" over your inferiors is a massive flaw and never a good thing) - say a race of strong intelligent creative aliens with green skin and blue hair, who we could interbreed with - then I would NOT want my ethnicity to mix with them or live amongst them or sacrifice our own existence for their sake.

"Superiority" is only any use as a concept to make us feel special, in which case every ethnicity should (and does) feel superior to every other. Self esteem is necessary to fuel the will to live.

Caladan, I agree with you that we shouldn't call a halt to evolution - ie force all people to stay just as they are today. Evolution cannot be stopped. It is beyond humans to stop it, we can slow it by thwarting natural selection, but even this is like building a dam which will one day burst with devastating results unless we use humane means to figure out who Nature would not allow to live. Evolution would continue to make each ethnicity branch into further groups, and eventually further races (the unsuccessful going extinct as did our more apelike ancestors).

There are various theories on how humans would evolve based on our artificial lifestyles and the characteristics that are likely to proliferate.

i agree with this
don't have time to elaborate right now
got to go off line right now

 

[razoredge]

no, my logic is to start having "plato's republic" (maybe something else similar) come into existence where everyone wishing to raise children must go through "parenting classes" before being given custody of a child

I have to tell you this is a bag of worms that is already partially opened and needs to be closed. As a father of a daughter, whom became a teenager on a mission to save her disfunctional mentally ill boyfriend and no longer be under "dads rule" at the age of 15, regardless the cost. I was put through total hell by the likes of "child protection" people. I had my family and my dignity completely destroyed and I was a reputable "great Dad". I just believed in discipline the reasonable old school way. We were put through this bullshit by the biggest bunch of dysfunctional loosers I have ever come across in my life. Woman that never had children, lesbians, drunks, men and woman that never even found a mate for their life, theropists/consolers that clearly had dysfunctional problems of their own... all looking down their noses at me. There are no books for raising children, I dont care if some smuck, self appointed to tell people how to "raise children" has claimed to write one, they still dont exist, any that do are fictional rubish.

A good parent bonds with their child on birth and it is a sacred bond that need not be put to the test by a bunch of self appointed super heroes for a day. Everyone wants to be superman and save the world, difference is some of us know its fantacy and others want to live it.

 

[monoxide_child]

According to your logic then, we should all abandon civilisation and return to survival of the fittest barbarism?

not at all
my actual point was that mullatto babies should be raised as white people instead of being raised as black people

 

[monoxide_child]

Hang on a minute, let's analyse this logically. Let's start from the post slavery era. If there was no jim crow and the accompanying oppression and blatantly racist laws that followed, America would be a proper melting pot, not quite white, yet not black. As it is, what is referred to as white america is extremely unalike any european nation because of the amounts of mixing between white people of various different european nationalities that has happened.
Equating interracial relationships to "pimps" and blue-eyed blondes is a bit of an over-simplification don't you think? Not all black guys associate themselves with these pimps, and not all white women regard themselves as the blue-eyed-blondes you referred to.


The civil rights movements was not primarily about getting people to intermarry, that just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The civil rights was about equality for black people, and the cancellation of the (dis)advantages based on race. The reason why people didn't intermarry before the civil rights movements is because of the miscegenation laws that were passed by the blatantly racist governments of the day, and because of harassment by the KKK. NOT because people didn't want to.

That said - I don't beleive anyone should be pressured into an ioterracial relationship, neither do I beleive anyone should be pressured out of one. Everyone should be free to choose their parents regardless of racial background.

like i said earlier, abe lincoln didn't free the slaves, martin luther king did
okay, so maybe my description of the pimps and blue-eyed-blondes didn't describe EVERY black-white relationship, but there is a culture difference
if you find a guy with the difinitive negroid nose, and skin as dark as chocolate, and if this guy has asperger's syndrome, and if you put this guy in an area where there's no white people, he'll accidently piss off somebody and get his ass killed in about 2 seconds, the black culture just wouldn't tolerate somebody with asperger's, and i willing to gaurantee that if you find a black guy with asperger's, that all his freinds are white people
my point is that the black culture is less civilized than the white culture
yes interacial marriage was illegal before the civil rights movement, if interacial marriage became popular imedietely following the "end" of slavery, the "black culture" as we know it today would never have developed
there is right now a semi-large city on the East Coast where the entire city council are Klan members
despite us now having a "black" president, the american government will continue to be racist up untill the number of black politicians out numbers the number of white ones, and i don't see that happening in my lifetime
i think that black people are gonna be getting the short end of the stick pretty much forever
i don't have a problem with the whites dating blacks, i just have a problem with the whites breeding with the blacks
it causes all the psychological problems that are described in Barack Obama's auto biography, he was raised with his white mother, if he'd been "white enough to pass" and if he hadn't known about being half-black, he would never have gone to law school, never become a senator, if Barack Obama had been a little paler and believed he was totally white, (or if he'd lived with black relatives, and thought he was a "high yellow" and never knew he was half white) he would never have become president, he would just be a random guy on the street, because he wouldn't have gone through the psycological trauma of society rejecting half-breeds, and if he'd believed he was totally black, he would never have felt the need to be america's first black president