---

and racism itself isn't wrong, everyone is racist when you think about it.

---

For the love of God would you please refrain from saying dumb shit.

-------
I'm jazzy jeff.

Post edited at 1:54 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 by whoareyou

-------
Lord knows I'm a voodoo child.

---

But you are a racist, you don't need to say nigger to be one, you're avoiding people because of the colour of their skin. That's racism.

---

---

I have never called anyone a "N", Nor will I Ever I find it wrong and hurtful...

---

---

it's very possible for a white couple to have a black child

---

---

Quote: from marshmellowman at 4:41 am on Aug. 29, 2008

---

But you are a racist, you don't need to say nigger to be one, you're avoiding people because of the colour of their skin. That's racism.

---

No it's not.

 

---

I have never called anyone a "N", Nor will I Ever I find it wrong and hurtful...

---

Saying nigger doesn't make you racist.

 

---

it's very possible for a white couple to have a black child

---

Oh, really? So their kid has 200,000 years worth of genetic mutations right before birth?

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist. You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist. The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

That AUTOMATICALLY means that you see them as inferior or that you hate them? No, it doesn't.

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

Yes, but the 1st sentence isn't ALWAYS linked to the other.

 

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Seeing as recent would have to make them about 1/4 negro, they would still be 'black' by the one-drop rule.

Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

---

One drop rule, just the labels black & white, is just a social construct. Black people genes don't just get in the stream and take over 100%. Most "black" people walking in the West (islands included) are mixes already.

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 9:43 pm on Aug. 29, 2008

---

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

That AUTOMATICALLY means that you see them as inferior or that you hate them? No, it doesn't.  

 

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

Yes, but the 1st sentence isn't ALWAYS linked to the other.  

 
 

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Seeing as recent would have to make them about 1/4 negro, they would still be 'black' by the one-drop rule.  

 Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

---

One drop rule, just the labels black & white, is just a social construct. Black people genes don't just get in the stream and take over 100%. Most "black" people walking in the West (islands included) are mixes already.

---

---

Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 9:46 pm on Aug. 29, 2008

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 9:43 pm on Aug. 29, 2008

---

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

That AUTOMATICALLY means that you see them as inferior or that you hate them? No, it doesn't.

 

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

Yes, but the 1st sentence isn't ALWAYS linked to the other.

   
 

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Seeing as recent would have to make them about 1/4 negro, they would still be 'black' by the one-drop rule.

  Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

---

 

 One drop rule, just the labels black & white, is just a social construct. Black people genes don't just get in the stream and take over 100%. Most "black" people walking in the West (islands included) are mixes already.

---

Yes, but if a white had ANY Negro genes, they'd be considered Negroes by the one-drop rule. If they were Negroes, they would not be included in the 'two whites make a negro baby' claim, would they?

---

I don't think any few dormant strands of DNA from colonial times can really qualify any body as a negro, just as I don't consider myself a Scott.

---

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

That AUTOMATICALLY means that you see them as inferior or that you hate them? No, it doesn't.  

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

Yes, but the 1st sentence isn't ALWAYS linked to the other.  

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Seeing as recent would have to make them about 1/4 negro, they would still be 'black' by the one-drop rule.  

Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

---

You don't have to hate them to be racist. You just have to show disdain in a manner that befits inequality. Hate is hard to accurately gauge and not many will admit to hating someone unless a positive can be gleaned from saying so.

Avoiding someone on the street because of their background is RACIST. Asking to your McDonald's order to be taken by another simply because of their background is RACIST. Throwing rocks at people because they are of a different background is racist. These beliefs befit racial hate and/or inequality. It is OK to not like someone because of the content of w
ho they are, but not liking them for who they are as a person is racist if it involves racially motivated intentions.

Yet, any of these actions can be done without actively saying you believe one is inferior or admitting to hating said person based on background. Actions speak louder than tight-lipped words.

Quote: from kidd rune at 9:43 pm on Aug. 29, 2008

---

---

Actually, avoiding someone because of disdain towards their racial background is racist.

---

That AUTOMATICALLY means that you see them as inferior or that you hate them? No, it doesn't.  

---

You don't like that person because of his race. Thats racist.

---

Yes, but the 1st sentence isn't ALWAYS linked to the other.  

---

The genetic mutation conjecture crap isn't true and it is possible for a otherwise white couple to have a black child as long as both such people have recent black ancestry.

---

Seeing as recent would have to make them about 1/4 negro, they would still be 'black' by the one-drop rule.  

Two 100% whites can't make a negro of any form.

---

The one-drop rule doesn't biologically exist, so the children would be of mixed race ancestry.

" The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black unless having an alternative non-white ancestry which he or she can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, or Australian aboriginal.[1] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biracial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadroon
http://onedroprule.org/forum-2.html

Two people of direct European descent would have children that exhibit a combination of said features. Would they have a child that doesn't?

No. You are stating the obvious. You will not be Scottish and have Japanese or Nigerian children. But if you have a predominately white phenotype (this is exceedingly common) as a person of mixed ancestry, society would dictate a "white" person having children of different background, though, this would not be the case. It just goes to show you how superficial our society that if a child shows difference in scarcely observable phenotype than his/her parent's, that it is somehow on the news.

Post edited at 10:12 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 by Keile

---

You don't have to hate them to be racist. You just have to show disdain in a manner that befits inequality. Hate is hard to accurately gauge and not many will admit to hating someone unless a positive can be gleaned from saying so.

Avoiding someone on the street because of their background is RACIST. Asking to your McDonald's order to be taken by another simply because of their background is RACIST. Throwing rocks at people because they are of a different background is racist. These beliefs befit racial hate and/or inequality. It is OK to not like someone because of the content of w
ho they are, but not liking them for who they are as a person is racist if it involves racially motivated intentions.

Yet, any of these actions can be done without actively saying you believe one is inferior or admitting to hating said person based on background. Actions speak louder than tight-lipped words.

---

---

The one-drop rule doesn't biologically exist, so the children would be of mixed race ancestry.

" The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black unless having an alternative non-white ancestry which he or she can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, or Australian aboriginal.[1] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biracial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadroon
http://onedroprule.org/forum-2.html

Two people of direct European descent would have children that exhibit a combination of said features. Would they have a child that doesn't?

No. You are stating the obvious. You will not be Scottish and have Japanese or Nigerian children. But if you have a predominately white phenotype (this is exceedingly common) as a person of mixed ancestry, society would dictate a "white" person having children of different background, though, this would not be the case. It just goes to show you how superficial our society that if a child shows difference in scarcely observable phenotype than his/her parent's, that it is somehow on the news.

---

Someone said "it's very possible for a white couple to have a black child"

This, in all sense, is impossible. That's all I said. If the whites had ANY negro genes, they wouldn't be called Negroes. If they had no negro genes, they couldn't have a Negro child.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

We were on different pages pertaining to the white/black child issue. I assumed we were referring to White-Americans. And enough of your Negro gene bullshit. If it were true and race was such a pertinent reality. Then why is it that certain white populations don't produce features exclusive to other populations? Why aren't there many Sicilian redhead children? Are these Anglo genes?

What are genes that all humans share?

I think, what you've been doing is recognizing that there is not a total homogeneity between selective peoples (there cannot be, climate adaption) and labeling whatever specific genes each people gained and retained during climate adaption (an example would be skin colour) as negro, white, etc. These things are simply climate adaptions. They are no more and no less than that. Such as misuse of relevant science in an effort to further an agenda is pathetic. Can you prove that any normal human feature isn't superficial?

They are not representative of the tremendous gap that you seem to exemplify when discussing whites and blacks and are superficial. The only basis for which racists usually have against this superficiality debate is the IQ issue. And the Flynn effect accounts for that.

---
The Definition of Racism;
Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...

That portion of the definition proves my point. If you express prejudice or discrimination, an example would be excluding someone of perceived racial difference from a group on the basis of race and another would be the showcasing of prejudice by moving to the other side of the sidewalk when faced with a skewed vision of someone of another background, then you are guilty of racism and thus, a racist.

Do you see any contention?  

All of my stated examples are racist as defined by this and other definitions of racism. This means that the OP is racist.
www.hsp.org/default.aspx

---

Racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

A policy or system of government based on fostering a doctrine of discrimination and exclusion based on perceived difference in race. That sounds oddly like the white nationalist white nation agenda. Wait, that is the white nation agenda. Surprise, surprise!

You support a racist agenda!

Hatred or intolerance (disdain) of another race. Hmm. Lets see. Showcasing intolerance towards another race. Hmm. That makes you racist again. Or are you in contention that you can't stand minorities and want an all-white nation?

I am surprised I didn't just do research on racism. I was sure your conjecture wasn't the true definition, I was just too lazy to actually find anything.
---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
google.com
define: racism

Post edited at 2:40 am on Aug. 30, 2008 by Takinam

What this amounts to is that if you have separate populations then those populations are going to gradually change based on what physical traits the females prefer to look for in their mates, since the females preferences are also inherited the process is self perpetuating.

So really its only natural that the OP would prefer to date guys from her own race. Just thought i would make an interesting side note; as an interracial child myself its kind of funny how people always recognise my dad as my dad when they see him (he's sri lankan), but have a hard time seeing any resemblance between me and my mum. I have a feeling that this could be because we are hardwired to notice skin color before any other characteristics.

---

We were on different pages pertaining to the white/black child issue. I assumed we were referring to White-Americans. And enough of your Negro gene bullshit. If it were true and race was such a pertinent reality. Then why is it that certain white populations don't produce features exclusive to other populations? Why aren't there many Sicilian redhead children? Are these Anglo genes?

---

Italy has gone through numerous Moorish invasions, they are not the epitome of whites.

---

What are genes that all humans share?

I think, what you've been doing is recognizing that there is not a total homogeneity between selective peoples (there cannot be, climate adaption) and labeling whatever specific genes each people gained and retained during climate adaption (an example would be skin colour) as negro, white, etc. These things are simply climate adaptions. They are no more and no less than that. Such as misuse of relevant science in an effort to further an agenda is pathetic. Can you prove that any normal human feature isn't superficial?

---

---

The Definition of Racism;
Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race; can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices. ...

That portion of the definition proves my point. If you express prejudice or discrimination, an example would be excluding someone of perceived racial difference from a group on the basis of race and another would be the showcasing of prejudice by moving to the other side of the sidewalk when faced with a skewed vision of someone of another background, then you are guilty of racism and thus, a racist.

Do you see any contention?  

All of my stated examples are racist as defined by this and other definitions of racism. This means that the OP is racist.
http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx

---

I think an all-white nation should exist to COMBAT racism and to keep white genes alive.

Preservation is racism? I didn't know this!

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

And all white nation doesn't seem like it would combat anything racism-wise. To me, it sounds more like running away or avoiding even the possibility for racism.

---