Black Relationships : Sistahs: What Do White Men Have That We Don't Have Thats So Compelling To You?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ezinne

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Aug 13, 2009
652
310
Occupation
writer, filmmaker
"The black is dominate and the white is recessive...meaning black is stronger and more powerful than the weak white gene"

I keep hearing this from people, but I have never seen any real proof of it - I mean if this were true surely the result of any mixed marriage would always be dark black children and this is obviously not the case - I'm proof of that for one...
Besides I've never seen any scientific proof that there is such a thing as black genes and white genes...
I have heard it said that you can tell someone's race by analysing 3 particular sections of DNA.
However I've also heard that white skin was the result of genetic mutation of a single letter of the DNA code and it is believed that it occured in one individual - if this is actually true you might wonder why there are so many whites in the world today - as I remember the theory went that this white skin was seen as a novelty which was attractive to mates - so this single individual wasn't killed as an aberation but mated and their offspring were again seen as attractive - so if this is all correct some black folk have been attracted to white skin for a very long time...
Also it would suggest that this mutant skin gene is anything but weak if it has persisted for so long.
Another piece of evidence is in the Seychelles islands - I remember reading a National Geographic article that was talking about how every now and again dark folk there have a white baby due to genes from white pirates who landed there way, way back - that would suggest too that this mutant gene lasts for a long time even if it is recessive.
http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46796

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65270

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21411


As far as the topic at hand. Not interested in reproducing with a white man. So, they have nothing up on black men for me at all.
 

StefiA

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jul 24, 2010
801
210
@Ezinne
Can't access that first thread for some reason
Re the 2nd thread I see there that people were talking about the old theory of people needing to lighten up to get sufficient sun - personally I've never understood that one as I've never seen a black person faint from lack of sun while here in the UK...
I think the idea of it being an accidental mutation of no value at all is more likely...
Re the 3rd thread - I just don't buy the idea that white folk are some sort of separate creation that occurred - the DNA evidence just doesn't support that. That thread did get all sort of metaphysical and well away from the area I'm comfortable with knowledge wise, but I'm just not believing that white folk are artificial/fake humans. I'm going to need to some hard scientific evidence before I'll accept I'm only 1/4 of a human and 3/4 some artificial animal.
 

Ezinne

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Aug 13, 2009
652
310
Occupation
writer, filmmaker
@Ezinne
Can't access that first thread for some reason
Re the 2nd thread I see there that people were talking about the old theory of people needing to lighten up to get sufficient sun - personally I've never understood that one as I've never seen a black person faint from lack of sun while here in the UK...
I think the idea of it being an accidental mutation of no value at all is more likely...
Re the 3rd thread - I just don't buy the idea that white folk are some sort of separate creation that occurred - the DNA evidence just doesn't support that. That thread did get all sort of metaphysical and well away from the area I'm comfortable with knowledge wise, but I'm just not believing that white folk are artificial/fake humans. I'm going to need to some hard scientific evidence before I'll accept I'm only 1/4 of a human and 3/4 some artificial animal.
It's your prerogative, you're free to views. Don't know why you can't access the first link. Search in the threads I think 'Caucasian albinos'.

Personally, I believe that white people are different genetically from Africans, and I mean the original Africans, the true Africans (not those who have settled within the last few hundred years as colonizers or descendants of those colonizers, or just to reap the benefits of Africa's resources, those who have no clan affiliation, ethnic group affiliation, etc *that is a whole 'nother conversation as to who is an African). But hey that's just me. I look at it from behavioral, oral tradition, etc. view. The origins of white people is an interesting topic, a heated one, but nevertheless it's somewhat perplexing because there are so many theories especially when you consider the collective "nature" of whites. (Read Francis Cress Welsing). Anyone can say what they want, but their behavior throughout history all over the world is something that is disturbing.

But not to derail the thread any further.
 

KWABENA

STAFF
STAFF
Jun 10, 2004
4,655
387
Everywhere
Occupation
Leader-Student-Teacher
Wow! A thread from my teenage, post high-school days being brought back now! Are you serious?

LOL I created this thread so long ago I hardly even remember what my intentions were at the time. I find it very interesting that of all the threads I have archived, this one has gotten the most attention (replies and posts) and it is the one I care the least about!

Then again, I do understand what is going on around me so as far as i'm concerned let the discussion continue...

KWABENA
 

KWABENA

STAFF
STAFF
Jun 10, 2004
4,655
387
Everywhere
Occupation
Leader-Student-Teacher
Exactly! But I was forced to do it - I mean - mommy told me not to, but I just couldn't help it!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

medusanegrita

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Mar 13, 2010
1,858
558
STL Missouri
In answer to the question - try a less aversion to black feminist and black feminism and the various subjects and implications that go with that.

WTH???
First of all, I have never heard any black woman say they want to "see a light skin wavy hair baby come out of them".
I have, or some variation of it, especially from teenagers when I was a teen myself.

Besides, if you've ever seen a newborn of any race, you know that all babies come out light skinned with wavy hair, even with both parents being dark skinned with kinky hair.
Not all of them. Two of my children came out cocoa and milky chocolate. The milky chocolate one had bone-straight hair.

Secondly, the vast majority of black women I know prefer chocolate brothas.
Don't let sisters infatuation for dark skinned brothers fool you. I think many of them are following trends and dark skin brothers are 'in' right now. I think many of them are following trends because I know sisters who still fawn over light skinned and mixed babies for their hair and beauty.... yet want a dark skinned brother. I can't understand that one. They want a man who will give them the least likely chance of having a baby with the features they desire and fawn over.... then they spend their time fretting over how dark the child will be by looking at fingernails and ear lobs; or how how hair is changing and growing courser as the child ages.

Then what was the purpose of getting a dark skinned nappy headed black dude and procreating with him if you can't appreciate that your babies may look the same? **smh**

And 'reverse colorism' does exist. Some light skinned black people (men and women) seek out darker skinned and chocolate skin tones to play down the implications they learned about lighter skin tones (that they are better, house negroes, stuck-up, less black, more socially accepted, don't like dark skin, don't want to be black, prefer whites and white aesthetics, etc).

"The black is dominate and the white is recessive...meaning black is stronger and more powerful than the weak white gene"

I keep hearing this from people, but I have never seen any real proof of it -
I've also heard that white skin was the result of genetic mutation of a single letter of the DNA code and it is believed that it occured in one individual
And also, if whiteness is a genetic mutation (as I believe it to be), then how would it weaken other physical characteristics of a person (like stamina or muscle tone), or increase others (like intellectual ability)?

And blacks aren't doing much of this scientific research, whites are. Since whiteness is a genetic mutation, seems like everyone wants to say it is inferior because it is a mutation. Whites seems especially insecure and sensitive this this mutation, sensing that it is indeed a weakness.... so since they believe it to be true, then it seems like they will make all their research point that way.

Whites are narcissistic. They will often play up their own self-importance and superiority to hide the weakness and inferiority they feel. And since they make blacks feel like devalued crap, ofcourse blacks will exert physical and mental power and stamina to try to compensate for what the whites made them feel....... further making whites feel weak and physically powerless in the process.

Perpetually self-defeating.
 

StefiA

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jul 24, 2010
801
210
@Chinelo
Sorry disagree with you totally there - any interbreeding with Homo Neanderthelensis would have produced sterile offspring - in the same way that any other hybrid like a mule is sterile. Remember that all primates share almost identical DNA and the Neanderthals and Modern Man are both descendants of the Homo Ergasters that lived in Afrika, so their DNA will be very similar.
Plus in my opinion claiming white folk are a different species is as useful as saying Hitler was evil - it misses the point entirely - what people need to do is to investigate why white folk do what they do, why Hitler did what he did, to understand the inner workings of the mind which create the outward signs we call evil. Remember there are plenty of black folk in the world who have done what would be considered evil things - just labelling them evil teaches us nothing, its a much better idea to investigate and learn.
 

StefiA

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jul 24, 2010
801
210
@Chinelo

OK - back again - I had read through those two articles, though its difficult to assess the research in any meaningful when when both articles are so light in detail - I'm going to need to dig into some of the references quoted. The only way I can see that any of this makes sense is if the scientists concerned have decided that the Neanderthals were a sub-species rather than a species i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthelensis rather than Homo neanderthelensis - from research into this that I've done in the past I wouldn't say there was anywhere near agreement between scientists on this. Also some comments made in these articles should be taken into account before making any firm conclusions about differences between Afrikans and non-Afrikans....

"Asked if the findings show differences between Africans and non-Africans, Paabo replied that people who want to present data in some sort of racist perspective would find a way to do so. He said, one way to look at this data could be to say people outside Africa are more primitive, while another way could be to say there is something beneficial about being part Neanderthal."

"It's totally possible that inside Africa, there was a contribution from other archaic humans that we don't know about, he said. We shouldn't take these results as saying that only people outside Africa have caveman biology"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Consciousness Raising Online!

Latest profile posts

sekou kasimu wrote on willa's profile.
What exactly is your ideology?!
I'll be honest. I like black culture forums, so I've signed up for this one, BX, and Lipstick Alley. I won't post too often, only on things that I'm really interested in. Nice to meet you. :)
Ms Drea wrote on butterfly#1's profile.
Hi Sister,
Miss you so much I hope all is well with you and yours!!
Love and Blessings!! :heart: :heart:
Implementation and Sustainment
You can skip rocks across water but if you're not building yourself up rock solid, you'll drown under pressure.
11-5-19✍
Top