Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do You Think Most Blacks Are Trying To Be White?
Yes, Likely They Want To Blend In With Part of Society/Fashion 10 14.93%
Yes, Because They Feel Victimized/Hated Otherwise 3 4.48%
No, This Is Absurd & Possibly Racist To Even Point Out 14 20.90%
No, Only a Small Percentage Do It 22 32.84%
None Of The Above 18 26.87%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:34 PM
 
57,022 posts, read 34,997,190 times
Reputation: 18824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
It's CDF. All sorts of stuff gets talked about here. Not just about Black people.
There is a very palpable obsession with blacks on CD. You know this to be true.

I'm actually obsessed when the obsession, but I'm cool with it. I know where it comes from.

The internet is the only place where conservative whites feel comfortable being confrontational with blacks.

So the obsession makes sense in that regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:43 PM
 
937 posts, read 1,130,572 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08 View Post
ill remember you said that the next time i see a white woman outside of darque tan waiting to go in to darken her skin because she hates the color of her skin.
Or those with collagen injections (because she is not satisfied with the thin lips God gave her), breast implants (because she wants fuller breasts), dyed hair (there are very few true blonds out there) or a face full of makeup.

Why can't they just be natural?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 03:58 PM
 
3,620 posts, read 3,813,727 times
Reputation: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGirl332 View Post
Or those with collagen injections (because she is not satisfied with the thin lips God gave her), breast implants (because she wants fuller breasts), dyed hair (there are very few true blonds out there) or a face full of makeup.

Why can't they just be natural?
its stupid, but its a tool used by whites, specifically white conservative males to attempt to demean black people.

but as i said before and youve said, almost everybody does stuff to alter there look.

even adriana lima, victorias secret model, wears makeup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 04:01 PM
 
20,524 posts, read 15,818,474 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08 View Post
i dont see it many places, primarily just the political forum.

remember though, a good portion of the conservative white males who post here are from stormfront. many have admitted so in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Devil View Post
What's wrong with Stormfront?
Storm front IS bad news, sorry. I'm def "white" and proud of it but some of the stuff on there don't fly with me at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 04:22 PM
 
28,563 posts, read 18,566,859 times
Reputation: 30807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Things ARE changing like as in the "1 drop rule" is being ignored by anglos white people, even many racist ones in 2014.
I'm not even getting the point of racist whites insisting that Obama is not black. I can't imagine the point they think they're making.

Quote:
Hell, MOST light skin quadroons I've met ID as "anglo white" because they LOOK it. Tho the "1 drop rule" is being picked up by some Black people now to TRY to keep the quadroons back on the "plantation" IMHO.
It's not "back on the plantation," it's "back on the team."

America today is developing what it had not had before--a "colored" division between black and white such as South Africa had.

To some extent, this "colored/mixed/biracial" division is even more distinctly intended to be directly biracial--as with an immediate black/white parentage and not merely a light-skinned black (who might be the offspring of two light-skinned blacks), where the difference can be presumed (such as light eyes, keen features, and light hair). And yes, there are some areas of the US where the word "colored" is being revived specifically for the children of direct black/white parents, as is "mulatto."

Black people have been fighting this tendency and trying to keep everyone of color "on the team," but that's probably futile. The truth in the United States is that race is what white people determine it to be, especially with regard to blacks. If white people decide there needs to be a "colored" category, white people will start recognizing it as such, and that's what will happen...regardless of what either dark-skinned black people or light-skinned black people think about it.

And the "colored/mixed/biracial" kids will go along with it because it confers advantages to them to be the favored flavor of the moment. Colorism in the past existed because it's always been the case that "white is right." But it was suppressed to a significant degree among blacks by the fact that all hues were equally discriminated against. In other words, white culture did not support colorism.

White culture today does support colorism, so it flourishes more than ever before.

Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 03-23-2014 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 04:37 PM
 
28,563 posts, read 18,566,859 times
Reputation: 30807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Californian34 View Post
I don't think this is common in white society. I have seen some whites express this idea, but most still see anyone who is not white, particularly people having some black ancestry, as other. even light skin people with two black parents don't really seem to be pushing this idea. honestly, it seems that this is most common among biracial/multiracial people with a non black parent and they are the ones trying to incorporate light skin blacks into their group. biracial people aren't black, by definition. and they can identify however they like, so why do they have a problem with light skin blacks like my husband or Tisha Campbell identifying as black. O/T, to the other poster, if Tisha Campbell wasn't as light skin, even if she was my daughter's shade, still light, but browner, her features would identify her as a black American. she has very afro-centric features.
I didn't say white people accepted light-skinned blacks as white. I say that they favored them. I guess I should qualify that: White society favors light-skinned blacks over dark-skinned blacks today in a way that it did not in the past.

The favoritism of light-skinned blacks is specifically, though, for "mixed/colored/biracial" light-skinned blacks--those of directly black/white parentage--not simply a black person who happens to have light skin.

Thus, Tisha Campbell (who is probably the child of two light skinned blacks or a random combination of light-skinned genes from two darker-skinned blacks), does not fit the favored category. In her case, her more afro-centric features "give her away." Vanessa Williams, however, would fool them.

Something to note in all this as background: Remember that fifty years ago, interracial marriages were rare. Up until 1948 they were outright illegal in thirty states of the Union, and illegal in 16 states up until 1967. And an interracial marriage could get one or both of them killed in any of the other states if the couple wandered into the wrong neighborhood. I'd bet money there were zero interracial marriages in the Oklahoma army town where I went to high school, except the black/foreign military marriages. Those were the exceptions to the rule proven by their very conspicuousness.

That meant two things when I was a kid up through my own adolescent and into my adulthood:

1. The percentage of light-skinned blacks in the black population was much, much smaller prior to 1970. The percentage you see today represents a huge spike that occurred in the 70s.
2. Those that existed were almost exclusively the result of genetic dice from African-American parentage, not immediate black/white parentage.

Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 03-23-2014 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 05:48 PM
 
20,524 posts, read 15,818,474 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
I'm not even getting the point of racist whites insisting that Obama is not black. I can't imagine the point they think they're making.

It's not "back on the plantation," it's "back on the team."

America today is developing what it had not had before--a "colored" division between black and white such as South Africa had.

To some extent, this "colored/mixed/biracial" division is even more distinctly intended to be directly biracial--as with an immediate black/white parentage and not merely a light-skinned black (who might be the offspring of two light-skinned blacks), where the difference can be presumed (such as light eyes, keen features, and light hair). And yes, there are some areas of the US where the word "colored" is being revived specifically for the children of direct black/white parents, as is "mulatto."

Black people have been fighting this tendency and trying to keep everyone of color "on the team," but that's probably futile. The truth in the United States is that race is what white people determine it to be, especially with regard to blacks. If white people decide there needs to be a "colored" category, white people will start recognizing it as such, and that's what will happen...regardless of what either dark-skinned black people or light-skinned black people think about it.

And the "colored/mixed/biracial" kids will go along with it because it confers advantages to them to be the favored flavor of the moment. Colorism in the past existed because it's always been the case that "white is right." But it was suppressed to a significant degree among blacks by the fact that all hues were equally discriminated against. In other words, white culture did not support colorism.

White culture today does support colorism, so it flourishes more than ever before.
"On the team": uh; that smells of the "1 drop rule" there. In 1964 it was usually racist white people who did it, in 2014, it's usually racist Black people doing it. Sheesh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 06:15 PM
 
28,563 posts, read 18,566,859 times
Reputation: 30807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
"On the team": uh; that smells of the "1 drop rule" there. In 1964 it was usually racist white people who did it, in 2014, it's usually racist Black people doing it. Sheesh!
The racist attitude of people who controlled politics and industry in 1964 still control politics and industry today. Until we Boomers are dead, the "team" is still relevant. I myself didn't realize this until 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,099,603 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
It's CDF. All sorts of stuff gets talked about here. Not just about Black people.
Well it seems that black folk are white conservatives favorite topic on this site...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,262,791 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorderoAries View Post
African and black do NOT mean the same thing.
I'm aware of that but the article was labeled that way in respect to the fact that the majority of Africa's people have dark skin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top