T.I. Says Iggy Azalea Criticism Pisses Him Off

[CoCKy GeNiuS]

this negro is constantly talking about how he will wet his own kind with automatic artillery but doesn't understand why his own kind doesn't appreciate another stealing their whole steeze....

I used to be a hell of a TiP fan but fukk that dude, he is tryna to use his wordplay to catch all of those millions he lost through his bullshyt... I remember a XXL interview back in 03-04 where he stated "I don't get down like that" when speaking on sexual relations with white women, now he is defending one on behalf of the the culture.... nikka fukk U !!!!!!

 

[up in here]

We are really far off the topic so let me just summarize things for you:

1) Australian Aborigines are Melanesians, not blacks. They are closely related to Indian type peoples. Indians are not blacks and neither are the rest of the South Asians in the region.

2) My point with respects to racism outside America is that the Australians don't like the rest of non-whites in the region (Maoris, Aborigines, etc) so there is racism there too, not just America. The main difference is location. It seems you agree with me so far as this goes.

Yeah I agree with your second point. I disagree with your first point on the basis that Black is a social construct and is not limited to the direct descendants of Africa.

Even within the scientific community there are still people who classify the "Australoid" group as a sub-group within the "Negroid" race. And there are also those who now classify them as two distinct groups. But they do not use the term "Black race" scientifically because "Black" as a race is a social construct. Aborigines identify as Black, are perceived as Black, and are socialized as Black. They are Black. Not African, but Black regardless.

 

[Wacky D]

somebody needs to tell tip that hes not respected enough to vouch for anybody.

 

[godkiller]

Yeah I agree with your second point. I disagree with your first point on the basis that Black is a social construct and is not limited to the direct descendants of Africa.

I already replied to your concerns that many classifications are social and that does not make those classifications invalid. The seperation between blacks and other groups is no less a social construct than the construct we use to separate mice and frogs. The only question is whether the seperation is significant, not whether it exists. You say that the seperation between blacks and Melanesians is not significant or does not matter, but in that case any brown-skinned person under oppressive conditions is black. That doesn't make any sense so your argument fails. It does not matter if some dumb foreign cac believes Sri Lankans are black.

Even within the scientific community there are still people who classify the "Australoid" group as a sub-group within the "Negroid" race.

There is no credible geneticist who alleges such. Australoids are more related to other groups like Asians before nikkas, have different haplogroups and fit into different clines. Geneticists know this fact and so any credible geneticist wouldn't argue against evidence.

And there are also those who now classify them as two distinct groups.

This is the scientific norm today, as I previously stated.

But they do not use the term "Black race" scientifically because "Black" as a race is a social construct. Aborigines identify as Black, are perceived as Black, and are socialized as Black. They are Black. Not African, but Black regardless.

There are "black" cline and gene groups which blacks have and fit into. It doesn't matter what this cline is called--African, black, whatever--the fact is that it exists and all those outside it are not black. Melanesians are not black as such because they don't fit. Neither do groups like Sri Lankans, who are roughly related to Aborigines. Have a nice day bruh.

 

[Huey Shootin]

Tip is making bread off that bytch. It is what it is.

So that excuses his obvious ignorance of the racism that runs through Australian society? He really tried to draw an analogy between the racism blacks people face on a daily basis and the response from black people to this wack culture vulturing white chick from down under? This clown really said racism isn't in her DNA because she's from Australia.

 

[Huey Shootin]

Yes it's a democracy with human rights

Australia is a developed country and like most them there's racism and certain groups that generally are stuck in a wack socioeconomic situation. Like Afro Americans it's mostly due to historical/systemic racism that's hard to solve.

Afro Americans...

 

[duckbutta]

"Racism is an American thing"

This is the single dumbest thing I've seen in quite awhile

 

[up in here]

I already replied to your concerns that many classifications are social and that does not make those classifications invalid. The seperation between blacks and other groups is no less a social construct than the construct we use to separate mice and frogs. The only question is whether the seperation is significant, not whether it exists. You say that the seperation between blacks and Melanesians is not significant or does not matter, but in that case any brown-skinned person under oppressive conditions is black. That doesn't make any sense so your argument fails. It does not matter if some dumb foreign cac believes Sri Lankans are black.



There is no credible geneticist who alleges such. Australoids are more related to other groups like Asians before nikkas, have different haplogroups and fit into different clines. Geneticists know this fact and so any credible genecitist wouldn't argue against evidence.




This is the scientific norm today, as I previously stated.



There are "black" cline and gene groups which blacks have and fit into. It doesn't matter what this cline is called--African, black, whatever--the fact is that it exists and all those outside it are not black. Melanesians are not black as such. Neither are Sri Lankans, who are related to Aborigines. Have a nice day bruh.

but you keep jumping back and forward between scientific and social definitions of race which are not the same.

There is no "Black race" scientifically. There is a "Negroid race" and an "Australoid race". Scientifically, neither "race" is defined as "the Black race" even though black skin is a defining characteristic of both "races". Both of these races socially have been defined as Black. I never said any brown skinned people under oppressive conditions is Black, I said Aborigines specifically have been historically defined and socialized as a Black people.

Geneticist don't classify Australoids as close to Asians. "Asians" isn't even a scientifically defined racial group, it is another social defined term. "Mongoloids" is the "race" that dominates Asia and Australoids and Mongoloids are not closely related, though some SE Asians do seem to have traits of both.

There is no "Black" cline, because "Black" is not scientific, it is social. There may be a "Negroid" cline, but "Negroid" is not the only race that has been socialized as "Black".

It can get confusing because socially defined terms like "Black", "White" "Asian" are often used in place of scientific terms such as "Negroid", "Australoid" "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". Im not saying Aborigines are African, or that "Australoids" are "Negroids", im simply saying both are "Black" by social definition, neither are "Black" by scientific definition.

 

[eastside313]

- The Coli because riding with a person who is making you richer is being lost

This will make you lost. This is the equivalent of how Hollywood always want to put the black man in a dress.

 

[eastside313]

Actually she's not signed to GH and has no contractual obligations but she says she's still apart of it

www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.23681/title.iggy-azalea-signs-to-island-records-says-she-s-still-affiliated-with-grand-hustle-

I don't think TIP gets any money off her bruh unless he ghost writes

In her last breakfast club interview she said she has a publishing deal with grand hustle.

 

[godkiller]

but you keep jumping back and forward between scientific and social definitions of race which are not the same.

Social definitions depend on where you live, meaning they are subjective, but scientific definitions last forever or until they are disproved or replaced. The world doesn't think Australian Aborigines are anything but Australian Aborigine. That is why they are called such. Similarly hindis are called hindis, doesn't matter if some dumb cac thinks otherwise.

There is no "Black race" scientifically. There is a "Negroid race" and an "Australoid race". Scientifically, neither "race" is defined as "the Black race" even though black skin is a defining characteristic of both "races". Both of these races socially have been defined as Black. I never said any brown skinned people under oppressive conditions is Black, I said Aborigines specifically have been historically defined and socialized as a Black people.

The black race is scientifically recognized as the african race. This is true most everywhere on the planet too. "Negroid" is an archaic anthropological term that geneticists don't even use anymore. The "Australoid" race is not part of the black race. Australoids are their own race. Given their genetic similarities to South Asians, there is no more reason an Aborigine should be called black than a Sri Lankan. It does not matter if an Australian cac calls them "black". them cacs don't know shyt

Geneticist don't classify Australoids as close to Asians. "Asians" isn't even a scientifically defined racial group, it is another social defined term. "Mongoloids" is the "race" that dominates Asia and Australoids and Mongoloids are not closely related, though some SE Asians do seem to have traits of both.

Mongoloid is an archaic anthropological term (read: not genetic taxonomy) that was used to describe East Asians. I don't use the term because that's not how geneticists seperate groups. I never said or implied that Mongoloids are closely related to Australoids. I said South Asians (a group related to seperate to East Asians) are related to Australoids.
The example I used to illustrate this point is Sri Lankan. SE Asians like Sri Lankans are closely related to Australoids and there is technically no more reason to consider Australoids black than Sri Lankans. This explanation illustrates how absurd your argument is.

There is no "Black" cline, because "Black" is not scientific, it is social. There may be a "Negroid" cline, but "Negroid" is not the only race that has been socialized as "Black".

The black cline is the african cline. Blacks are negroes and negroes are blacks. Melanesians fit into their own cline and are related to South Asians like Sri Lankans and Hindis. They are no more black than those peoples, and certainly not because some cac thinks so (read: socialization). If I go up to a Sri Lankan and call him "black", that does not make him black. they're hindis

It can get confusing because socially defined terms like "Black", "White" "Asian" are often used in place of scientific terms such as "Negroid", "Australoid" "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". Im not saying Aborigines are African, or that "Australoids" are "Negroids", im simply saying both are "Black" by social definition, neither are "Black" by scientific definition.

I'm not confused. Like I said above, the terms you're using are archaic anthropological terms, not genetic ones, and they don't even fit modern ethnic classifications. Just because you say they are "science" doesn't mean they are accurate or even in use.The black race refers to specific peoples (read: not Australoid) by scientific and social definition (by and large). I already explained the validity behind this separation, and why questioning it is the same as questioning the separation between mice and frogs. It cannot be that an Australoid is black and the brown-skinned SE relations are not. Either both are and none are, and obviously the answer is that none are, which is why science says they aren't. There is a specific place for Australoids in genetics and a specific place for blacks. If the two were equal, researchers wouldn't class them apart and say they are two different races

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

fukkin clown ass nikka.

 

[DaveyDave]

Social definitions depend on where you live, meaning they are subjective, but scientific definitions last forever or until they are disproved or replaced. The world doesn't think Australian Aborigines are anything but Australian Aborigine. That is why they are called such. Similarly hindis are called hindis, doesn't matter if some dumb cac thinks otherwise.



The black race is scientifically recognized as the african race. This is true most everywhere on the planet too. "Negroid" is an archaic anthropological term that geneticists don't even use anymore. The "Australoid" race is not part of the black race. Australoids are their own race. Given their genetic similarities to South Asians, there is no more reason an Aborigine should be called black than a Sri Lankan. It does not matter if an Australian cac calls them "black". them cacs don't know shyt



Mongoloid is an archaic anthropological term (read: not genetic taxonomy) that was used to describe East Asians. I don't use the term because that's not how geneticists seperate groups. I never said or implied that Mongoloids are closely related to Australoids. I said South Asians (a group related to seperate to East Asians) are related to Australoids.
The example I used to illustrate this point is Sri Lankan. SE Asians like Sri Lankans are closely related to Australoids and there is technically no more reason to consider Australoids black than Sri Lankans. This explanation illustrates how absurd your argument is.





The black cline is the african cline. Blacks are negroes and negroes are blacks. Melanesians fit into their own cline and are related to South Asians like Sri Lankans and Hindis. They are no more black than those peoples, and certainly not because some cac thinks so (read: socialization). If I go up to a Sri Lankan and call him "black", that does not make him black. they're hindis



I'm not confused. Like I said above, the terms you're using are archaic anthropological terms, not genetic ones, and they don't even fit modern ethnic classifications. Just because you say they are "science" doesn't mean they are accurate or even in use.The black race refers to specific peoples (read: not Australoid) by scientific and social definition (by and large). I already explained the validity behind this separation, and why questioning it is the same as questioning the separation between mice and frogs. It cannot be that an Australoid is black and the brown-skinned SE relations are not. Either both are and none are, and obviously the answer is that none are, which is why science says they aren't. There is a specific place for Australoids in genetics and a specific place for blacks. If the two were equal, researchers wouldn't class them apart and say they are two different races

We're not talking about a bunch of sciences and the specific clines and classes aborigines and Africans fit into we're talking about how the general racist Australian refers to aborigines and that is to call them black. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if that same person called a dark skinned Indian or Sri Lankan black as well. The only difference is they choose curry muncher because of the connotation with the Indian. PNG is Asia/Australasia as well but they would call them chinks they would call them black. We're talking about dumb ass retard racists here not scientific terms.

 

[up in here]

Social definitions depend on where you live, meaning they are subjective, but scientific definitions last forever or until they are disproved or replaced. The world doesn't think Australian Aborigines are anything but Australian Aborigine.



The black race is scientifically recognized as the African race. This is true most everywhere on the planet too. "Negroid" is an archaic anthropological term that geneticists don't even use anymore. The "Australoid" race is not part of the black race. Australoids are their own race. Given their genetic similarities to South Asians, there is no more reason an Aborigine should be called black than a Sri Lankan. It does not matter if an Australian cac calls them "black". Australians do not know anything



Mongoloid is an archaic anthropological term (read: not genetic taxonomy) that was used to describe East Asians. I don't use the term because that's not how geneticists seperate groups. I never said or implied that Mongoloids are closely related to Australoids. I said South Asians (a group related to seperate to East Asians) are related to Australoids.
The example I used to illustrate this point is Sri Lankan. SE Asians like Sri Lankans are closely related to Australoids and there is technically no more reason to consider Australoids black than Sri Lankans. This explanation illustrates how absurd your argument is.





The black cline is the African cline. Blacks are negroes and negroes are blacks. Melanesians fit into their own cline and are related to South Asians like Sri Lankans and Hindis. They are no more black than those peoples, and certainly not because some cac thinks so (read: socialization). If I go up to a Sri Lankan and call him "black", that does not make him black.



I'm not confused. Like I said above, the terms you're using are archaic anthropological terms, not genetic ones, and they don't even fit modern ethnic classifications. Just because you say they are "science" doesn't mean they are accurate or even in use.The black race refers to specific peoples (read: not Australoid) by scientific and social definition (by and large). I already explained the validity behind this separation, and why questioning it is the same as questioning the separation between mice and frogs. It cannot be that an Australoid is black and the brown-skinned SE relations are not. Either both are and none are, and obviously the answer is that none are, which is why science says they aren't. There is a specific place for Australoids in genetics and a specific place for blacks.

Your right about those terms being archaic but those are the biological terms still used when classifying people within the 4 main "races". and of course they dont fit modern ethnic classifications, because ethnicity and "race" are not the same thing. i personally dont use those terms at all, I am simply using it in this case in response to your claims that there is a scientifically defined "Black race", which is not the case. There simply is not. "Black" as a definition when applied to a people is absolutely social and relies upon social context, history, ancestry and skin tone. Thats it. Geneticist dont use the term "Black race" as a scientific definition, because it is a social definition.

As far as Sri-Lankans and Aborigines, there have a separation of at least 40,000 years, that is why the history and social context of both groups is so different. That is also why Aborigines are socially identified and self-identify as "Black" where Sri-Lankans are seen as "Brown", because "Black" is socially constructed.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So that excuses his obvious ignorance of the racism that runs through Australian society? He really tried to draw an analogy between the racism blacks people face on a daily basis and the response from black people to this wack culture vulturing white chick from down under? This clown really said racism isn't in her DNA because she's from Australia.

I didn't say it excuses anything.