Posted: Tue 05 Jul 2005 11:32 Post subject: Re: PEOPLE OF COLOR... ONCE AGAIN
oevega wrote:
One has to be a "gringo" to invent such a stupid classification. I guess you are a "gringo", anyways ... What you believe you are, "gringo"? Do you believe you are God? Or the master that classify slaves? ... Maybe not. Perhap you are a "person of color". Aren't you?
Omar, such direct crticism of another member's person (as opposed to their words) is a violation of Posting Rules, paragraphs A.3.a-A.3.c. Please stick to criticising written words, do not address another member in second person when you are criticising their words, and do not attribute "racial" or "ethnic" identity to another member without their consent. Thanks.
On the issue at hand, Stephanie had already agreed that "people of color" was a poor way to characterize Yeagley's targets and that "non-Christians" was probably by a better delineation. (Except, of course, for the Jews whom he accepts.) Yeagley strikes me as an intolerant oddball but not easily pigeonholed into one of the standard ethnocentric slots.
Regarding the modern U.S. use of the term, "people of color," it is not used as an objective descriptor, but a term merely meant to indicate solidarity. For example, when a member of a U.S. minority wishes to express solidarity with, say, Mexican-Americans, they are referred to as "people of color" (meaning one of the underprivileged minorities). U.S. Congresswoman Corinne Brown used the term thus when she blamed Chicano poverty on White society and referred to the victims as "people of color." Later, Congresswoman Brown got into an argument with Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega (a Chicano) and Congressman Lincon Diaz-Balart (an Afro-European Cuban-American). Angered, Brown said to both men, "All you White men look alike to me!"
In short, in U.S. political terminology, Chicanos, biracial Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, East Indians, indeed, anyone of some non-European heritage can be either a "person of color" or "a White man" depending on whether the speaker is indicating alliance or opposition.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 07 Jul 2005 02:35 Post subject: Re: PEOPLE OF COLOR... ONCE AGAIN
fwsweet wrote:
Omar, such direct crticism of another member's person (as opposed to their words) is a violation of Posting Rules, paragraphs A.3.a-A.3.c. Please stick to criticising written words, do not address another member in second person when you are criticising their words, and do not attribute "racial" or "ethnic" identity to another member without their consent. Thanks.
On the issue at hand, Stephanie had already agreed that "people of color" was a poor way to characterize Yeagley's targets and that "non-Christians" was probably by a better delineation. (Except, of course, for the Jews whom he accepts.) Yeagley strikes me as an intolerant oddball but not easily pigeonholed into one of the standard ethnocentric slots.
Hi Frank, Stephanie:
Sorry if I cross the limit once again. I just tried to "pull the leg" to the person that wrote about the "People of color".
I don't know but I just can't stand that famous pseudo-scientific label. It just remember me too much regimes like the "old South" and the South African appartheid, because it seem only there the term "people of color" has been used at all.
"People of color" is a description that tries to divide mankind in two groups: "whites" and "the others". "People of color" is a way to say: not-white, not Northern-European, not good enough or -in other words- to describe the "inferior races of the Earth".
No. I don't like that term at all. We should stop saying it, at least in public.
It is my oppinion. I would stop using my weird Latino's sense of humor in the future. I know we can hurt a lot with that style of answering.
I have been called gringo by the dark Mexicans when I am of pure Spanish descent. My grandparents were all from Galicia. It is insulting especially when I am hispanic, more than they will ever be. Hispanic applies to Spain the most. I have light brown hair and am fair, my father looks like the typical spaniard akin to marc anthony although puerto rican my mother looks nordic although is pure spanish. Both families come from the same region but my mothers and fathers family look different, proof that there is diversity in every country.
I have been called gringo by the dark Mexicans when I am of pure Spanish descent. My grandparents were all from Galicia.
Welcome aboard. It will be nice to have an authentic Iberian here. My maternal grandmother was from Galicia (Santiago), although her husband, my maternal grandfather, was from Asturias (Oviedo). This has always struck me as odd, since my impression has been that Asturianos and Gallegos do not usually get along.
Regarding ethnic labels, it is worth mentioning that several U.S. courts, both state and federal, have ruled that immigrants from Spain are not legally "Hispanics" under U.S. EEOC regulations. The letter of the law defines "Hispanics" as a unique "race" comprising, "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." The courts have held that these words exclude anyone from Spain.
I have been called gringo by the dark Mexicans when I am of pure Spanish descent. My grandparents were all from Galicia.
Welcome aboard. It will be nice to have an authentic Iberian here. My maternal grandmother was from Galicia (Santiago), although her husband, my maternal grandfather, was from Asturias (Oviedo). This has always struck me as odd, since my impression has been that Asturianos and Gallegos do not usually get along.
Regarding ethnic labels, it is worth mentioning that several U.S. courts, both state and federal, have ruled that immigrants from Spain are not legally "Hispanics" under U.S. EEOC regulations. The letter of the law defines "Hispanics" as a unique "race" comprising, "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race." The courts have held that these words exclude anyone from Spain.
cool! a fellow spaniard is here! my fathers family was from santiago as well! my mothers family was from vigo!
I never knew spaniards were not regarded as hispanics, there are many even pure spaniard/european people in latin america but there are also african people there but people think of latin america as meztito only. puerto rico is a unique island because the people there are really between white black and amerind.
Well, to be honest, I am not exactly a Spaniard. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, as were my parents. Although my mom's folks came over within living memory, my dad's folks have been Latin Americans for centuries: Mexicans, Colombians Chileans. In fact, my dad's family tradition traces our surname (Valiente) to a famous army officer who served under Diego de Almagro in the failed conquest of Chile in 1535-37 and under Pedro de Valdivia in the successful conquest of Chile in 1550-51. Juan Valiente was granted hidalgo status and an encomienda (a village of Native Americans to serve as hereditary forced laborers) by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Juan Valiente started life as an African slave.
spaniard wrote:
I never knew spaniards were not regarded as hispanics
Sometimes they are. U.S. political voting blocs and special interest groups are funny that way. When it is time to collect contributions and request political support, Hispanic organizations (like Black ones) are very inclusive and welcoming. But when it is time to distribute benefits and privileges, such groups are very closed and exclusive indeed.
I recall a case here in Florida about 15 years ago. The state had set up special preferences for Hispanic-owned businesses. One of the first applicants was a physician who had immigrated from Cuba. He was denied preference because, according to the state agency, "Hispanic" by definition meant people lacking college degrees. The very act of getting a college degree disqualified him from ever being Hispanic again.
Sucking at the government teat is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Like parallel situations around the world throughout history, benefits depend upon who you know -- the patronage of the powerful. Unlike parallel situations around the world throughout history, U.S. parasites delude themselves that they are well-intentioned by wreaking havoc upon language and logic.
Well, to be honest, I am not exactly a Spaniard. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, as were my parents. Although my mom's folks came over within living memory, my dad's folks have been Latin Americans for centuries: Mexicans, Colombians Chileans. In fact, my dad's family tradition traces our surname (Valiente) to a famous army officer who served under Diego de Almagro in the failed conquest of Chile in 1535-37 and under Pedro de Valdivia in the successful conquest of Chile in 1550-51. Juan Valiente was granted hidalgo status and an encomienda (a village of Native Americans to serve as hereditary forced laborers) by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Juan Valiente started life as an African slave
he rose up from being a slave to being an army officer? amazing! in order to rise up like that he must have been a valuable soldier, a good fighter. He got out of slavery and became a brave officer. The army he fought with failed but then succeeded in the conquest, continued fighting can bring a victory, failure then success can happen if there is strength and strategy. My grandfather was a spanish general, he fought against franco, against the brutal dictatorship
You have a mix of many hispanic ethnicities but are 100 percent puerto rican, is that common there?
Sometimes they are. U.S. political voting blocs and special interest groups are funny that way. When it is time to collect contributions and request political support, Hispanic organizations (like Black ones) are very inclusive and welcoming. But when it is time to distribute benefits and privileges, such groups are very closed and exclusive indeed.
[img]I recall a case here in Florida about 15 years ago. The state had set up special preferences for Hispanic-owned businesses. One of the first applicants was a physician who had immigrated from Cuba. He was denied preference because, according to the state agency, "Hispanic" by definition meant people lacking college degrees. The very act of getting a college degree disqualified him from ever being Hispanic again.
Sucking at the government teat is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Like parallel situations around the world throughout history, benefits depend upon who you know -- the patronage of the powerful. Unlike parallel situations around the world throughout history, U.S. parasites delude themselves that they are well-intentioned by wreaking havoc upon language and logic.[/img]
He was denied being Hispanic because he had a degree? That is an insult to all Hispanics, to say you must be uneducated to be be one. You are quite right about the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of these groups, they only include certain groups, people of certain ancestries when it benefits them. The fringe groups are the ones who are shifted from group to group. I have seen bad comments made about spaniards from both white nationalists and la raza. I also have seen both whites and latinos accept spaniards as their own. Spanish in this sense is a fringe group. These groups keep changing their views on who is white, who is hispanic, it is like walking on a thin line, between both races.
You have a mix of many hispanic ethnicities but are 100 percent puerto rican, is that common there?
Yes, I would say so. Not only Spanish, but Native American (Taino) and African also. I have found that nationality is more important than ancestry in all the South American countries where I have lived or worked.
Yes, I would say so. Not only Spanish, but Native American (Taino) and African also. I have found that nationality is more important than ancestry in all the South American countries where I have lived or worked.
people say they are not black or white but cuban
all these people regardless of what they are mixed with in the different amounts still claim that nationality and there is a big connection to that
Many peoples families have been living in puerto rico for many years and it would be impossible to trace what percentage taino spaniard or african they are. But the culture of each is still there and so is the mixture, some have more european some have more taino some more african.
Ties to nationality are far more binding
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 11 Jul 2005 23:36 Post subject:
spaniard wrote:
I have been called gringo by the dark Mexicans when I am of pure Spanish descent. My grandparents were all from Galicia. It is insulting especially when I am hispanic, more than they will ever be. Hispanic applies to Spain the most. I have light brown hair and am fair, my father looks like the typical spaniard akin to marc anthony although puerto rican my mother looks nordic although is pure spanish. Both families come from the same region but my mothers and fathers family look different, proof that there is diversity in every country.
Hi "Spaniard",
Let me present myself. I am Chilean, so I may fit in the cathegory of "dark Mexican" people, Gosh!
First, let me tell you, as you might well know, that "gringo" is a friendly nick. A nickname that is not an insult at all, at least it is said together with another adjective. We say "gringo" to blond people, even to Latino blond people, so if you are blond of course you will be called "gringo".
Second, Hispanic means related to Spain. Hispanic American are, whether you like it or not, related to Spain. We have lots of ancestors in Spain. So there is not reason why we should not call ourselves "Hispanics", which is the short form of "Hispanic Americans". We never call ourselves Spaniards, though. Spaniards are you people.
Finally, I have meet lots of Spaniards in my life and I tell you, there are lots of Spaniards that are DARKER than Latin Americans. That happens because Spaniards were not the only Europeans that arrived here, there were lots of Northern European as well. They are also "Hispanics" because they share our culture which is Hispanic, not Spanish.
And Gallicians like you are blond, of course. They are Celts, like Julio Iglesias and the Irish people. However, most of the Spaniards that arrived to Latin America, and that make the majority of our peoples, were not Celts. They came from Southern Spain, from Morish Andalucia.
Finally, I tell you that the nick Spaniards apply now to us is a lot more insulting than "gringo". You people call us "Sudacas" with so much hate. Have you forgotten that millions of Spaniards received refuge in our Latin American lands, specially during the Spanish Civil War?
Regards,
Omar Vega,
Chilean, Hispanic, Latino.
Descendent of Spaniards, French, Italians and Natives. And proud of it
Hawaiians are not Indians
Another case of Indian abuse
Quote:
So, the Hawaiians want to be considered like American Indians? Is this the ultimate claim to “benefits” in the Western Hemisphere, to claim to be American Indian, if even only by supposed similar historical circumstance? You don’t really have to be Indian, or even claim to be Indian, like so many American Negroes do lately. Now you can just claim you’re similar!
Here's Yeagley's biography. I remember that he used to have something on frontpagemag.com that was apparently taken off. He talked about being ill and weak for a significant period of his life. That's probably why he boasts of being a "warrior" (James Landrith was, but David Yeagley never was) by claiming the status of Commanche warrior ancestors. Yeagley is concerned about not being perceived as masculine enough, and also has an obsession with the idea of American Indians being confused with blacks, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and other racial "inferiors" (He doesn't say that directly, but the tone is obvious). I notice also that he never speaks of his "white" father. Since Yeagley condemns people who marry outside of their "race," he would have to condemn his Indian mother (source of his supposed Commanche "pride") as well.
Bishkoko seems to imply that Indian vets were nothing but fools who got taken for a ride.
I take that rather personally. I was not able to serve myself (I tried, but failed the physical, due to a childhood illness). But I'm mighty proud of my relatives who did.
He is trying to promote the idea of American Indians as "super patriots" (a way of saying "honorary whites"):
Quote:
Part of it, I'll have to admit, is that some Indians just like fighting. We are warriors by nature. To a certain extent, one enemy is as good as another. That certainly seems to be the case in my clan.
But, more importantly, we love the land. We are close to this "American" earth. Our deepest spiritual affections are bound up with this specific landscape, this "purple mountain majesty," and that ineffably sublime American Eagle. Our bones are buried here. This is truly our home. Nobody will ever fight for this land like an Indian.
That is a big part of our value to America. We love this place more than anyone else, and always will. I think white people understand and appreciate that.
White racialist Jared Taylor of American Renaissance likes Yeagley:
Quote:
Warrior Respects His Foe
Columnist David Yeagley is professor of humanities and psychology at Oklahoma State University. He’s also a proud member of the Comanche tribe and an American patriot—he doesn’t consider the two mutually exclusive. He defends the use of Indian names for college and professional sports teams. He says this reflects respect for the fighting virtues of Indian tribes, and proudly points out that the US Army uses Indian names like Apache and Comanche for its attack helicopters.
Says Yeagley, "The white man may have taken my land. But he took it like a warrior, fair and square. Yes, he treated my people harshly. But he never denied their bravery, never besmirched their memory as warriors." He adds, "If my ancestors had been strong enough, they would have taken the white man’s land, instead of the other way around. And they wouldn’t have felt guilty about it afterwards. You wouldn’t have seen any defeated white people getting affirmative action from Comanches." [David A. Yeagley, It’s a Warrior Thing. You Wouldn’t Understand, FrontPage Magazine.com, March 7, 2001.]
The Japanese are a warrior race. They are not Judeo-Christian, by heredity or circumstance. No, that deep groaning in their soul is not an academic, or fabricated doctrine. It represents the raw anxiety of the heathen. It is grand, and mighty. It is real, not learned.
I know that among American Indian people, guilt is not something generally felt in Judeo-Christian terms (unless Indians have been nutured in this faith). In the old days, there was shame, there was a sense of actions not bringing about good. But there was not the articulated, detailed, act by act account of "sin." The person simply unerstood that his actions brought harm. This was shameful.
I feel this deep, primal disquietude in the Japanese. This thing the Prime Minister did, this is a very great thing. His words were simple, and honorable. I accept his response, and count him noble in this regard. (Maybe it's just a warrior thing.)
Yet, all the other Asians are still ticked off at Japan! Oh, they're coming on just like all the "minorities" in America. "You owe us everything! You can never pay us enough! You can never make up for it!" Perhaps this is all true. Perhaps historical wrongs can never be made right. That's what the Judgement Day is for.
In all actuality I find David Yeagley absolutely......Hilarious.
In fact if I could i'd use him for an example of a combination of personality disorders. Consider the following:
Histrionic Personality Disorder:
Needs to be the center of attention
Rapidly-shifting and shallow emotions
Exaggerates friendships
Overly-dramatic, occassionally theatrical speech
Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Requires excessive praise and admiration
Grandiose sense of self-importance
Lack of empathy
Lying, to self and others
Obsessed with fantasies of fame, power, or beauty
Of course this is just MY opinion. If one were to read, even the literature Ms. Powell contributed in her above commentary, just a little bit of David Yeagley's foolishness, one could easily come to the conclusion that Mr. Yeagley suffers from a variety of different personality disorders.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 30 Jul 2005 13:57 Post subject: American Indians' culture should be recognize by its value
Hi friends,
The guy could be nuts but he got some points on which I agree.
American Indians are a distinct people, or race if you wish. They have 400 centuries living in the Americas, and as such they deserve to be recognized as the founding people of the Western Hemisphere.
The fact that many other people want to play Indian hurt Native Americans very much, and is a constant worry for them.
Polynesian Americans, for instance, belong to a different ethnic group with another history that has its own merits. However in the Americas they are immigrants as any other ethnic group.
The case of East Asians that claim some fantasies of pre-contact influences degrades the self-respect of American Indians because they did not need external help to invent its culture. In this issue the Hindus from Indian are also in a plot to invent fantasies of ancient conquest, and they have invented the myth they introduce of corn in this lands, which is an American plant.
Whites that look for some mythical White indians of pre-contact times are also looking down on Indians, because they claim there were the whites who introduced "civilization" to the Americas. Which is false. White only brought destruction to the lands of the Native Americans.
Black afrocentrist fantasies of travels to the Olmec lands, in a time when Blacks did not hardly sail rivers, is another fantasy that hurts the pride of Native Americans. They are trying to steal the achievements of the Native Americans of Chiapas and Guatemala. A people that today are poor but that created one of the more extraordinary civilizations of the past. Olmecs were Native Americans, not Africans.
Mormons that pretends the lost Jewish tribe of Israel founded the civilizations of the American are also a menace for the pride of Native Americans. Fortunately science has almost destroyed the "rational" base of that cult.
If that were not enough, from the Boy Scouts to the New Agers, many European peoples are trying to "play Indian". They are stealing rituals and ancient traditions, using them to make false, syncretic teologies. Others claim the origins of the Ancient American civilizations on alliens from outter space. LOL.
There is also the group of Native American descendents that are not ethnical Indians. The groups of metis or half blood, for instance, the result of the mixing of Natives and Europeans, is very large in the Americas. Perhaps up to the 70% of the peoples of this Hemisphere fit in the "meti" classification. In the United States that groups is confused with both White and European population. It has been calculated that up to 6% of white Americans have Indian ancestry for instance. In Hispanic America and Brazil, metis are more common and form the majority of the Hispanic countries and an important part of the "white" population of Brazil.
Well. Although Native descendents and with the right to claim ancestry in the Ancient Americans, metis ARE NOT Native Americans. Most have an European Mentality, and have enjoyed from centuries the same status of the European. Some only remember their Europeans ancestor, and others even down play Native Americans or deny any relation with them. Denial have been the common attitude of the mixed European-Indian descendents of the Americas.
And Black Americans have also Native blood in them. In all the countries of the Americas were Black and Mulattoes populations are important, the Native American ancestry is also present. In the U.S. it is known the Black population has a 25% of European and about 4% of Native American ancestry. In the Spanish Caribbean those figures are higher. In Puerto Rico, for instance, more than 50% of the mtDNA is Native American, and 15% of Indian blood is common in those Caribbean populations.
Blacks should also be proud of their Native Americans ancestors, but like the case of Metis, they are not Indians but Indian descendents, wich is not the same.
With all these is not strange Native Americans are upset. Native Americans
deserves our respect. If we want to approach their past we should met them to learn, not to teach them our fantasies.
As a person born in the Americas I respect the Native peoples of this lands, which are also my lands. I would like to learn from them. And I hope everyone who lives here starts the same path.
Posted: Wed 12 Oct 2005 16:30 Post subject: Lies about multiracial/black beauty from both Lib and Dr. Y
srb71 wrote:
To all,
Thanks for the replies. I'm glad that those offending posts concerning Mr. Yeagley are deleted. His views proves my point about his insane obsession with blacks and multiracials instead of other ethnicities and cultures.
He's not alone. Libertyblog, a white male, thought the same things about multiracials but use subtler language to do so. More on it later.
Also, I've just found the article on black/multiracial/creole women at that website. His views are just as bad as David's. Here's the 2002 article below. I believe David copied his views on multiracial/black beauty from him.
Quote:
BLACK CHICKS: I was perusing FHM’s list of the 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2002 in search of a story—the things I do for my readers—when I noticed how white they are. According to our race-obsessed Census Bureau, over 12 percent of Americans are black, but the mostly-US readership of FHM selected only 8 black women:
#3: Halle Berry—Actress
#21: Beyoncé Knowles—Singer
#23: Tyra Banks—Model
#34: Janet Jackson—Singer
#36: Mariah Carey—Singer, Weirdo
#80: Alicia Keys—Singer
#82: Aaliyah—Singer, Corpse (alas)
#85: Samantha Mumba—Singer
Even the above list is a little misleading, because a quick visit to MixedFolks.com revealed that four of these women (Halle, Mariah, Alicia, and Samantha) are decidedly biracial, having one African and one European parent. I use the phrase decidedly biracial after having seen this article that discusses DNA testing. A study of the genetic makeup of 3,000 Americans reveals how racially mixed we really are:
Among self-identified whites in Shriver’s sample, the average black admixture is only 0.7 percent. That’s the equivalent of having among your 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents (who lived around two centuries ago), 127 whites and one black.
It appears that 70 percent of whites have no African ancestors. Among the 30 percent who do, the black admixture is around 2.3 percent, which would be like having about three black ancestors out of those 128.
In contrast, African-Americans are much more racially mixed than European-Americans. Yet, Shriver’s study shows that they are less European that was previously believed.
Earlier, cruder studies, done before direct genetic testing was feasible, suggested that African-Americans were 25 or even 30 percent white. Shriver’s project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That’s the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.
According to Shriver, only about 10 percent of African-Americans are over 50 percent white.
Of course, another way of looking at these data is that a limited amount of black ancestry is enough to make you “look black” from the standpoint of identification. The “one drop” rule may have been ugly from a social and legal perspective, but perhaps reflected a practical reality. Getting back to our list: Does the mixing of races create an exotic look that has helped these four women? Perhaps there’s a “best of both worlds” effect that helps set these women apart.
But why the shortage of black women overall? One simple explanation would be that the readership of FHM is skewed towards white men and their standards of beauty are rooted in the familiar. But maybe it’s because black women just aren’t as pretty. Consider another piece written by the author of the DNA article above, Steve Sailer, discussing why interracial marriage shortchanges black women and Asian men. He posits some universal standards of beauty that leaves black women behind because of their physiognomy:
By emphasizing how society encourages us to marry people like ourselves, sociologists miss half the picture: by definition, heterosexual attraction thrives on differences ... Opposites attract. And certain race/sex pairings seem to be more opposite than others. The force driving these skewed husband - wife proportions appears to be differences in perceived sexual attractiveness. On average, black men tend to appear slightly more and Asian men slightly less masculine than white men, while Asian women are typically seen as slightly more and black women as slightly less feminine than white women.
Sailer specifically cites height, hair length, and muscularity as disadvantages for black women—and advantages for Asian women. The only problem with this theory in our case? The list of 100 contains only two Asian women: Lucy Liu (#19) and Zhang Ziyi (#91).
Mr. Sailer's views are based upon the one-drop theory he seems not to give up. For example, his review on the 2003 movie, "Human Stain", revealed what he really think of multiracials. He thinks in racial terms and make no mistake he does sometimes thinks in essentialist terms. Libertyblog's views are influenced by Steve Sailer and, like him, is obsessed with race and racial lines. His views on biracial and black women are clear as the sky.
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Mon 17 Oct 2005 21:56 Post subject:
I read this one article on Yeagley's site where he rants about the PCness of this Cosmo (or whatever magazine) piece on varieties of hair. Apparently they depicted a white woman with an Afro and an Asian woman with curly hair and this really pissed him off. Of course this just showed his ignorance about hair that's not his own because in my personal experience, Irish, Scottish and Welsh friends had very curly hair that grew naturally into a very puffy Afro form. Likewise I have known 'pure' Asians to have curly hair. I know plenty of kinky-curly haired 'white' Europeans who used to put Dark and Lovely relaxers in their hair.
The thermal reconditioning technique started in Japan because even though to our eyes their hair looks very straight, they have slight wave and curl patterns.
Quote:
The first question that is asked when the clients hear about Japanese Hair Straightening aka Thermal Reconditioning ( which is like saying Champagne aka sparkling wine ) is "Why do the Japanese need a relaxer? They already have straight hair!" Contrary to popular belief, a high percentage of the Japanese population has wavy or kinky curl to their hair.
Granted most people don't take that much time to study hair (Yeagley) but in that case they should keep their mouths firmly shut until they know more. That's what irritates me to no end about ignorant people, they love to talk about what they do not know about.
Quote:
Black afrocentrist fantasies of travels to the Olmec lands, in a time when Blacks did not hardly sail rivers, is another fantasy that hurts the pride of Native Americans. They are trying to steal the achievements of the Native Americans of Chiapas and Guatemala. A people that today are poor but that created one of the more extraordinary civilizations of the past. Olmecs were Native Americans, not Africans.
That's a good point. I know in reading historical/archeological books over the years I have learned that many sculptures, etc. may have been created in exaggerated form to show grandness. In that case the giant Olmec heads with the large features may be an example of such.
Posted: Wed 09 Nov 2005 17:21 Post subject: Dave Yeagley's Perpetual Ignorance
Emperor Cupcake wrote:
I read this one article on Yeagley's site where he rants about the PCness of this Cosmo (or whatever magazine) piece on varieties of hair. Apparently they depicted a white woman with an Afro and an Asian woman with curly hair and this really pissed him off. Of course this just showed his ignorance about hair that's not his own because in my personal experience, Irish, Scottish and Welsh friends had very curly hair that grew naturally into a very puffy Afro form. Likewise I have known 'pure' Asians to have curly hair. I know plenty of kinky-curly haired 'white' Europeans who used to put Dark and Lovely relaxers in their hair.
The thermal reconditioning technique started in Japan because even though to our eyes their hair looks very straight, they have slight wave and curl patterns.
Quote:
The first question that is asked when the clients hear about Japanese Hair Straightening aka Thermal Reconditioning ( which is like saying Champagne aka sparkling wine ) is "Why do the Japanese need a relaxer? They already have straight hair!" Contrary to popular belief, a high percentage of the Japanese population has wavy or kinky curl to their hair.
Granted most people don't take that much time to study hair (Yeagley) but in that case they should keep their mouths firmly shut until they know more. That's what irritates me to no end about ignorant people, they love to talk about what they do not know about.
Quote:
Black afrocentrist fantasies of travels to the Olmec lands, in a time when Blacks did not hardly sail rivers, is another fantasy that hurts the pride of Native Americans. They are trying to steal the achievements of the Native Americans of Chiapas and Guatemala. A people that today are poor but that created one of the more extraordinary civilizations of the past. Olmecs were Native Americans, not Africans.
That's a good point. I know in reading historical/archeological books over the years I have learned that many sculptures, etc. may have been created in exaggerated form to show grandness. In that case the giant Olmec heads with the large features may be an example of such.
Mr. Yeagley consistantly shows his stupidity every time he writes anything concerning race and gender.
Posted: Tue 15 Nov 2005 18:28 Post subject: David's Latest Salvo: The Rosa Parks Funeral
Some things should have never been said. Here's Mr. Y's latest salvo regarding Rosa Parks:
Quote:
Rosa Parks: Remembering and Forgetting
Attributing the civil rights movement to Rosa Parks is like saying history if the Western Hemisphere was caused by Christopher Columbus. A courageous act on the part of an individual can have great consequences, indeed, but, in the matter of Rosa Parks, we can only say the the American tradition of focus on moral principle leads the media and the public to dramatize the insignificant. Americans can take pride in the fact that equality issues are given a 'front seat' in our social agenda, but, a Capitol Rotunda wake, complete with military guard, is extravagant, and insulting to many other individuals who's courage and accomplishments are far more significant.
Family and close friend pause in prayer in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, Monday, Oct. 31,
2005 at the casket of Rosa Parks, the woman whose defiant act on a city bus inspired the
modern civil rights movement. More than 30,000 Americans streamed through the U.S.
Capitol Rotunda to pay tribute to Parks. AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Frederick Douglass was given no such honors, nor were Booker T. Washington, nor George Washington Carver. They were not the products of affirmative action, either. There were no "civil rights" in their day, and they accomplished more than any American Negro living after 1964.
Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895
Furthermore, the "modern civil rights movement" which the liberal media is pleased to associate with Rosa Parks represents the idea that racial integration is the sole meaning of equality. Racial integration, which inevitably means racial intermarriage and the denigration of all ethnicity, is hardly something for which to be honored by a national funeral for one exaggerantly credited with the achievement of civil rights.
But this the modern way in America now. We tithe mint, anise and cummin, and omit the weighter matters of common sense, and the greater good of the nation. The legal system finds great purpose and validation in defending the motes, but the beams of justice have fallen in the street.
A black female can stand up and say, "We want integration!" in the name of equality, but a white male can't say "We want separation!" in the name of any cause, racial, economic, national, or otherwise.
That's just the way it is, today. Anyone thinking otherwise is a "Nazi."
No, it's better to consider the really great, like the sons and daughters of slaves who were great, regardless. The kind of extravagance in Washington, DC over Rosa Parks is a blantant distortion of the truth. It is insulting, misleading, and possibly quite harmful in that it associates accomplishment with that which is not accomplishment, and confuses that which is true accomplishment.
Or, is Michael Jordon's statue soon to stand in the halls of the White House? Is Dave Chappelle's portrait to hang on the wall of the Oval Office?
Posted by David Yeagley at 03:29 PM
His views are echoed in Jared Taylors article on Rosa Parks at American Renaissance:
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
... What you believe you are, "gringo"? Do you believe you are God? Or the master that classify slaves? ... Maybe not. Perhap you are a "person of color". Aren't you?