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

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

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.

Sandra Laing?

ttp://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/sandra-laing-a-black-girl-born-to-white-parents/

 

[mrken12]

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.

Have you seen the way black women react to a brotha with a white woman?

 

[marcuz]

Sandra Laing?

ttp://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/sandra-laing-a-black-girl-born-to-white-parents/

they both look absolutely disgusted

 

[BelowTheMasonDixon]

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.

Or some shyt like the execution of George Stinney

George Junius Stinney, Jr., (October 21, 1929 – June 16, 1944) was, at age 14, the youngest person executed in the United States in the 20th century.[1]

Stinney was convicted of murdering two pre-teen girls after police said he confessed to the murders. But the question of Stinney's guilt, the validity of his alleged confession, and the judicial process leading to his execution have been criticized as "suspicious at best and a miscarriage of justice at worst",[2] and as an example of the many injustices African-Americans suffered in courtrooms in the United States in the first half of the 20th century.[3]

Following his arrest, Stinney's father was fired from his job and his parents and siblings were given the choice of leaving town or being lynched. The family was forced to flee, leaving the 14-year-old child with no support during his 81-day confinement and trial. His trial, including jury selection, lasted just one day. Stinney's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner preparing to run for office. There was no court challenge to the testimony of the three police officers who claimed that Stinney had confessed, although that was the only evidence presented. There were no written records of a confession. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution: the man who discovered the bodies of the two girls and the two doctors who performed the post mortem. No witnesses were called for the defense. The trial before a completely white jury and audience (African-Americans were not allowed entrance) lasted two-and-a-half hours. The jury took ten minutes to deliberate before it returned with a guilty verdict.


The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. Standing 5 foot 2 inches (157 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg), his size (relative to the fully grown prisoners) presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[6][7] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]

 

[GreatestLaker]

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

Well to be fair a lot of these dudes tend to say a lot of stupid shyt.

 

[godkiller]

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 ourselvesely the mixed person will go with the dominate group over the recessive group.

I would say darker-skinned people are more open to lighter-skinned counterparts than the other way around because of the perceived beauty of lighter more aquiline features but this is a social-cultural niche related to a people in question, not a universal law. If the theory was true then it would apply everywhere. But it doesn't. In Brazil a large part of the country is visibly mixed with black and yet in census a very small minority of the people identify themselves as black. The mixed majority identify themselves as mixed race or white. It's the opposite of the USA. In Brazil, if you show anything that makes you look noticeably non-black, you are not black. You are only black if you approximate thoroughbred black, which is the standard we have here in the USA when it comes to white people. You are only white if you approximate thoroughbred white.

the recessive group will more likely reject him as to keep their group 'pure'. its a natural selection thing.

Again, there is no recessive or dominant group. The child will look intermediate. It is up to either group to accept/deny them. Many groups, both darker-skinned and not, aspire to purity including blacks. Black Africans generally do not accept mixed people as black just as white Europeans do not accept them as white, because of the non-[insert] mixed people have. An influx of mixed people changes both darker-skinned and lighter-skinned people. The only group a mixed people would not change is a mixed one.

Now with that said, the dominant group never actually fears being naturally phased out by the recessive groups, because of this very reason.

When Natives and Whites first mated, the children came out looking like Pocahontas.

What ended up happening?

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.

In that case there were black phenotype genes in both parents but the genes acted "recessively" because of a preponderance of "other" genes. Through chance and luck the phenotype genes came together in both parents to produce their Afro looking kid rather than a more normal white-looking kid. But it is possible they could have had a blond kid curly haired kid or a black haired straight hair kid,so they might have a kid who has a mix of features. Usually however they would have a child that looks like white since they are mostly white themselves. The reverse situation is true with African Americans and explains why some African Americans have "light skin" children.

 

[Data-Hawk]

people are evil............the end

 

[mortuus est]

i think the white people would love us to dominate them

i mean just look at it, we already live in a world where white guys fantasise about our private parts

they would love it we raided their anal hole on a daily basis's

its only a dream

art barr

 

[Tommy Knocks]

I would say darker-skinned people are more open to lighter-skinned counterparts than the other way around because of the perceived beauty of lighter more aquiline features but this is a social-cultural niche related to a people in question, not a universal law. If the theory was true then it would apply everywhere. But it doesn't. In Brazil a large part of the country is visibly mixed with black and yet in census a very small minority of the people identify themselves as black. The mixed majority identify themselves as mixed race or white. It's the opposite of the USA. In Brazil, if you show anything that makes you look noticeably non-black, you are not black. You are only black if you approximate thoroughbred black, which is the standard we have here in the USA when it comes to white people. You are only white if you approximate thoroughbred white.

wrong. I've been to brazil the reason they were checking non black in the past were because it came with benefits. now that being black comes with benefits, they are now checking that, google "brazil's growing black population", it has nothing to do with the blacks breeding more, but rather, people with blonde hair are now claiming african ancestry. brazil is a far more complex case that I care not to get into, because groups arent formed there as the majority of people have a diverse family. its mostly economic at this point. fair skin is not praised there, nor is black skin, mixed skin is, because the majority of the population are mixed. "brazilian tan" comes to mind. brazil is so mixed now that subconsciously lighter skin people are breeding with darker skin people because its seen as healthier. pretty weird, you have to go there to see, btw im talking about the middle class, the super rich european class still see breeding outside as a threat.

Again, there is no recessive or dominant group. The child will look intermediate. It is up to either group to accept/deny them. Many groups, both darker-skinned and not, aspire to purity including blacks. Black Africans generally do not accept mixed people as black just as white Europeans do not accept them as white, because of the non-[insert] mixed people have. An influx of mixed people changes both darker-skinned and lighter-skinned people. The only group a mixed people would not change is a mixed one.

This is a quote from the article posted above about that black girl who had 2 white parents in south africa.
"Very few whites would befriend her. Nearly all her friends were black. She felt more comfortable with blacks than with whites."

my point still stands, even in africa.

When Natives and Whites first mated, the children came out looking like Pocahontas, meaning they looked like lighter Natives.

They didn't come out looking like pocahontas how the hell does John Smith have a kid with Pocahontas and breed a little Pocahontas? Their child came out looking like an italian or something. whites have the more dominant trait. mexico is a great example of that, they don't like native at all. the majority could pass as south european.

 

[jadillac]

to a certain extent I think the dominant "people" would make sure their own stayed on top. Actually I'm sure of it, but the sheer Brutality of Whites is amazing to me. I can't even think of another word. I can't see a scenario where thousands of Black people would show up to torture a white person, the way they did us. I can't see it. And if you research lynchings in America. That shyt would damn near make you tear up. I can't see that type of brutality coming from the dominant race. Now I maybe wrong because in Africa it was bad as well(Rwandan Civil War) I'm an outsider and I'm certainly not a genius. but these are basically people who spoke the same language and if not spoke the same language LOOKED the same color. But I'm not as smart as some of you young cats. what is your opinion?

I thnk given the history of America, no I dont think we or Asians or Hispanics would resort to treating white ppl the same way they treated us.

However many of them think that we would get revenge and alot of them are afraid. Some of the super ignorant ones thought Obama was gonna make them a slave and kill all the white ppl

 

[godkiller]

wrong. I've been to brazil the reason they were checking non black in the past were because it came with benefits. now that being black comes with benefits, they are now checking that, google "brazil's growing black population", it has nothing to do with the blacks breeding more, but rather, people with blonde hair are now claiming african ancestry. brazil is a far more complex case that I care not to get into, because groups arent formed there as the majority of people have a diverse family. its mostly economic at this point. fair skin is not praised there, nor is black skin, mixed skin is, because the majority of the population are mixed. "brazilian tan" comes to mind. brazil is so mixed now that subconsciously lighter skin people are breeding with darker skin people because its seen as healthier. pretty weird, you have to go there to see, btw im talking about the middle class, the super rich european class still see breeding outside as a threat.

There is no benefit to assuming white or mixed identity on a census form; moreover it is anonymous. There is no reason to think a person would answer anything but honestly. Now, there might be benefit when it comes to affirmative action, but that's coerced and likely won't show up in census. It's just a way to take advantage of the policy and doesn't reflect what a person might think about themselves. In general what I said about Brazil is correct and most of your post here is besides the point I was making.

This is a quote from the article posted above about that black girl who had 2 white parents in south africa.
"Very few whites would befriend her. Nearly all her friends were black. She felt more comfortable with blacks than with whites."

In South Africa the coloreds were lumped with the blacks (above but below so to speak), and the whites kept to themselves in order to maintain exclusivity. What happened is that the blacks had to come to live with the coloreds regardless and the darker skinned people's attraction to lighter features bears itself out. But this is South Africa, a country noticeably different in many ways to typical black African nations and peoples.

my point still stands, even in africa.

See above. South Africa is not a good example.

They didn't come out looking like pocahontas how the hell does John Smith have a kid with Pocahontas and breed a little Pocahontas?

I was making a point about dominance. See below.

Their child came out looking like an italian or something. whites have the more dominant trait. mexico is a great example of that, they don't like native at all. the majority could pass as south european.

The point I was making was that the children come out darker-skinned and darker-haired compared to whites, similar to the way mulattos appear. Black/white mating works similar to Native/white mating, with similar implications and results. This is what a thoroughbred Native looks like:

As you can see, they have dark ethnic features like blacks. What happened?

 

[Master Teacher]

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.

Shut the fukk up, have you seen Obama's fro, his hair nappy its just cut low
who does Obama look more like his father or mother, be serious
you contradict yourself, and obviously have no understanding of genetics.
If most African Americans are mixed and considered black, doesn't that prove the point of the dominate gene you fukking imbecile
everyone knows this its not a mystery

Paula Patton is half white and had a child with a white man, what the fukk are you talking about

 

[Crakface]

Like the whites did the Natives?

They killed them after factions of them disapproved of the disgusting culture they brought to their lands on top of just being there laying claim to lands they considered theirs. Ultimately, the land belongs to whoever has the strength to keep it so the native americans were destroyed.

 

[ltheghost]

I guess the answer is yes. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. We would be keeping them out of the nice neighborhoods and making sure they don't get employed in high paying positions unless they are okay with us. The oppressed sooner or later becomes the oppressor.

 

[ltheghost]

I don't think we would relinquish power. But I could see us being more fair to them than they ever would be to us.

Maybe but not by much. Power changes people. I think there was a study done on the wealthy at Berkeley about the changes in people when they get imagined wealth. It was startling. http://money.msn.com/now/post--great-wealth-brings-great-narcissism-study-says