If blacks Ran America would we do whites the same way they do us now?

[LA Fisher]

So making snide jokes about skin hue and hair texture, in a congenial way in most cases, would lead you to believe that black people would impose a worldwide system of financial, social and spiritual dominance on a people? Not only would we impose slavery on whites for several hundred years, but we would also colonize their people, commit mass acts of genocide and manipulate governments to damn near steal the resources from under their feet? All this because we make "you so dark" jokes.

Please explain how you come to your conclusions based off black people making jokes about certain physical features AMONGST OURSELVES? Also, does this apply to other groups who make the same jokes, and in some cases actually make societal castes, among themselves regarding skin color?

Please expound.

Peace

Sometimes these "jokes" are playful and funny but most of the time there is a deep issue there. I've noticed that black people like to bully whoever they can within the race. We won't bring that drama to whitey because we're too scared but we don't mind torturing our own. Let's not sit up here and act like black folk are so king and loving lol.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

no we wouldn't we don't have recessive genes, we don't feel the need to be deviant by nature. we are naturally dominant.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Its not an exact science. Mixed people can come out looking anyway. There is no set look. Some come out looking black, others whites, but most of them come out looking like a mixture of both parents.


Again its not exact science, but this is one of the best diagrams I've seen.

Im 3/4 and I actually look like that.

maybe im being genetically bias but the 3/4-2/3 folks look the best on both sides and both genders.

as for this thread. people using inter-tribal warfare as an example of what blacks would do to other races. you dumbasses. Im not even going to get into, you should just know better.

 

[godkiller]

Black people are naturally caring so it would obviously be a lot different. Whites would get fukked out of existence probably.

Like the whites did the Natives?

 

[godkiller]

no we wouldn't we don't have recessive genes, we don't feel the need to be deviant by nature. we are naturally dominant.

This is nonsense. Blacks do have recessive genes. All humans are a mixture of dominant and recessive genes. Merely because blacks have darker skin and features does not mean we are "dominant". All darker colors are dominant allele to lighter ones even within groups themselves. Nature does not see blacks and whites as "colors"; nature sees the two groups as groups within the same species. When they two mix Nature decides upon a "intermediate" organism that has traits, dominant, blended and recessive, of both. But all intermediate organisms carry all traits--dominant, blended and recessive--of the group.

Whites are not recessive; it's just that they have more recessive colors in their phenotype.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

This is nonsense. Blacks do have recessive genes. All humans are a mixture of dominant and recessive genes. Merely because blacks have darker skin and features does not mean we are "dominant". All darker colors are dominant allele to lighter ones. But nature does not see blacks and whites as "colors"; nature sees the two groups as organisms. Whites are not recessive; it's just that they have more recessive colors in their phenotype.

native = asian. asians have a recessive gene to THEM.

we have no recessive genes to anyone. name a recessive gene we carry.

 

[godkiller]

native = asian. asians have a recessive gene to THEM.

we have no recessive genes to anyone. name a recessive gene we carry.

Blacks have attached earlobes (recessive) and non-attached (dominant). A person can have either one of these but the non-attached is more common. It doesn't mean "disappeared". That's what "dominant" and "recessive" mean: more or less common; or "hidden" and "will come back when conditions permit". One can make a trait more or less common through breeding although you can't make that trait disappear unless you can distinguish heterozygous (masked dominance) and homozygous (pure non-attached or attached).

Like I said, all peoples and individuals have recessive and dominant and blended genes. Blacks are no different. Recessive genes do not disappear, they are merely masked in an individual. They reappear in future generations. It is also possible for genes to become "mixed" so a person does not show dominant/recessive but rather a mixture of the two. This happens often to admixture. Also, if a population biases for a recessive or a dominant phenotype (blonde versus brown hair), that population can make the recessive phenotype more widely dispersed.

Natives are most closely related to ethnic-looking darker-colored Asians, who are a mixture of dominant/recessive.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Blacks have attached earlobes (recessive) and non-attached (dominant). A person can have either one of these but the non-attached is more common. That's what "dominant" and "recessive" mean: more or less common. One can make a trait more or less common through breeding although you can't make that trait disappear unless you can distinguish heterozygous (masked dominance) and homozygous (pure non-attached or attached).

Like I said, all peoples and individuals have recessive and dominant and blended genes. Blacks are no different. Recessive genes do not disappear, they are merely masked in an individual. They reappear in future generations. It is also possible for genes to become "mixed" so a person does not show dominant/recessive but rather a mixture of the two. This happens often to admixture. Also, if a population biases for a recessive or a dominant phenotype (blonde versus brown hair), that population can make the recessive phenotype more widely dispersed.

Natives are most closely related to ethnic-looking darker-colored Asians, who are a mixture of dominant/recessive.

Maybe I should clarify.

by dominant gene, I mean VISUALLY having a similar stature to their dominant gene parent than their recessive gene parent. we are social beings that have a natural tact for tribal gathering ourselves. More than likely the mixed person will go with the dominate group over the recessive group. In fact the recessive group will more likely reject him as to keep their group 'pure'. its a natural selection thing. Now with that said, the dominant group never actually fears being naturally phased out by the recessive groups, because of this very reason.

 

[godkiller]

your race is classified by your HAIR TEXTURE AND BONE STRUCTURE you fool, not your skin tone.
an albino black man with white skin and blonde hair is still a black man.

By your definition the majority of African Americans in this country should be considered mix then.

I use Obama has an example because he is a prime example of the genetic dominance of the black gene.
His father was an African with no cut on him, his mother was lily white
he came out looking like a lot of African Americans who would not be considered mix
he the same complexion as Joe Jackson I know people with two black parents that are the same complexion and lighter than him.
He's 9 ether, a mixed child is not coming out looking like Leonardo Decaprio

Your post shows a misunderstanding of genetics.

Obama is intermediate between his father and his mother; he's not an example of "black gene dominance". If he was, he'd look like his father. He doesn't and can't look like his father because he is half white. His skin tone is a "blend" of his father's darker tone and his mother's lighter one. His hair isn't nappy like his father's or straight like his mother's; it is also a blend. His father was a "throughbred: African; his mother was a white Iowan (I don't know he genetics), thus he comes out the way he does.

Your comparison to some African Americans is technically invalid because many African Americans are intergenerationally mixed with white (there are even some who are majority white) so it is possible for some of their skin tones to have similarity to Obama's, who is a black/white mix himself. It is possible for a mixed child to come out as Leo Di Caprio, all it takes is the right genes in the parents. Look at Paula Patton's kid and John Boehner.

 

[GreatestLaker]

This is nonsense. Blacks do have recessive genes. All humans are a mixture of dominant and recessive genes. Merely because blacks have darker skin and features does not mean we are "dominant". All darker colors are dominant allele to lighter ones even within groups themselves. Nature does not see blacks and whites as "colors"; nature sees the two groups as groups within the same species. When they two mix Nature decides upon a "intermediate" organism that has traits, dominant, blended and recessive, of both. But all intermediate organisms carry all traits--dominant, blended and recessive--of the group.

Whites are not recessive; it's just that they have more recessive colors in their phenotype.

Blacks have attached earlobes (recessive) and non-attached (dominant). A person can have either one of these but the non-attached is more common. It doesn't mean "disappeared". That's what "dominant" and "recessive" mean: more or less common; or "hidden" and "will come back when conditions permit". One can make a trait more or less common through breeding although you can't make that trait disappear unless you can distinguish heterozygous (masked dominance) and homozygous (pure non-attached or attached).

Like I said, all peoples and individuals have recessive and dominant and blended genes. Blacks are no different. Recessive genes do not disappear, they are merely masked in an individual. They reappear in future generations. It is also possible for genes to become "mixed" so a person does not show dominant/recessive but rather a mixture of the two. This happens often to admixture. Also, if a population biases for a recessive or a dominant phenotype (blonde versus brown hair), that population can make the recessive phenotype more widely dispersed.

Natives are most closely related to ethnic-looking darker-colored Asians, who are a mixture of dominant/recessive.

THANK YOU!

I've been trying to say this shyt for the longest. But these dudes love to buy into this pseudoscience that black genes are more dominant.

 

[Luke Cage]

I never see black people make a big deal about interracial relationships as much as I do white people so im gonna assume they would treat them better. if the situations were reversed.

 

[The Coochie Assassin]

Your post shows a misunderstanding of genetics.

Obama is intermediate between his father and his mother; he's not an example of "black gene dominance". If he was, he'd look like his father. He doesn't and can't look like his father because he is half white. His skin tone is a "blend" of his father's darker tone and his mother's lighter one. His hair isn't nappy like his father's or straight like his mother's; it is also a blend. His father was a "throughbred: African; his mother was a .

Your comparison to some African Americans is technically invalid because many African Americans are intergenerationally mixed with Caucasian so it is possible for some of their skin tones to have similarity to Obama's, who is a black/white mix himself. It is possible for a mixed child to come out as Leo Di Caprio, all it takes is the right genes in the parents. Look at Paula Patton's kid and John Boehner.

There's a story of two South African white people having a black child. Both of the parents had an African ancestor and the unlikely happened with producing a black child with an Afro lol.

 

[GreatestLaker]

Your post shows a misunderstanding of genetics.

Obama is intermediate between his father and his mother; he's not an example of "black gene dominance". If he was, he'd look like his father. He doesn't and can't look like his father because he is half white. His skin tone is a "blend" of his father's darker tone and his mother's lighter one. His hair isn't nappy like his father's or straight like his mother's; it is also a blend. His father was a "throughbred: African; his mother was a .

Your comparison to some African Americans is technically invalid because many African Americans are intergenerationally mixed with Caucasian so it is possible for some of their skin tones to have similarity to Obama's, who is a black/white mix himself. It is possible for a mixed child to come out as Leo Di Caprio, all it takes is the right genes in the parents. Look at Paula Patton's kid and John Boehner.

I posted this in another thread, but it doesn't make sense talking to these clowns.

That's not the only difference.


His lips aren't as big, nose isn't as wide, and his cheeks aren't as high and wide and his hair has a curl to it. Obama resembles his mother more than his father. He clearly looks like a mixture of both parents, but keep lying to yourself.

I'm talking about Kenyan Luo people here. Not African-Americans who are a mixture of several West African ethnic groups and other things. Look at Obama's Kenyan family. There are all dark and have distinct features. Obama looks nothing like them, because his mother is a white woman.

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/its-...-think-a-black-man-will-ever-be.159302/page-3

 

[mrken12]

Breh, I've lost count of how many "cacs are genetically evil/inferior/predisposed to violence, devils, envious of black people" comments I've read on this board.

It doesn't bother me because each person is free to believe what they will, but let's not act like this is a novelty sentiment on the coli.

So you don't think a story like a pregnant black woman getting killed by a mob of white people and her child being murdered as well (Mary Turner) is a sign of some diabolical type of evil? History shows just how ruthless white people act towards innocent black people.

 

[Premeditated]

THANK YOU!

I've been trying to say this shyt for the longest. But these dudes love to buy into this pseudoscience that black genes are dominant.

that's because you don't know how to debate people. Every time someone says something that's completely different from your argument, you proceed to call them derogatory names and demean them by calling them stupid, or an idiot.etc

you're too emotional when you're debating people