Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like Americans, particularly white Americans, strongly oppose IRR. I understand that its 1929 moving to 1930, so that explains a lot.
Why do people oppose race mixing?
Can Progressive-Liberals EVER keep race out of anything? They always have to insert race into any issue to create controversy and distract people from the real issues.
As soon as anyone opposes Obama's Socialist agenda, that person is immediately called a racist. If that person is black, then they are a "uncle tom".
This thread is a complete waste of time and a joke. But I will say this: I oppose the interracial relationship of Obama's mom and dad. Because of these two selfish idiots, our country is about to collapse.
I have seen interracial marriages and relationships all over the US. Actually there is far more of them in southern states like Virginia and North Carolina, and also very common in Texas between whites and Hispanics. Of course small numbers of people from older generations will be against it. I think its more of a cultural thing than a racial thing. I am of Asian descent but very assimilated and mainstream, but for someone who is not very assimilated and/or does not speak English well or have a good understanding of American culture I can understand how it can be difficult.
In my personal experience first generation immigrant parents are the ones MOST likely to forbid their kids from dating outside their race, or even their ethnicity. I am glad my parents and extended family are not like that and judge a person based on who they are as an individual. A lot of folks have stereotypes about races or any other groupings of people but most are willing to give the individual a chance. My mom's friend is Chinese American and he was racist and would not let his child marry a girl of Filipinno descent and how his son is 35 and still single and he blames himself everyday for it. So i hope more parents of all races can be more accepting.
The thing about some black people being angry with black men who marry white or other non black women, this ethnic identity thing is promoted by people like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, liberals etc just like the guy from St. Louis here pointed out. People are a LOT more race conscious in more liberal areas like the DC suburbs compared to less liberal areas like Virginia, NC, TX, or many other parts of Maryland including Baltimore (though the city itself is notoriously liberal and race conscious up to the point where recently the NAACP chairman worried about a "white" or "Irish" mayor being appointed after a past mayor was found guilty of corruption and resigned.) I have spend a lot of time in the South and people tend to treat me more as an individual and get to know me. I now go to grad school in a very liberal environment with mostly Northeast and California folks and I am asked why I don't act my race, like why don't I do stereotypical things like play ping pong and watch anime, or why I do "white" things like listen to country music, support Sarah Palin and enjoy country style food. Everyone is born a certain color but that shouldn't define who they are.
If Martin Luther King was alive today he would probably storm into Jeremiah Wright's church and tell him to shut the hell up.
Alabama and South Carolina had votes on removing the language in their State Constitution banning interracial marriage. The law wasn't really enforced after Loving V Virginia, but was still on the books. South Carolina had a vote in 98, removing the ban passed 62-38, Alabama had a vote in 2000, removing the ban passed 60-40. The counties with a high concentration of African Americans is where removing the ban had the most support. The heavily conservative mostly white portions is where removing the ban did the worst, in fact in many white areas of both Alabama and South Carolina, voters voted to keep the ban in place.
No, bigotry is not natural. Bigotry is not a social norm. As far as where they start, well simple lack of understanding a long time ago perhaps? People a long time ago use to believe the world was flat, that was passed on from generation to generation. Did it make it right? Of course not. Now anyone who thinks the world is flat would be deemed a complete lunatic as they base things off of previous assumptions which were wrong. Well, same thing with people against interracial marriage, or the thought one group is superior to the others, its pure garbage based off idiotic assumptions
Why is it not natural to believe that your people are the best people in the world? Why is it so ridiculous to believe that your culture is superior to other cultures? People have distrusted others since the beginning of time. And while the reasons for this distrust have evolved over time. This has mainly been because people need a reason to justify their feelings. I do not want to start a long conversation about the differences between whites and blacks, but let me just state. There are a LOT of differences. If you scroll back through the pages and pages in this forum post, you can probably find all the information that you will ever need. Whether or not you choose to believe it, is up to you.
Why is it not natural to believe that your people are the best people in the world? Why is it so ridiculous to believe that your culture is superior to other cultures? People have distrusted others since the beginning of time. And while the reasons for this distrust have evolved over time. This has mainly been because people need a reason to justify their feelings. I do not want to start a long conversation about the differences between whites and blacks, but let me just state. There are a LOT of differences. If you scroll back through the pages and pages in this forum post, you can probably find all the information that you will ever need. Whether or not you choose to believe it, is up to you.
A bunch of extreme right wing stormfront fueled bigotry isn't "facts"
You do realize that Europeans and Africans are about as similar to each other, as a Wolf is similar to a Chihuahua?
This is unmitigated horse shyt. There is no Anthropology literature anywhere that would back your ridiculous assertions. Thankfully people such as yourself are a true minority in this world.
Why are humans and bears different? Why are humans and dogs different? You do realize that Europeans and Africans are about as similar to each other, as a Wolf is similar to a Chihuahua?
The simple fact is this....Europeans and Africans and Asians (or Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids) have been intermingling for thousands of years.
What makes you think that this will (or should) stop at this point in time simply because you have a problem with other races?
Just a thought for you.....your life would probably be much more fulfilling if you worried less about what race is in bed with one another.
If you don't believe in any anthropological differences between the "Races". Then why is it that they can tell if a person is caucasian or negroid just by looking at almost any bone in their body? Why can they tell race by looking at a single piece of hair? They can tell by looking at their DNA? How then is that possible if there are no differences? Do you think maybe these anthropology books might omit sensitive information for politically correct reasons? How many of those books would sell if every page it showed our differences rather than our similarities?
Use your own brain for a minute people. Just go look up a "negroid" skull and a "caucasoid" skull on google. The skull that is always shown on TV and in books is a Caucasoid skull, and the differences between the two are astounding.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, wrote a book called "Descent of man". Maybe you should go read it sometime. Charles Darwin believed that Negroids and Caucasoids were so different from each other, that any taxonomist would classify them as separate species.
From the Descent of man, page 174 he wrote.
"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,--as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain...The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."
Every single day science keeps proving the differences between the races. I am sorry if you don't want to open up your eyes and see. It is hidden in the background, behind the noise of anti-racism and political correctness. But if you care to look, you can find all the facts you need to actually see the truth. But the truth truly is a very scary thing.
Ironic isn't it. From what I've been reading on another Asian-oriented board, it seems like Asians (men in particular) do fare better in the South than they do in the Northeast or California (SoCal especially).
The Northeast is especially racially polarized. I don't think its true diversity. Yes, people of all colors ride the New York subway but the different groups all go to different stops and neighborhoods. With the emphasis on diversity and also groups emphasis on cultural identity, its been perpetuated to the public in these places that certain groups have some attributes or cultural values forgetting that we are all individuals. All I have found places like Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey and even parts of the DC area to be just unfriendly and hostile in general no matter what you are. Also with Southern hospitality it means when you are new people tend to try to still talk to you and get to know you. Maybe sometimes they still have their prejudices but at least they talk and interact with you and you have chance to prove that whatever stereotypes they have may be false or that might not apply to you. In a place liek Jersey or NY, it is just so unfriendly that people don't even care to get to know you and if they have prejudices they just assume that about you to the end.
I don't have much experience with California but I assume it is similar. With all the activism there.....if I was a white American (even as an Asian American) I would be very distrubed to see my neighbors waving Mexicans flags and saying that this land belongs to them. I'm not saying people should forget their ancestry but people just have to be American and be a good citizen and we will all be better off.
If you don't believe in any anthropological differences between the "Races". Then why is it that they can tell if a person is caucasian or negroid just by looking at almost any bone in their body? Why can they tell race by looking at a single piece of hair? They can tell by looking at their DNA? How then is that possible if there are no differences? Do you think maybe these anthropology books might omit sensitive information for politically correct reasons? How many of those books would sell if every page it showed our differences rather than our similarities?
Use your own brain for a minute people. Just go look up a "negroid" skull and a "caucasoid" skull on google. The skull that is always shown on TV and in books is a Caucasoid skull, and the differences between the two are astounding.
Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, wrote a book called "Descent of man". Maybe you should go read it sometime. Charles Darwin believed that Negroids and Caucasoids were so different from each other, that any taxonomist would classify them as separate species.
From the Descent of man, page 174 he wrote.
"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,--as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain...The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."
Every single day science keeps proving the differences between the races. I am sorry if you don't want to open up your eyes and see. It is hidden in the background, behind the noise of anti-racism and political correctness. But if you care to look, you can find all the facts you need to actually see the truth. But the truth truly is a very scary thing.
Although the categorization of a skull is clearly given arbitrary parameters, it will not locate the owners geographic ancestry concretely all the time. While one's perception of an individual's race can be affected by cultural aspects, the "race" of his skull is less ambiguous.
As Dr. Stan Rhine put it, "...it is clear that race does mean different things to different people. In the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous."[6] Although their craniofacial race based on skull indices is unambiguous, it will not pin point their geographic origins accurately all the time due to variation in skulls within a geographic region.
While this method produces useful results for the population of the United States, it is likely that it would not be reliable for populations from other countries[7] or historical periods.[8] This is because the United States has traditionally had groups whose ancestries came from geographically distant locations, and which have generally remained endogamous in this country, for social reasons. As more immigrants from in between regions and as Americans become more racially mixed, such craniofacial identification is problematic.
Classification by craniofacial anthropometry does not necessarily coincide with genetic ancestry or social self-identification. For example, about one-third of so-called "White" Americans have detectable African DNA markers.[9]
And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.[10] In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is quite literally no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.[11]
In practice, the application of such forensic criteria ultimately comes down to whether the skull "looks Negroid," "Caucasoid," or "Mongoloid" in the eye of each U.S. forensic practitioner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
