America: the Melting Pot

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Fraggle Rocker, Jun 10, 2007.

  1. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I was taught blue eyes and blonde hair(skin tone, melanin is different) were recessive traits when I was 14, nearly 20 years ago.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, if "white" genes are recessive, then how do y'all explain that kids born of black and white mix are lighter skin toned than the black father?

    And if "white" genes are recessive, then why are mixed kids usually, almost always, lacking in the heavy features of the "true" blacks? ..the heavy brow, thick lips, flat, flared nostrils, etc?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I said only blue eyes and blonde hair were recessive. These are "white"(I northern European) traits.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Wow. I'm surprised there are that many there. Is any South American country in danger of becoming Japanese though?
     
  8. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    I'm legally equal. It doesn't mean I want to share a country where they are the majority.

    Most land has been "stolen" from someone at some point in time. Apparently it is only a problem when whitey did the stealing.

    Unfortunately it is disappearing and being replaced with a Third World dump.
     
  9. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    You make a good point. However lets just say most people like Obama, Halle Berry and Prince pass themselves, identify themselves and are recognized as black, not white. The product of black/white is not white, it is usually black. And most blacks in America are partially white to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2007
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Most mixed race kids, however, were raised with a black in the family AND it was usually, though not always, the black mother ....and no white father! Thus, the culture was black in the home. If Halle Berry had been raised by a white family, she'd still be beautiful, but would identify with whites much more than with blacks. Culture is a powerful tool/weapon ...used on little kids! They don't stand a chance.

    Baron Max
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    That's not true. The stats were in the Washington Post last week. The intermarriage rate among white Americans is so high that 25% of Latinos and 25% of Asian-Americans are married to white people. Their communities assimilate as fast as they can replenish them. It's lower for blacks, but I've offered my explanation for the difficulty we're having in healing race relations between whites and blacks. I think we'll see that change now that black Africans are coming, who don't have the spectre of the American Civil War over their heads.
    Oh yeah, I can hardly wait to find out what it's in, since you didn't proudly announce it. What is it, an MBA: "Mindless Bullshit Artist"? Some worse-than-useless value-subtracting bureaucracy like "educational administration"? (I'm not making that up, they really give master's degrees in that.)
    All you have to do is read the newspaper. The Japanese community in Peru got a lot of press when Fujimori was elected president. You do know about that, don't you? You didn't miss one of the biggest stories of the 1990s because you were playing videogames? He was found guilty of corruption. Fortunately for him the Japanese consider you a citizen if you're full-blooded, no matter where you were born or how many generations back, so they took him "back" and he got away.
    Good goddess, do you read at all? It's been a serious problem and it's been in the news many times over the past twenty years. I'm not talking about Tahiti, but major countries like Indonesia. You do know who the Malayo-Polynesian peoples are, right? The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, well over half a billion people.
    You're still confusing two species with two populations of the same species. When two populations of the same species meet they assimilate. If they're solitary predators like mountain lions they'll stake out their own territory. If they're pack-social like gorillas their young will go off and form new packs with the young of the outsiders. If they're flock-social like macaws they'll just welcome the newcomers. Obviously your alleged "graduate degree" is not in biology, and most likely not in science at all. Maybe "sociology"? You got to take all the easy psych classes and all the easy anthro classes? Oh I know I know, it's "Polly Sigh".
     
  12. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Is this a joke? It's usually a white mother abandoned by a black father (usually after some serious beatings) like Obama, Prince and Halle Berry.
     
  13. Count Sudoku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,229
    Yep, not much difference between completing graduate school and being a high school dropout

    Jesus Christ pal, I read plenty but not about some corrupt Jap pol in Peru. Seriously, who gives a fuck?

    Half a billion people who have accomplished dick. Who cares?

    Right.

    What is your degree in? Anyway, lets talk about American squirrels brought to England. The American squirrels are wiping out the British ones. That's what I'm talking about.

    There use to be a white German colony in Jamaica. They stuck to themselves and lasted a little while. Then gradually they disappeared through intermarriage. Now there are some black Jamaicans with German surnames with pictures of their white grandparents.

    Lastly, you got some fucking nerve questioning my intelligence punk. Christ, how the fuck did white people get on top of the World when there are so many complete fucking retards among us?
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Mod note

    Lets try to debate this like adults.. hmmmm?

    Thank you.
     
  15. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I do not think Brazil is likely to "become" Japanese, as a majority of the population, but as noted Peru has had Japanese leadership chosen from its native Japanese population.
     
  16. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Here we go again. For the millionth time, Asians are white, except for the East Indians. Black people and white people already have 99% identical genes, so the genes between a Japanese man and an Irish man will be somewhere like 99.999% identical. Therefore Japanese are white people, scientifically speaking. There is a difference between ethnicity and race. Its like an East Indian black man claiming he is not black but East Indian, that would also be ridiculus. There are only two races on Earth, Black and white, and which is only because there are genetically distinct enough. I've had this argument several times, but I understand why people with no science background usually continue with their rant. Anyway, its hard for me to believe that 1 in 4 latinos is married to a black or a white person, its also contrary to the stats I have read. Nice post though.
     
  17. peta9 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    Asians are not caucasians and japanese are not caucasians. They are mongoloids. Not only are they a different race but their nature, culture and attitudes are different as well. And actually surprisingly negroids and caucasoids share a closer genetic kinship and it's also confirmed by migration pattern.

    Chimps and humans share 98% of genetic material but I don't know one yet that can understand quantum physics or speak to me. Your logic is too simple and faulty.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  18. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Different culture doesn't mean a thing, that is society's totem for integration or disintegration. I am refering to genetics. From my knowledge of Asians, many of them are from the Java man, who look alot like the same primitive man found in Early Europe, and both looked a lot different from the man in Africa. Nobody is really sure where the Java man came from, some say Africa, some say Asia, some say Europe. The reason early European man and early Asian man are more identical lies in the geo-climatic factors that caused their mutation. Of cause there is the number one identical factor-menalin. Both men are hairier than the black man, and both men have identical bone structures. Nobody really knows why the Chinese don't have red or blond hair but many European countries like Greece have very little to no red or blone hair either. The difference in culture is irrelevant, afterall the Greeks have a different culture from the Spanish, and they both have a different culture from the Irish. The bottom line is that Asians and caucasians share far more identical genes than with black people, which results in their physical traits. This is why Asians are white people. In Africa, East Africans have a distinct apperance from mnay black people, they are usually taller and darker than most other people on Earth, but they are still black because their genes are more symetrical to the average black man. Scientifically, West Indians are probably both black and white since they share a lot of traits from both, but with West indians, some are usually more black or more white. You see, its not about what you see, but its about the genes that make them up, and what led to the mutation, what you see can be decieving. Any respectable scientist will tell you anyway that all human beings are the same since they have 99% identical genes. With this margin of error, race is in fact all about benefit of doubt.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Thanks your opinion is important. As far as i can say, chimps will never be able to speak to us. genetic kinship? things look to be as close as we are capable of understanding, as far as chimps and humans go. So what looks close may in fact be much further away. Wha tdo you think?
     
  20. peta9 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,326
    What you said above is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. Human beings are not the same, they can be quite different from eachother. These percentages mean very little in the context you are using them. The differences are there. A lion is not a hyena or a cheeta and vice versa. The same species will share much genetic material but that doesn't negate the existence of subspecies. What you don't understand is that culture is a product of the nature of a species from the subtle to the obvious.

    "In the course of the experiment, Kagan noticed something unanticipated. The Chinese children, little more than babies, whether attending day-care or raised at home, were consistently more fearful and inhibited than the Caucasians. The differences were obvious. The Chinese children stayed close to their mothers and were quiet and generally apprehensive, while the Caucasians were talkative, active, and "prone to laughter". These characteristics were confirmed by the mothers as typical of their children's behavior at home as well. In addition, the researchers discovered that the Chinese tots had less variable heart rates than the Caucasians. Kagan could not avoid the clear evidence of an innate difference between the two groups of infants. It is ironic that this scientist's conversion to a biological-genetic view came along the lines of racial differences. Kagan was a political liberal who only three years earlier had been one of the most vociferous critics of Arthur Jensen's theories on the heritability of IQ, theories that he and most everyone else denounced as racist. Now he was publishing his observation of fundamental personality differences between racial groups. When we conversed in Harvard office many years later, I asked Kagan if there had been an uproar similar to the one Jensen provoked."

    Also you have the common misconception that asians fall into the middle of the genetic variable between negroid and caucasoid when in fact it is more accurate that caucasians fall into the middle between negroid and mongoloid. That is perhaps one of the reasons for their tendency to be or go between everything and everyone.
     
  21. Renrue Someone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Why does it have to be black and white? Why not black and East Asian? I mean, East Asians do top Europeans in the IQ market. I believe that gives reason for everyone to be Asian. Maybe next time when you guys do better in the IQ tests, we can call it white.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (sarcasm)

    This debate is just absolutely ridiculous.


    [Renrue]
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I honestly dont see why a big deal is even made of differences:shrug: .

    IQ test are...well what real purpose do they serve, just another test and hopes of positive reinforcement. Like getting an apple, or a pat on the head.

    I am sure there are Asians who do poorly on them too.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    So what exactly are the Malayo-Polynesian peoples of the East Indies? Sure, by now all but the most remote have intermarried with Chinese and Indians. And since New Guinea was connected to Australia during the ice age its people are related to the Native Australians. But what are you calling the aboriginal ancestors of the Malaysians, Indonesians, Samoans, Maori, etc, if they're not "white" in your binary paradigm? Everything I've read says that the first settlers came down from east Asia when the land masses were larger and the seas were smaller.
    It can be argued that there are only two major populations of Homo sapiens: African and other. Since all of the "other" are descended from that group of Africans who finally made a successful migration into Asia Minor ca. 70,000BCE. However, what I've read says that one genetically distinguishable subgroup broke off and continued migrating into east Asia about ten thousand years later. So we're told that "caucasoids" and "mongoloids" differ but have more in common with each other than with "negroids." Is this not true?
    My original post that started this thread cites the date of the article in the Post that reported these statistics. One in four Latinos is not married to "a black or white person." One in four Latinos (and Asian-Americans) is married to a white person. The report did not even bother mentioning interracial marriages in which one partner was not white. This certainly jives with my personal observations in the Southwest. Even fifty years ago when I was in high school, Anglos and Latinos dated freely and I had a number of friends who were already of mixed ethnicity. Americans of non-British stock tended to regard other immigrants as equals long before the real "Anglos" did. E.g., Linda Ronstadt's German grandfather and Mexican grandmother. (No, unfortunately I didn't know her, she went to the Catholic high school, but my daddy knew hers.)
    I think you should ask a deaf person.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Chimps and gorillas are learning ASL.
    I wouldn't go that far. At least college graduates can read at what my generation called the fifth-grade level.
    You've been given an infraction for using a racial slur. We can discuss the origin of that epithet dispassionatley, over in the Linguistics subforum if you like, but you can't use it to insult people.
    Civilization only arose at six places on the globe and spread from there. Those events were accidents of geography and climate and had nothing to do with whether the Sumerians, Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Aztecs and Incas were in any way genetically "superior" to everyone else. It spread out slowly and arrived rather late in Oceania, literally only a few hundred years ago in the far reaches. You can forgive them for not having six or eight thousand years to develop what we consider "modern culture" -- or you can just keep tossing around insults and identify yourself as the "dick." Sub-Saharan Africa has been used as a source of slaves, resources and trinkets all the way back to the Egyptians and has been actively discouraged from developing its own indigenous civilization to this very day.
    Accounting. At least it's something useful and taught me to think analytically and question my sources. How about yours?
    You're still not "talking about squirrels" in any scientifically meanigful way. Are these two different species of squirrels, or just different colors of the same species, like the black Canadian squirrels who are becoming more prevalent in the eastern USA because they're easier to see on the road? There are lots of species of squirrels. As I keep pointing out, you doggedly refuse to speak in scientific language so the value of your posts is limited to your entertaining racist diatribes.
    What the hell is so important about the color of people's skins? Why is it any more important than the color of their eyes or their hair? Everyone in the former slaveholding countries except the USA and Haiti has diverse ancestry. I've met Brazilians whose skin is as black as P. Diddy, who talk matter-of-factly about their European families. Equally dark Cubans who know their lineage in Spain and still make paella.

    Has any of you ever discussed racism with a blind person? Do they think people like Sudoku are are silly as the puzzle he's named after?
    I'm questioning your education, or total lack of it from what you've said so far. My IQ is 140. I won't slap another infraction on you for the personal insult, but since I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather I'll let the audience decide which of us is the "punk." Don't do it again.
     

Share This Page