Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 13:42 Post subject: Dragon Horse complaints about TheMulattoKid
Frank:
Mulattokid has made the following statements or implications:
1) The majority of blacks act lower class.
However he has said he has met no other blacks besides lower class blacks. When in reality the majority of blacks in this country are middle class and higher. So he admitted he does not know what he is talking about and making broad generalizations about 39 million people based on his bias sample of poor black people.
2) He has said implied quite strongly that black people are discriminated against because they don't act indistinguishable from white people, which you know is historically false, it has never mattered how one acts.
The implication of this is clear, black people deserve discrimination because they act differently. He backtracked but his logic is pretty clear even to an idiot.
3) He has then stated that black people are not seen as real American, but ever other minority group is seen as part of America, which he says is "white America". That is funny to me as if you go to Yellowworld.com or Modelminority.com Asian Americans constantly complain about being treated as and assumed to be foreign, even having their patriotism questioned.
Also there are many arguments as you know that even Hispanic Americans are not assimilated as previous generations of immigrants and therefore we should stop rapid immigrations from Latin America, Samuel Huntington has been talking about this for a decade and it is a common topic on conservative talk radio, and many blogs. If they were considered "mainstream America" white men (most of the people who say these things) would not be saying them.
I don't know any black people who this happens to routinely, do you?
4) He has said quite clearly that he does not want to be considered black, not due to him feeling he has a right to self identity for the sake of it. He has said clearly that he objects to being grouped with blacks because they are discriminated against (which he implied they deserve due to their behavior and the fact they are 'ridiculous' as he called 'black America") then went on to say he "logically" should not be grouped with blacks and subject to anti-black discrimination because he considers himself part of white America but often whites don't see it that way.
This is pretty clear, it does not take a lot of abstract reasoning to understand these statements.
Why is he allowed to continue his anti-black American tirade and his genetic self hatred issues on this site?
If he kept it personal I could care less, but he expands and projects to an entire group of people.
If I said:
1) Hispanic Americans are usually ghetto and speak Spanish and are discriminated against by whites, which is wrong, but understandable only because they don't act Nordic or Anglo enough....I don't think this would be allowed.
2) Most Hispanics are lower class or act lower class, and I have never met a middle or upperclass Hispanic America...uhm I doubt this would be allowed.
3) If I said that Hispanic Americans are not "real Americans" and just thought of as "faux Americans" who are really just foreigners living in America with a passport....I don't think that would be allowed.
Then you wonder why people think this site is anti-black when you allow people to say things like this on every other post they post on? When I was a kid and I didn't understand something in the bible, because it made no logical sense, my priest would say "son, it is a mystery".
black people deserve discrimination because they don't act white enough and he does not want to be considered black because they are seen as unAmerican and discriminated against and he feels that although this is wrong (based on his comments above, this is understanstadable).
what is important is the context. We are America and those who are American who have grew up here know what is being implied and what is not based on cultural norms.
If he were European, African, whatever...even from Puerto Rico or Guam (latter two are technically American) I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 14:27 Post subject: Re: TheMulattoKid
Dragon Horse wrote:
So he admitted he does not know what he is talking about and making broad generalizations about 39 million people based on his bias sample of poor black people.
I agree. He does not know what he is talking about regarding that point and his counterfactual generalization is not based on objective findings. (Although I suspect that this is due to personal experiences rather than to a biased but seriously collected sample.) What rule does ignorance and bias violate? If none, do you propose that we should have a rule against ignorance and bias?
Dragon Horse wrote:
He has said implied quite strongly that black people are discriminated against because they don't act indistinguishable from white people, which you know is historically false, it has never mattered how one acts. The implication of this is clear, black people deserve discrimination because they act differently. He backtracked but his logic is pretty clear even to an idiot.
Yes. That Blacks are discriminated against because they do not act White is historically inaccurate. And the implication is that Blacks deserve what they get. What rules do do either historical inaccuracy or blaming victims for their own oppression violate? If none, do you propose that we should have rules against historical inaccuracy (rather than the softer current rule merely requiring sources when challenged) or blaming victims for their own oppression?
Dragon Horse wrote:
He has then stated that black people are not seen as real American, but ever other minority group is seen as part of America, which he says is "white America". That is funny to me as if you go to Yellowworld.com or Modelminority.com Asian Americans constantly complain about being treated as and assumed to be foreign, even having their patriotism questioned.
Outmarriage rates show that he is accurate, and that Yellowworld.com and Modelminority.com are inaccurate regarding the acceptance of Asian Americans into the White side of the endogamous color line. If you have a better way of measuring the mainstreeam social accptance of a minority than its members' acceptance as suitable marriage partners for Whites, please state it formally and demonstrate it. I shall help you get it published in a scholarly venue and we will both become famous and go into the textbooks.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Also there are many arguments as you know that even Hispanic Americans are not assimilated as previous generations of immigrants and therefore we should stop rapid immigrations from Latin America, Samuel Huntington has been talking about this for a decade and it is a common topic on conservative talk radio, and many blogs. If they were considered "mainstream America" white men (most of the people who say these things) would not be saying them.
Again, see above. If Hispanic/White intermarriage falls, then you will be proven correct.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't know any black people who this happens to routinely, do you?
Who what happens to?
Dragon Horse wrote:
4) He has said quite clearly that he does not want to be considered black, not due to him feeling he has a right to self identity for the sake of it. He has said clearly that he objects to being grouped with blacks because they are discriminated against (which he implied they deserve due to their behavior and the fact they are 'ridiculous' as he called 'black America") then went on to say he "logically" should not be grouped with blacks and subject to anti-black discrimination because he considers himself part of white America but often whites don't see it that way.
Surely you are not suggesting that he does not have the right to feel this way. Such a suggestion would be a flat violation of A.3.d. What exactly are you suggesting? Should we make a rule that members should not advocate any personal self-identity? Should we make a rule forbidding political advocacy anywhere in this site? Should we make a rule that multiracialsm alone may not be advocated? Help me out here. What are you proposing?
Dragon Horse wrote:
Why is he allowed to continue his anti-black American tirade and his genetic self hatred issues on this site?
Regarding his being "allowed to continue," please tell me what rule he has violated or what new rules you would like to see. Regarding your attributing to him a motivation of "genetic self-hatred," I am sorry, but you were warned that the next time you attributed motivations to another member you would be suspeded for one week. You are hereby suspended until midnight, May 20, 2007. You may continue posting in this forum, however, because I seriously want your suggested rules changes.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If he kept it personal I could care less, but he expands and projects to an entire group of people.
Yes. He bashes an entire group of Americans. What rule does this violate? Are you suggesting that we add a rule allowing political advocacy but only if it does not verbally attack entire groups? Or should we add a rule that it is okay to attack political parties but no other groups? Or should we add a rule that it is okay to attack politically labeled groups (liberals, conservatives, nazis, NOI) but not ethnically labeled groups?
Dragon Horse wrote:
Hispanic Americans are usually ghetto and speak Spanish and are discriminated against by whites, which is wrong, but understandable only because they don't act Nordic or Anglo enough....I don't think this would be allowed.
You are mistaken. It would be allowed. It violates no rule.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Most Hispanics are lower class or act lower class, and I have never met a middle or upperclass Hispanic America...uhm I doubt this would be allowed.
You are mistaken. It would be allowed. It violates no rule.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If I said that Hispanic Americans are not "real Americans" and just thought of as "faux Americans" who are really just foreigners living in America with a passport....I don't think that would be allowed.
You are mistaken. It would be allowed. It violates no rule.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Mulattokid's motivations are no mystery.
I already dealt with this rules violation above.
Seriously, despite your suspension, I would very much like to hear your recommendations for improving site policies. Specifically:
* Should we have a rule against ignorance and bias?
* Should we have rules against historical inaccuracy (rather than the softer current rule merely requiring sources when challenged)?
* Should we have rules against blaming victims for their own oppression?
* Should we have a rule that members must not advocate any personal self-identity?
* Should we have a rule forbidding political advocacy anywhere in this site?
* Should we have a rule that multiracialsm alone may not be advocated?
* Should we have a rule allowing political advocacy but only if it does not verbally attack entire groups?
* Should we have a rule that it is okay to attack political parties but no other groups?
* Should we have a rule that it is okay to attack politically labeled groups (liberals, conservatives, nazis, NOI) but not ethnically labeled groups?
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 14 May 2007 14:39; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 14:47 Post subject: Re: TheMulattoKid
Dragon Horse Mon 14 May 2007 14:38 wrote:
Why am I suspended?
fwsweet Mon 14 May 2007 04:02 wrote:
Ad hominem. Straw man. Attributing motives. Three violations in one message. Since I merely said "back off" at DH's recent ad hominem towards Patience, and I did not make it a formal warning, I cannot now suspend DH on the spot. But this one is a formal warning. Anything from DH that even looks like straw man, an ad hominem, or attributing motives to another member within the next week will result in DH's immediate suspension for one week.
fwsweet Mon 14 May 2007 14:27 wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Why is he allowed to continue his anti-black American tirade and his genetic self hatred issues on this site?
Regarding his being "allowed to continue," please tell me what rule he has violated or what new rules you would like to see. Regarding your attributing to him a motivation of "genetic self-hatred," I am sorry, but you were warned that the next time you attributed motivations to another member you would be suspeded for one week. You are hereby suspended until midnight, May 20, 2007. You may continue posting in this forum, however, because I seriously want your suggested rules changes.
I don't think victims should be blamed for how others oppress them. If that's not in the rules it should be. Is there a reason it isn't?
No reason at all. We just never thought of it. One of the funny things about rule-making is that you leave out a lot of stuff because you think that nobody in his right mind would do that. But then someone does, and you add another rule. We would want to craft such a rule precisely, of course. The excuse most often given by a mugger when he is arrested is "I mugged the guy because I have been victmized by society since childhood. By arresting me you are blaming the victim." But I think we can come up with something that could be made to work.
Joined: 10 May 2007 {Posts: 138 } Location: Oklahoma City
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 15:30 Post subject:
Oh, gawd, do I know about that. I'm trying to run a writing group right now--one person cannot seem to be able to read the rules (hello? writer?), the other seems to try his best to circumvent them through loopholes.
You have my respect for running this site so well.
I am obviously a very controversial poster. Allow me to defend myself. This is in response to what DH had to say about me.
Quote:
However he has said he has met no other blacks besides lower class blacks.
This is a lie. I never said this. I said my exposure to upper-class and middle class blacks was limited. I am however, quite aware of their existence.
Quote:
When in reality the majority of blacks in this country are middle class and higher.
I read once that half were, but cannot find the source. Please prove this.
Quote:
He has said implied quite strongly that black people are discriminated against because they don't act indistinguishable from white people, which you know is historically false, it has never mattered how one acts.
No you are mistaken. Black people are infact discriminated against because of their behavior, or because of the attitudes others form about them because of their behavior. However, this is not the original or primary reason for the descrimination they face. As we both know, the root of anti-black discrimination is white supremacist racism.
Quote:
The implication of this is clear, black people deserve discrimination because they act differently. He backtracked but his logic is pretty clear even to an idiot.
Nice strawman. Only the blacks who act differently deserve to be descriminated against, and in this case the descrimination I am talking about is not synonymous with race-based white supremacy, and is on the individual, not the group level. This also applies to other ethnic groups.
Quote:
He has then stated that black people are not seen as real American, but ever other minority group is seen as part of America, which he says is "white America".
Blacks are not seen as true Americans, they are seen as Black Americans. And I never said other ethnic minority groups were seen as integral parts of America, this is a lie. I suggested that they are more included and allowed much greater integration into "white" America.
Quote:
He has said quite clearly that he does not want to be considered black, not due to him feeling he has a right to self identity for the sake of it.
This is a lie. I never said that. I have allways maintained the intrinsic right of anyone to self-identify the way they please since I began posting again. However, being honest, unlike many people I know around here, I have no problem making my motivations transparent.
Quote:
He has said clearly that he objects to being grouped with blacks because they are discriminated against (which he implied they deserve due to their behavior and the fact they are 'ridiculous' as he called 'black America") then went on to say he "logically" should not be grouped with blacks and subject to anti-black discrimination because he considers himself part of white America but often whites don't see it that way.
I do object to being grouped with blacks because they are discriminated against. No amount of double talk from you will ever make this illigitimate.
Lies, I did not say that blacks deserve this because they are "ridiculous". I said that the existence of black america as a concept and reality, is ridiculous.
Logically I can prove 12 ways from sunday that I am not black, yes.
I dont think anyone should be subject to anti-black descrimination based on ones appearance or "genetic heritage". Please stop lying about me.
Quote:
Why is he allowed to continue his anti-black American tirade and his genetic self hatred issues on this site?
Why are you allowed to continue your obviously anti-mixed tirade on this website? And to set things straight, I am not anit-black, I am anti-black america. As for genetic self-hatred, you must be joking. I like my genes just fine the way they are. Is that what our discussions are about, genes derived from populations which are black? I thought we were discussing racial and social politics......we were, right?
Frank, it is obvious where my friend DH is coming from. However, I will not be so rude as to similarly "expose" his intentions to the entire board.
It is not fair to silence my opinions because they are obviously directed against black americans, when DH and others can direct their opinions agains mixed americans. This is a case of special pleading and it is utterly fallicious.
By the way, in my previous experience, afrocentrists typically attack their opponents personaly in an effort to shut up them up, as they have failed to debunk their arguments properly. I wonder....I wonder....well, I wont say.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 14 May 2007 23:58 Post subject:
Quote:
I am sorry, but you were warned that the next time you attributed motivations to another member you would be suspeded for one week. You are hereby suspended until midnight, May 20, 2007. You may continue posting in this forum, however, because I seriously want your suggested rules changes.
And you wonder why this site attracts only certain people?
I don't know about Mulattokids arrogance but it takes a hell of a nerve to ban someone who contributes legitimately to the board over "attributing motive" to a self hating, racist troll and then turn around and ask me for help in writing your rules? Wow, is that called Machismo Maximus?
Check out the post directly previous to this one. The end says it all.
Frank you have got to be joking. You allow some troll to play obvious games (obvious to anyone with the meanest intelligence and base level of knowledge about American cultural norms), and use this site as a sounding board to air his self esteem issues and anti-black rhetoric on the site; trashing a race of people and you have to be liturgists about taking action as if that excuses you from needing to have common sense, decency, and morality? Apathy says more than actions in most cases.
I can't even discuss this in a section dedicated to management issues without being banned for it.
It is pretty obvious, at least to me there is a difference between stating something like, "black people have a high rate of criminality, as 1/4 of all black men have been in the justice system, or black people have a high rate of poverty, etc" These are statements of facts that can easily be backed up, if people don't like them, so what...
If someone says all black people are ghetto and criminals, all blacks do this..blah blah blah...and constantly imply negative things about a group of people, based on personal bias, things that everyone knows is false and can even be proven false. Uhm...if you don't see a difference I can't help you.
It is your world. You pay the bandwidth.
You are an elder, you don't need a 30 year old help making rules. If you don't "get it" by now then whatever I say will be meaningless.
Please delete my account, I have had enough of this, as I said before I don't need to post here, and frankly I don't want to any longer.
You will continue to have lurkers who don't become posters, and loose posters, especially black ones as long as you behave like this. You can have a good discussion, debate, etc without having to leave the gate open for people such as this to defame entire groups of people based on lies, on a site supposedly dedicated to tackling American racial issues. You actually think that is conducive to well rounded conversation that will attract a wide demographic? Keep dreaming.
It really is inexcusable and reflects poorly on the site and that is why you have the posting demographics you do and you will continue to have them.
Overt racist provocation on a site that is dedicated to the discussion of race issues will obviously be sensitive and insight all manners of chaos. You coddling it is a step beyond ignorance, right into lunacy. There are ways to discuss such things without allowing such nonsense...
I don't know about Mulattokids arrogance but it takes a hell of a nerve to ban someone who contributes legitimately to the board over "attributing motive" to a self hating, racist troll...
Arrogance is empowering yourself to be the race police of our society. Allow me to take away your badge, you won't be needing it any longer. Self-hating is being so vulnerable to the accusations of another about your identity group that you attempt to silence them rather than debate. Racism is defining racial categories in ways which ehance your own personal power despite logical reasoning or evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
Check out the post directly previous to this one. The end says it all.
So what. I dont apologize. Unlike some people I dont have to lie either.
Quote:
Frank you have got to be joking. You allow some troll to play obvious games...and use this site as a sounding board to air his self esteem issues and anti-black rhetoric on the site..."
So are you suggesting that it would be okay for you to deal with your self-esteem issues on this site, but not me? Oh, thats right, you dont have any, forgive me, I forgot. I am not playing games, I am very serious. My posts are hardly as rhetorical as yours and you were using this site the same way I was. Another attempt to silence me - and this is a debate board? But not matter, I am done dumping my issues on this site.
Quote:
If someone says all black people are ghetto and criminals, all blacks do this..blah blah blah...and constantly imply negative things about a group of people, based on personal bias, things that everyone knows is false and can even be proven false.
Who was saying these things? Please direct me to that person so I can participate in correcting their slanderous and stereotypical accusations.
Quote:
You can have a good discussion, debate, etc without having to leave the gate open for people such as this to defame entire groups of people based on lies, on a site supposedly dedicated to tackling American racial issues.
Its not defamation if I am telling the truth, now is it.
Quote:
Overt racist provocation on a site that is dedicated to the discussion of race issues will obviously be sensitive and insight all manners of chaos. You coddling it is a step beyond ignorance, right into lunacy. There are ways to discuss such things without allowing such nonsense...
Yea thats right, lets only allow ideas which are anti-mixed identity, pro black america, and god knows what other kind of thinly disguised afrocentric nonesense. And you know what DH, i don't think you even know what overt racist provocation is. Here is a good site for you to check out, I think it will help make things....clear, stormfront.org
I don't know about Mulattokids arrogance but it takes a hell of a nerve to ban someone who contributes legitimately to the board over "attributing motive" to a self hating, racist troll and then turn around and ask me for help in writing your rules? Wow, is that called Machismo Maximus?
Overt racist provocation on a site that is dedicated to the discussion of race issues will obviously be sensitive and insight all manners of chaos. You coddling it is a step beyond ignorance, right into lunacy. There are ways to discuss such things without allowing such nonsense...
Hmmm. One person calls blacks trash, and says its the way that we are perceived by a racist system that prevents him for identifying with his PART black identity, as if racism from whites is to be celebrated rather than deplored.
Another suggests that Latin Americans not only admit to the colorism problem (as some do) but develop solutions before others (African Americans and NH Caribbeans) do.
[And in fact we are seeing with quotas in Brazil, that this is already beginning to happen, obviously a misunderstanding of remedies adopted in the USA. Quotas being totally inappropriate considering the greater degree of flexibility of racial classifications in Brazil, vs. the USA. ]
The latter gets banned. The former isnt even reprimanded for makiing statements that most will consider racist, and in fact are what one can expect from the Storm Front site.
Hmmm. One person calls blacks trash, and says its the way that we are perceived by a racist system that prevents him for identifying with his PART black identity, as if racism from whites is to be celebrated rather than deplored. Another suggests that Latin Americans not only admit to the colorism problem (as some do) but develop solutions before others (African Americans and NH Caribbeans) do. And in fact we are seeing with quotas in Brazil, that this is alreday beginning to happen.
The latter gets banned. The former isnt even reprimanded for makiing statements that most will consider racist, and in fact are what one can expect from the Storm Front site.
It makes people wonder about this site.
Do you have a suggestion to make? If so, make it. If not, stop posting here.
Hmmm. One person calls blacks trash, and says its the way that we are perceived by a racist system that prevents him for identifying with his PART black identity, as if racism from whites is to be celebrated rather than deplored. Another suggests that Latin Americans not only admit to the colorism problem (as some do) but develop solutions before others (African Americans and NH Caribbeans) do. And in fact we are seeing with quotas in Brazil, that this is alreday beginning to happen.
The latter gets banned. The former isnt even reprimanded for makiing statements that most will consider racist, and in fact are what one can expect from the Storm Front site.
It makes people wonder about this site.
Do you have a suggestion to make? If so, make it. If not, stop posting here.
My suggestion is to be more even handed in how you apply your rules. Its quite clear that mulatto kid has broken many rules such as making broad statements which reflect his attitude towards blacks based on past bad experiences, and not based on an opinion arising from careful analysis. He has demanded that people respect his desire to be considered multi-racial (this as he daily insults black people hurling some of the worst stereotypes) but then shows no respect for the opinions of others.
The man even admits that he wants not to be considered part black because of how whites view and stigmatize black people. Not all of us are gangstas, thugs or anti-knowledge but one would think so reading mulattokid's rants.
You ask why this site is seen by some as being anti black. Well the kind treatment of mulattokid relative to others is the answer.
I will also say that mulatokid illustrates exactly why some are in favor of ODR. THey dont want to see yet another group of people displaying racist attitudes towards them, as used to happen (and to some degreee still does) in the nonHispanic caribbean and in Lousiana.
He would serve his cause better if he used his multiracial status to EMBRACE all aspects which constitutes what he is rather than angrily stigmatizing one part of his ancestry in a manner that few whites would be apt to do in this day and age. Its a pity that no one has told him this.
My suggestion is to be more even handed in how you apply your rules. Its quite clear that mulatto kid has broken many rules such as making broad statements which reflect his attitude towards blacks based on past bad experiences. Yet he has never been asked to present evidence. He has demanded that people respect his desire to be considered multi-racial (this as he daily insults black people hurling some of the worst stereotypes) but then shows no respect for the opinions of others.
Be specific. Show the message number where TheMulattoKid violated a rule, and the paragraph number of the rule violated. You might want to check out this message, where I answered something similar from Dragon Horse. Lacking this specificity, your complaint is too vague to act upon. For more on this point, please read The Rules, paragraph A.7.
caribj wrote:
You ask why this site is seen by some as being anti black. Well the kind treatment of mulattokid relative to others is the answer.
I agree. That is the answer. Hence, I am no longer interested in why this site is seen by some as being anti black. I think that I now know the reason. See this message, where I said that as far as I was concerned, that topic is now closed. I continue to request suggestions for improving the rules and to be notified of violations. But I am no longer interested in why this site is seen by some as being anti black. We are what we are, take it or leave it.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 16 May 2007 02:53 Post subject:
Quote:
Outmarriage rates show that he is accurate, and that Yellowworld.com and Modelminority.com are inaccurate regarding the acceptance of Asian Americans into the White side of the endogamous color line. If you have a better way of measuring the mainstreeam social accptance of a minority than its members' acceptance as suitable marriage partners for Whites, please state it formally and demonstrate it. I shall help you get it published in a scholarly venue and we will both become famous and go into the textbooks.
1) The majority of black women in America are not married and will never marry (most likely) which means black people aren't marrying each other, let alone white people.
A more accurate way to look at it would be who is impregnating who? How many children are born to one black parent and one white parent. This would be much harder to research but it is more telling.
I have met several black men who have multiple children by mutiple white women and have never been married a day in their life.
2) It is not all about if white folks want to marry someone black.
There are many many black women in this country who would NEVER date a white man, let alone marry him and would laugh if one approached them. That is reality. I also know some militant black men (less so) that would never date a nonblack woman, and specifically a white woman.
SO it goes both ways. It is not like all or most blacks are pining to intermarry with whites and are rejected because whites don't see them as good partners. Many blacks don't see whites as good partners, unless this is examined we are missing something. I am 100% sure more Asian women are willing to date and marry white American men than black women are in America (as a percentage of the population), men don't tend to approach women they know they will have no chance with...most men anyway.
1) The majority of black women in America are not married ... ... men don't tend to approach women they know they will have no chance with...most men anyway.
Do you have something to say regarding site management? If so, please say it. If not, please stop posting here.
Dragon Horse wrote:
He has then stated that black people are not seen as real American, but ever other minority group is seen as part of America, which he says is "white America". That is funny to me as if you go to Yellowworld.com or Modelminority.com Asian Americans constantly complain about being treated as and assumed to be foreign, even having their patriotism questioned.
Outmarriage rates show that he is accurate, and that Yellowworld.com and Modelminority.com are inaccurate regarding the acceptance of Asian Americans into the White side of the endogamous color line. If you have a better way of measuring the mainstreeam social accptance of a minority than its members' acceptance as suitable marriage partners for Whites, please state it formally and demonstrate it. I shall help you get it published in a scholarly venue and we will both become famous and go into the textbooks.
I most certainly am correct. Afterall, I largely found evidence for this assertion of mine from this very site after reading the many essays on the endogamous colorline and its permeability throughout history.
On another note, can we stop discussing me now? I am thoroughly tired of my personal enemies using this venue as a way to assassinate my character. It is clear that I have not broken any rule. I have taken the time to inspect them and I believe I am in full compliance. I have stated my intention to get back on topic and avoid seeking out cyber-wars with blacks. I honestly believe the things I say on here. I have many more ideas to discuss which do not relate to blacks at all. However, with so many detractors floating around on here who want to tear me personally, and not my ideas, to shreds, I am getting side-tracked despite my best efforts. I really would like to stop this dynamic and participate on this site in a more scholarly and objective fashion.
Kid
P.S., kid kicks your ass so dont bother coming after me. Thanks.
Last edited by ImBack on Wed 16 May 2007 19:19; edited 1 time in total
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
