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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
@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.
 
@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.

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top