What role should policy play in miscegenation?

[Whyte.Devyl]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

That simply is not true.
Unless you are trying to say that words with Latin roots are somehow "racist"?
Oh well, you have your own dictionary or wikipedia, and I'll just keep refering to Websters and somehow we will manage to stay on topic.

Speaking of which,
Do you think that those within our government, education and media (especially) are equally racist when they try to encourage miscegenation?
If so then you may actually be a "C" vote...

 

[Liability]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

That simply is not true.
* * * *

No. It simply is true. Your mistake.

That you do not grasp the import of the words is entirely on you.

I suspect that you, yourself, are a racist.

But even if you're not, the word "miscegenation" has its roots in a concept of racial purity and if you cannot see how that is (at its core) racist, then nothing will help you.

It is racist in an elemental way.

 

[52ndStreet]

I live in a society nearly completely dominated by White people (specifically White Anglo-Saxon Protestants)

I'd say the sooner these WASPs get some color (even other White people would do) in their gene pool the better for them.

Listen, first of all , there is no way Whites are going to try to force blacks to marry into the
White race, so your first choice on your insane poll should not even be included.

Secondly, there are to many blacks that don't care if these so called WASP , protestants get any skin color at all.!!

And there Blacks that would never even entertain the thought of marrying out side of the Black race, in the first place.!! especially to a white person.!!

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

Liability,
Again, that is simply not true. Your objection to the word is not based on the English definition I provided from Websters. In message #5 you stated your objection "based" upon a wikipedia article. You have not stated anything regarding Websters.

If you truly feel that "miscegenation" as a word is somehow an epitaph or offensive, then your issue is with Websters. Please do update us with your success at getting them to change their definition to your definition, or at least provide a usage piece on just how offensive the word is, like they do for real epitaphs.


All that can be said is that I use the word "miscegenation" based on the English definition.
So you use your own dictionary, and I will continue using Webster's.
Fair enough?

That said,
I do understand that you have a strong personal objection to the word "miscegenation".
Would there be another term that you would find more appropriate, perhaps hybridization?

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

52ndStreet,

Why no vote?

 

[Liability]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

Liability,
Again, that is simply not true. * * * *

Again, it simply IS true and you know it.

Answer one question, and if you manage to do so honestly, I will use your answer as a basis to continue this conversation:

"What were anti-miscegenation laws designed to accomplish?"

Be specific and, again, try to be honest this time.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

Liability,
At this point you are clearly lying.
You have not addressed Webster's definition at all.
Speaking of which, how is that case against Websters panning out for you?
Here is their contact info in case you are having trouble finding it.
Merriam-Webster Online

Seriously,
Keep us updated on your success at redefining the English language.

"What were anti-miscegenation laws designed to accomplish?"

Wow, it appears a lot of emotion went into that question, bolded and underlined.

Maybe you missed this earlier in this thread.

Myself I have voted for "C".
I believe miscegenation is a personal matter.

Though, I also put in a vote for "D".
The strongest caveat I have with "D" is government, education, or media interfering with personal freedoms.

Does this help you understand my opinion on anti-miscegenation laws?

If you want a specific answer to any of your questions, then you have to vote.
No free rides.


Oh yeah, you never answered this question either...

I do understand that you have a strong personal objection to the word "miscegenation".
Would there be another term that you would find more appropriate, perhaps hybridization?

 

[Liability]

I used your definition to establish that the word has racist roots.

Liability,
At this point you are clearly lying. * * * *

As you know, that post of yours is the lie.

Now answer my prior question, the one you just mangaed to duck through all your limp evasion and deflection efforts:


Answer one question, and if you manage to do so honestly, I will use your answer as a basis to continue this conversation:

"What were anti-miscegenation laws designed to accomplish?"

Be specific and, again, try to be honest this time.

Hope that's now large and colorful enough to simmer your whining ass down. Settle in. Try to be honest. Answer it.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

Liability,
Accusing others of evading questions while doing so yourself?


I suppose I could give a more specific answer, though I clearly have presented my opinion on anti-miscegenation laws twice now.


So here are some of the things that you are evading...
• Voting on the Poll, which is the subject of the thread.

• Going over to Websters and letting us know how successful you are at getting the English language re-defined.

• Oh yeah, this question too...

I do understand that you have a strong personal objection to the word "miscegenation".
Would there be another term that you would find more appropriate, perhaps hybridization?

I'm going to take a break before you go overboard. Even though I'm a little curious just what font colors and sizes you are going to make to express your next emotives... I really do not want to make anyone agitated.

So I'll be back later. I hope you take a break from the keyboard, get some fresh air, and calm down. There is no reason to let a silly obscure message board get you so riled up.

 

[52ndStreet]

52ndStreet,

Why no vote?

I will not vote to justify, this insane thread.!!

I am for miscegnation laws.
I feel interracial marriages should be illegal, as they still are in some southern and northern states.

 

[William Joyce]

Your effort to start this conversation about the "topic" of miscegenation nevertheless does smack of racism because the nature of miscegenation itself is essentially a racist one.

"Racist" = telling the truth.

 

[Liability]

Your effort to start this conversation about the "topic" of miscegenation nevertheless does smack of racism because the nature of miscegenation itself is essentially a racist one.

"Racist" = telling the truth.

Yeah; I'm not groking that crap.

 

[Liability]

52ndStreet,

Why no vote?

I will not vote to justify, this insane thread.!!

I am for miscegnation laws.
I feel interracial marriages should be illegal, as they still are in some southern and northern states.

Black racists and KKK members have long agreed that the races should be kept separated.

But the author of the OP still cannot grasp that the very basis for miscegenation laws stems from notions of racial superiority.

This is great stuff. This thread sees a dopey old racist notion being discussed with approval by a member of a racial group that was the target of that racism.

If we were to throw in some comments about penis and male anus, we could get the Basshole to jump in here, too!



Can't make this kind of stuff up.

 

[William Joyce]

The fact is that races are NOT inherently equal. They differ in terms of intelligence and behavior. Mixing two that are unequal leads to what they call "dysgenics", i.e., sending the smarter race downward. Or at least "differentward", if you will.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Dysgenics-Deterioration-Populations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0275949176[/ame]


The in-mixing of African genes in Portugal is one example.

 

[Liability]

The fact is that races are NOT inherently equal. They differ in terms of intelligence and behavior. Mixing two that are unequal leads to what they call "dysgenics", i.e., sending the smarter race downward. Or at least "differentward", if you will.

Amazon.com: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (9780275949174): Richard Lynn: Books


The in-mixing of African genes in Portugal is one example.

The races are not inherently equal in some things. I don't tan all that well, for example.

But the other crap you just spewed isn't "fact." It is mere opinion without a valid basis in science. INDIVIDUALS have different abilities -- strengths and weaknesses -- too. But when you try to extrapolate that to "race-based" groups, you run out of scientifically verifiable data mighty fast.

So, pardon me if I dismiss your trite tripe out of hand.

 

[William Joyce]

It is mere opinion without a valid basis in science. INDIVIDUALS have different abilities -- strengths and weaknesses -- too. But when you try to extrapolate that to "race-based" groups, you run out of scientifically verifiable data mighty fast.

How could it be that "individuals" could differ, but not groups? That isn't fact -- that's politics-driven dreaming. Men are generally taller than women --- agree or disagree? People who take your view want to say that "because some women are taller than some men, it does not follow that men are generally taller than women." Yet that's a perfectly valid group generalization to make. Why is OK to say that "men are generally taller than women" but not "whites are generally smarter than blacks"? Only politics explains it, not logic or science.

The verifiable data you seek is laid out in Prof. Richard Lynn's book. Among about a library of other volumes.

But data means nothing to many who have a quasi-religious belief in the equality of all humanity. So please don't pretend you even care to begin with. You START with the declaration that all humans are equal. Then, whatever data doesn't fit that viewpoint, you reject.

A lot of people go apeshit over the idea of inherent group differences because it fucks up their entire worldview... I get that. I used to be that way. But information that's depressing isn't necessarily false.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

Liability,
I just checked Websters... still no change in the definition.
So I will continue to use the word to accurately describe the topic.
If you would prefer, we could use the term "hybridization". IMHO though, the word "hybridization" dehumanizes the conversation.

But the author of the OP still cannot grasp that the very basis for miscegenation laws stems from notions of racial superiority.

And what was written by myself to indicate that?

Myself I have voted for "C".
I believe miscegenation is a personal matter.

Though, I also put in a vote for "D".
The strongest caveat I have with "D" is government, education, or media interfering with personal freedoms.

So maybe you have now possibly cooled-off enough to actually read what I write instead of going off with half-cocked emotives?

You do understand that I use the word "miscegenation" not as an effort to propose anti-miscegenation laws, right?
I hope that you do.

State the purpose clearly that such a discussion fulfills.

JakeStarkey,
Same as any other discussion I suppose.
Granted miscegenation is quite rare, and always will be despite the efforts of assimilation theorists.
It being rare, miscegenation is still an interesting topic. While I'm confident that most people would think that it is entirely a "who cares" matter... there are still those few out there who think that public policy should be involved.

So I am curious as to folks opinions on the subject.

Oh yeah,
Why no vote?

 

[nia588]

i chose C. i believe it's a personal choice. if someone falls in love with someone of a different race and winds up reproducing that's their choice. if they fall in love with somoene of their own race then it's their choice.

but what i don't agree with is people who say that races shouldn't mix. when looking for love and someone to have kids with, race shouldn't matter.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

but what i don't agree with is people who say that races shouldn't mix.

nia588,
Would you have the same disagreement with people who say that the 'races' should mix?

 

[52ndStreet]

i chose C. i believe it's a personal choice. if someone falls in love with someone of a different race and winds up reproducing that's their choice. if they fall in love with somoene of their own race then it's their choice.

but what i don't agree with is people who say that races shouldn't mix. when looking for love and someone to have kids with, race shouldn't matter.

This is one of the most absurd statements I have read so far on USMB. "When looking for
love, or someone to have kinds with, race shouldn't matter."!,

So, when these kinds are all mature, and ask both mixed race parents, what race do I belong to?, what will be your answer to them?, oh, race doesn't matter?!,you belong to no race!?. This Nia's statement is
bound to cause an identity crisis at some point in those mixed race children future.
Anthropologists have found, that humans need to identify, and bond with a "Group", black, or White, this is an essential part of becoming a fully functioning adult. The mixed race
people I know, seem to have issues, when it comes to choosing a race or group to bond with. Many have told me that they are not accepted by many whites,because of their black
features, and others say they are never fully accepted by many Blacks, because of their
white features,ie, beige or light skin. So Ms. Nia like the the book by Cornell West,"Race Does Matter", especially when it comes to choosing someone to have children with. I disagree strongly with your statement. People still value their racial identity, Blacks, and Whites.At least the black people I know. Will you stop with your sell out to the white race
philosophy and attitude.