Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 21:38 Post subject: Re: continuation
fwsweet wrote:
I discount Jaime's and Triguy's ad hominem claims of AD's motives, their irrelevant assertions that she wrote this or that in some venue other than the thread under discussion, and their semantic quibbling over her text (Majority versus plurality, indeed, Sheesh! use a dictionary, people.).
I quoted a dictionary, maybe it is time to look for you to look at more than one definition. And no Ad Hominem. I attached her claims specifically. But I see how you ignore her ad hominems. So address these claims
Powell wrote:
I've pointed out that this country has a history of people with NO European ancestry calling themselves "white."Think of Mexican-Americans who are racially American Indian.
Evidence "racially" Native American Mexicans call themselves White.
Powell wrote:
Salsasin is quick to defend the "choice" (which they never claimed to have until their lies were challenged) of people who claim to be "black" with with only a minority of that dreaded sub-Saharan DNA.
Evidence of this
Powell wrote:
Hell, Latinos in the U.S. have a history of getting themselves classified as "white" or "Spanish" even if they have little or no European ancestry.
Evidence of the White part of the claim.
Powell wrote:
Of course, people like Salsassin harass people over alleged "hatred" of said ancestry.
Evidence of this.
Powell wrote:
Come on! The guy is pushing to preserve the ODR for ANGLOS only.
Evidence of this
Powell wrote:
Salsassin simply likes to contradict anything I say.
Evidence for this.
Powell wrote:
If I say that 54% is greater than 46% in any math class, he says otherwise.
Evidence I made a claim 46% is greater than 54%
Powell wrote:
Salsassin is motivated by hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry.
Evidence for this
Powell wrote:
He's not important to me and I have a life. Salsassin spends so much time on the computer posting messages that I doubt he has one.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 21:44 Post subject: Re: continuation
Salsassin wrote:
But I see how you ignore her ad hominems.
Yes. Just as I ignored yours. That was precisely my point above. If you want to debate "he-said-she-said" or "she/he started it" please take it to the appropriate thread in site management. This thread is for Felton and related issues.
Posted: Thu 25 Jan 2007 23:59 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
fwsweet wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Encouraging though it is that the more intelligent members of these movements are resigned to dealing with reality
On a similar note, I have read articles by the LDS staff of the Mormon genealogical database, that one of the pressures that led the LDS to accept A-A's into the priesthood was the incontrovertible evidence uncovered in the database that so many eminent White LDS members have distant A-A ancestry. It takes many generations for new factual knowledge to percolate down to the lower rungs of the education ladder, but eventually it does get there despite ideological attempts to suppress such knowledge.
I heard that the LDS changed it's mind shortly after Bob Jones University lost federal funding in the early 1970s. Reportedly, the LDS feared loss of funding for the institutions, like BYU. I've also heard that the LDS changed it's opinions because as they tried to spread the Church into Brazil, their belief in the ODR ran into serious trouble.
Well I've heard a gazzilion reasons for why LDS change policy of blacks and priesthood. That has nothing to do with me being LDS I swear .
The one I put the least emphasis is political pressure. Most of the political pressure had ebbed by then, with the worse happening early to mid seventies. That wasn't a big issue by then and politically speaking, the decision came out of the blue.
Better external reasons: The large number of unofficial saints in Africa and what triguy mentioned about Brazillian saints and their multiracial background.
Bob Jones I've never even heard as a possibility.
My thoughts: Well it had been on the table seriously since the 1950's. I think it was simply the right time for us, not only externally but also internally. The hearts of the people and what not. Think about it this way, when I hear about the civil rights, around the great triumph that it was for minorities I also hear about the great resistence that came with it. There wasn't that sort of thing happening in LDS circles, the change was met overwhelmingly with joy, and today I find the attitudes of the LDS in concern of race largely positive (not to say that we're a perfect bunch or anything...but it's good).
It was my understanding that the LDS changed its views on blacks because they could no longer justify excluding blacks from membership (or is it just the priesthood?) and their continued missionary work in non-white parts of the world.
Bob Jones University on the other hand, had bans on interracial relationships up to the late 90s I believe. So I doubt that was an influence. The institution argues, correctly IMO, that these bans don't discriminate against any one group of people because they bar individuals from any racial group from dating a member of another racial group. In essence, according to the institution, the ban discriminates against all racial groups equally. Of course it discriminates against individuals who wish to date outside their racial group, but that's not the school's concern apparently.
Bob Jones University on the other hand, had bans on interracial relationships up to the late 90s I believe. So I doubt that was an influence. The institution argues, correctly IMO, that these bans don't discriminate against any one group of people because they bar individuals from any racial group from dating a member of another racial group. In essence, according to the institution, the ban discriminates against all racial groups equally. Of course it discriminates against individuals who wish to date outside their racial group, but that's not the school's concern apparently.
Do they enforce/apply the ODR? Not that I get the sense that Bob Jones University is that "racially" diverse to begin with.
It was my understanding that the LDS changed its views on blacks because they could no longer justify excluding blacks from membership (or is it just the priesthood?) and their continued missionary work in non-white parts of the world.
Just priesthood. We've had black members since the beginning (coincidentally, there wasn't a priesthood ban in the beginning either)
Quote:
Bob Jones University on the other hand, had bans on interracial relationships up to the late 90s I believe. So I doubt that was an influence. The institution argues, correctly IMO, that these bans don't discriminate against any one group of people because they bar individuals from any racial group from dating a member of another racial group. In essence, according to the institution, the ban discriminates against all racial groups equally. Of course it discriminates against individuals who wish to date outside their racial group, but that's not the school's concern apparently.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a controversy about them wanting to get parent's permission or a letter stating that they were aware their child was in an interracial relationship fairly recently? Maybe my memory is failing me again.
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 08:16 Post subject: Mormons and racial mixture
Quote:
Ultimately, the church's worldwide missionary program had been hindered by the problem of sorting out the racial background of prospective members, particularly in countries such as Brazil, where race mixing has been common.
American Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power by Robert Gottleib and Peter Wiley. G.P. Putnam's Sons. 1984.
P. 177
Posted: Mon 29 Jan 2007 09:40 Post subject: ODR Support among blacks or whites
Frank said:
Quote:
In sum, I do not agree with AD that more Blacks than Whites support the ODR, because I have seen no raw data showing this. (I admit that I am probably the only race-scholar on the planet who feels this way.) And I do not agree with AD that Black suppprt of the ODR is related to "racial purity," or "dread of black blood," but suggest that it is merely an ethnic border patrol strategy just like every other socio-political ethnicity.
I doubt if a scholar could get funded to study this issue of ODR support in the two populations. The conclusion about black support of the ODR is based on:
1)The opposition of black political and intellectual elites to the multiracial movement and any kind of "mixed race" identity. The NAACP led the charge against that.
2) Black elite support for condemnation of alleged "passing" (Anatole Broyard, etc.). "Whites" in the mainstream who support the ODR or rave against "passing" tend to be liberals (i.e., Phillip Roth and "The Human Stain" as well as Miramax, the company that produced the movie).
3) Years of reading the writings of others on this subject - both academic and popular. Very few blacks DON'T endorse the ODR, and the whites who do cite the approval of the blacks and claim to be against racism.
Quote:
And I do not agree with AD that Black suppprt of the ODR is related to "racial purity," or "dread of black blood," but suggest that it is merely an ethnic border patrol strategy just like every other socio-political ethnicity.
No, I haven't said that blacks believe in literal racial purity as some white supremacists do. Many "blacks" who are physically mulatto or from mulatto elite families have been taught that "whites" are the enemy. As I've said before, "white" genes can be prized but "whites" as a group are hated and feared. Remember the "White Girl" column in the Washington Post in which one of their black-identified mulatto reporters had a hissy fit because her cousin identified as white?
I've also said that there is a strong sexual element to black support of the ODR. I hope that Charles Michael Byrd will one day put all the letters and debates from "Interracial Voice" in a book. You will see that the arguments of the black-identified readers often focus on sex ("You think you're too good for blacks; white mates will reject you; I hope you have a black baby"). In Otis Graham's book on "black" elites, he claims that the only reason to "pass" or embrace a white identity is to have a romantic relationship with a supposedly pure white who wouldn't want the inferior tar-brushed mate if they knew. They attempt to convince people they're really "black" by attacking the rebels' self -esteem ("You're ugly, black-looking, your white mate is ugly, your child is ugly, etc.).
William Javier Nelson once remarked that he was amazed at how the advocates for a black identity could never come up with a POSITIVE reason to be "black." It was always some version of "the evil white racists won't want you or your inferiority will be found out."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a controversy about them wanting to get parent's permission or a letter stating that they were aware their child was in an interracial relationship fairly recently? Maybe my memory is failing me again.
Perhaps, though similar kinds of schools have similar restrictions on interracial realtionships, so the written consent thing may be in effect at Bob Jones University. I believe one of the universities Jerry Falwell is associated with will only allow interracial dating if the parents of the two students consent to it in writing. Personally, I have no problem with this. I just have a problem with these kinds of schools getting my tax dollars, if they are in any way.
Posted: Tue 06 Feb 2007 03:45 Post subject: Re: Salsassin
Still not addressed
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
Add 41 and 13. Felton has 54% non-sub-Saharan DNA.
Fact:
I stated :
Salsassin wrote:
So he was even less European in ancestry than he was African.
No conclusion, just a statement. It was an irony that he claimed one side and hated the rest when genetically it seems that was not his predominant side.
Powell wrote:
I've pointed out that this country has a history of people with NO European ancestry calling themselves "white."
Per the rules. please show where someone with only Native American and African ancestry claiming White. I have yet to see such a person.
if not this claim is a strawman as WHite does not only include Europeans.
Powell wrote:
Think of Mexican-Americans who are racially American Indian.
I have yet to meet a Mexican who is not at least mestizo with European phenotypes consider himself Blanco.
Powell wrote:
Think of Asian Indians.
Asian Americans do not go calling themselves White. Some Eurasians do.
Powell wrote:
There is a double standard.
No, what there is, is a strawman.
Fact: After I declared he was predominantly African (in a comparison to Native and European ancestry) Powell stated, in obvious imitation of my post:
Powell wrote:
So 54% of his DNA was not of African origin.
Which did not change the fact that, of the three ancestries, African was predominant.
Fact: It was Powell who tried making it an African vs. Non-African issue.
Fact: I stated:
Salsassin wrote:
But he choose a European identity, not a mixed one And his African ancestry was more than his European identity.
The Non African Ancestry was mixed in majority and European in minority.
My statement, again, was a matter of fact.
Powell then stated:
Powell wrote:
Sorry, but 46% is NOT a majority!
I have already shown, that of the three alternatives it was.
Fact, Powell then presents a strawman
Powell wrote:
Felton's European identification in and of itself is fine.
At no point did I ever say it wasn't. Although I will say it would be. As being White is quite different than being European. Felton was never European. That is a fact.
Powell wrote:
Salsasin is quick to defend the "choice" (which they never claimed to have until their lies were challenged) of people who claim to be "black" with with only a minority of that dreaded sub-Saharan DNA.
Fact. This is a violation of the rules and inaccurate. She attributes actions that she does not back up. I have never defended the choice of any person with any DREADED Sub-Saharan DNA. I have never defended anyono that had lies challenged. So it is up to Powell to show this accusation to be true.
Powell wrote:
Hell, Latinos in the U.S. have a history of getting themselves classified as "white" or "Spanish" even if they have little or no European ancestry.
Another strawman and innacurate. I will wait for Powell's sources of people with little or no European ancestry classifying themselves as White in Latin America. Spanish is a nationality. You can have all your DNA point to Africa and still be Spanish.
Powell wrote:
Of course it is sarcastic. Of course, people like Salsassin harass people over alleged "hatred" of said ancestry.
I will await Powell's evidence that anyone has challenged her for what she claims. SHe is the one who constantly attacks people who choose to identify as Black even if it is not their predominant ancestry (even though it may be the ethnicity they were raised in.) That is a fact. If anyone wants to challenge that fact, I will gladly present quotes from other sites.
Powell wrote:
Come on! The guy is pushing to preserve the ODR for ANGLOS only.
This is a statement of fact. I will await for Powell to point out, on any site where i have defenced the ODR for ANY group.
Powell wrote:
I don't harass people over "hatred" of their white ancestry (and they are legion).
No, Powell harasses them for embracing their Black ethnic roots.
Powell wrote:
When they are media darlings, however, I will point out the fact that they tell falsehoods about choice AND no alternative views are presented.
Fact: The attacks against these people would never have been allowed if they were members of this board and, in fact, one is. David Mathews. She has stated that he is lying about his personal experience, and categorized him as one more of the ODR people on the board. That is an Ad Hominem. I disagreed with him as well, contrary to Powell's claims. But I attacked his points, not the man himself. That is a fact. Furthermore, he is not stopping anyone from presenting their own experiences, nor has anyone else. Only Powell has challenged any person's identity and made claims of beliefs of that person on these threads. The responses have been to expose the hypocrisy.
Quote:
I have pointed out many times that "white blacks" who are promoted by the media usually say that they had "no choice" but to be "black." After that falsehood, is pointed out, they whine that their "choice" is being taken from them. Were they deliberately lying before?
I will await the evidence of Powell that Danzy Senna or Davifd Mathews ever mentioned they did not have a choice but to be Black. In fact, David Mathews chose to be White for quite some time, until he felt that choice was incongruous to his self-identity. That is a fact.
Powell wrote:
Salsassin simply likes to contradict anything I say.
Fact: It was Powell who first posted a supposed rebuttal to a comment I made. Fact: there are a ton of posts of Powell's on this board which i have never challenged. In other word, this is a blatantly false claim.
Powell wrote:
If I say that 54% is greater than 46% in any math class, he says otherwise.
False claim again. I stated that 46 was greater than either 41 or 13. It was Powell who made it a point to challenge that fact by conflating the second two into one and making it into a African vs Non-African strawman.
Powell wrote:
Oh, yes. Salsassin claims that I am motivated by hatred of "blacks" no matter what I say.
Powell has a history of negative remarks against Blacks. If requested I can provide quotes for that as well.
Powell wrote:
If you think that is acceptable, let me say that Salsassin is motivated by hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry.
In the same way I can provide quotes, I request Powell present any evidence whatsoever of hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry.
Powell wrote:
I am the victim here. I don't chase Salsassin and harass him over everything he says.
Another falsehood. It is quite obvious who posted in response to whom on this thread.
Powell wrote:
He's not important to me and I have a life.
Another Ad Hominem. Yet no evidence presented that she has such a life. or that I don't.
Powell wrote:
Salsassin spends so much time on the computer posting messages that I doubt he has one.
Again, another value judgment. Another Ad Hominem. The difference is that I can back up my claims. Can Powell back up hers?
Perhaps, though similar kinds of schools have similar restrictions on interracial realtionships, so the written consent thing may be in effect at Bob Jones University. I believe one of the universities Jerry Falwell is associated with will only allow interracial dating if the parents of the two students consent to it in writing. Personally, I have no problem with this. I just have a problem with these kinds of schools getting my tax dollars, if they are in any way.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
.