What do you think of interracial dates

[Wicked Jester]

A White Woman just cant have a White Baby with a Black Male, she may get a orgasm but on the expense of giving birth to a couple of mullato children. Also the White Guy is probably treating her better, with more love and respect, since Black Guys are more likely to leave their Girlfriends and Kids. It was readable in this very same Forum.

You are, in fact, a racist douchebag.

Im a victim of racism, but not a racist. I treat every race with respect. I just reject the Notion of black supremacism (blacks fuck better, blacks have bigger cocks etc.)

Many racists are victims of racism...factor that in with the fact that fat people are hard to kidnap, what's your fuckin' point?

 

[Mortimer]

Indeed Gypsies are Hamites associated with the black race and originated in EGYPT, hence the word "gypsies" has become a almost universal colloquial term for displaced nomads from Egypt.

Gypsies are dark skinned but they are not hamites/negroids and they are not from egypt. neither are egyptians hamites/negroids. egyptians are middle easterners. gypsies were mistaken for egyptians when they first arrived in europe, because of their dark eastern appearance but they never looked like SSA.

gypsies are a dark skinned, mediterannean caucasoid race from india

Granted, there are many theories about where the gypsies originated. Some have maintained a tradition that their origins lie in a place called "little Egypt," believed to be somewhere between ancient Nubia and Egypt. Recently , though, caucasian linguists have linked their archaic language to India. Nevertheless, that alone does not negate the "Little Egypt" link. Looking at Mexico we see how the Spaniards transformed an entire indian culture into one of their making, language and all. And, looking closer to home, African Americans have lost their African languages and speak only English. From that perspective, it is easy to understand how linguists now might come to conclusions that Gypsies are not who they think say they are!.

yes there are many theories but no one ever mistook gypsies for sub-saharan africans. gypsies are just another race of people. but if you are black i think it is cool that you associate yourself with gypsies as black race.

 

[JQPublic1]

Gypsies are dark skinned but they are not hamites/negroids and they are not from egypt. neither are egyptians hamites/negroids. egyptians are middle easterners. gypsies were mistaken for egyptians when they first arrived in europe, because of their dark eastern appearance but they never looked like SSA.

gypsies are a dark skinned, mediterannean caucasoid race from india

Granted, there are many theories about where the gypsies originated. Some have maintained a tradition that their origins lie in a place called "little Egypt," believed to be somewhere between ancient Nubia and Egypt. Recently , though, caucasian linguists have linked their archaic language to India. Nevertheless, that alone does not negate the "Little Egypt" link. Looking at Mexico we see how the Spaniards transformed an entire indian culture into one of their making, language and all. And, looking closer to home, African Americans have lost their African languages and speak only English. From that perspective, it is easy to understand how linguists now might come to conclusions that Gypsies are not who they think say they are!.

yes there are many theories but no one ever mistook gypsies for sub-saharan africans. gypsies are just another race of people. but if you are black i think it is cool that you associate yourself with gypsies as black race.

Well. if you want to be technical, the word "race" itself is nothing but a social construct designed by people who thought their "race" is/was superior to others. ALso, the word sub-Saharan is used here somewhat pejoratively. Did you know that the Sahara was once green fairly recently? Africans of all phenotypes and physiognomies ( Africa is a very diverse place)have been migrating over, in, out and through the region for millennia. Further, it is widely held that ALL people originated from "sub-Saharan" Africa anyway, so what's the point of using the term to divide the continent by the illusion called "race?"

Some Gypsies look like the pictures posted, others are darker. But if you are trying to distance them phenotypically from Black Africans, its a lost cause. As I said before, Africa is a diverse place. The Somalis are among the blackest people on Earth, yet many have straight hair and "Caucasoid" features. Western scientists have wrestled with this phenomenon for decades and have debated whether they they are Black or Caucasian.
Still other Africans like the Kalahari Bushmen have so-called Negroid/Asian features with coiled hair type but are golden skinned.

From that perspective, I think it is safe to conclude that the Gypsies are an amalgam of phenotypes that have emerged out of Africa into India and elsewhere!

 

[Mortimer]

Granted, there are many theories about where the gypsies originated. Some have maintained a tradition that their origins lie in a place called "little Egypt," believed to be somewhere between ancient Nubia and Egypt. Recently , though, caucasian linguists have linked their archaic language to India. Nevertheless, that alone does not negate the "Little Egypt" link. Looking at Mexico we see how the Spaniards transformed an entire indian culture into one of their making, language and all. And, looking closer to home, African Americans have lost their African languages and speak only English. From that perspective, it is easy to understand how linguists now might come to conclusions that Gypsies are not who they think say they are!.

yes there are many theories but no one ever mistook gypsies for sub-saharan africans. gypsies are just another race of people. but if you are black i think it is cool that you associate yourself with gypsies as black race.

Well. if you want to be technical, the word "race" itself is nothing but a social construct designed by people who thought their "race" is/was superior to others. ALso, the word sub-Saharan is used here somewhat pejoratively. Did you know that the Sahara was once green fairly recently? Africans of all phenotypes and physiognomies ( Africa is a very diverse place)have been migrating over, in, out and through the region for millennia. Further, it is widely held that ALL people originated from "sub-Saharan" Africa anyway, so what's the point of using the term to divide the continent by the illusion called "race?"

Some Gypsies look like the pictures posted, others are darker. But if you are trying to distance them phenotypically from Black Africans, its a lost cause. As I said before, Africa is a diverse place. The Somalis are among the blackest people on Earth, yet many have straight hair and "Caucasoid" features. Western scientists have wrestled with this phenomenon for decades and have debated whether they they are Black or Caucasian.
Still other Africans like the Kalahari Bushmen have so-called Negroid/Asian features with coiled hair type but are golden skinned.

From that perspective, I think it is safe to conclude that the Gypsies are an amalgam of phenotypes that have emerged out of Africa into India and elsewhere!

even somalis and ethiopians look different then gypsies. and i already posted dark gypsies.

some gypsies are lighter then Pictures. i posted the stereotypical dark skinned gypsies. like they are known for centuries (those are Pictures from a few centuries ago)

here. do they look like black africans to you?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf9D2K4viW8]Surcin 2012 Folkorno Drustvo za Dan Roma 8 april - YouTube[/ame]

edit, also they are not a "Amalgam of phenotypes". they never look like chinese or africans, if a guy Looks like a african or chinese i would know he is not a gypsy, also if he Looks like a german and is blonde and blue eyed he doesnt look like a gypsy. gypsies have common characteristics, they are really a common phenotype not a amalgation of phenotypes

 

[JQPublic1]

Most Gypsies are barely distinguishable from Mexicans, Middle easterners or American Indians.In fact, most people on the planet look like them.
For the most part, we think of them as a homogenous group with no intermixing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But is that true? I highly doubt it!

The larger question, though, is why were they called "gypsies" in the first place? The word "gypsy" does indeed have an affiliation with Egypt. That fact alone lends credence to the
notion that they may have ancient roots in Egypt. Claims that the Gypsies migrated out of India 1500 years ago could be correct also; but, that does not detract from an earlier migration out of Egypt.

Here is a link that might be of interest to you. Please indulge. Many of the points you are attempting to refute are addressed here including the diverse phenotypes of Gypsies as I alluded to earlier.

RADOC

 

[Mortimer]

Most Gypsies are barely distinguishable from Mexicans, Middle easterners or American Indians.

they are well distinguishable from american Indians but less so from mexicans or middle easterners, i would think.

In fact, most people on the planet look like them.
For the most part, we think of them as a homogenous group with no intermixing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But is that true? I highly doubt it!

no Group is homogenous for thousands of years, so where is your Point? if you look at old depictions gypsies looked a few centuries ago like they look now.

The larger question, though, is why were they called "gypsies" in the first place? The word "gypsy" does indeed have an affiliation with Egypt. That fact alone lends credence to the
notion that they may have ancient roots in Egypt. Claims that the Gypsies migrated out of India 1500 years ago could be correct also; but, that does not detract from an earlier migration out of Egypt.

Here is a link that might be of interest to you. Please indulge. Many of the points you are attempting to refute are addressed here including the diverse phenotypes of Gypsies as I alluded to earlier.

RADOC

too much to read, i took a look and here is a depiction of a stereotype Romani woman

she doesnt look african, black, or sub-saharan. she Looks like a gypsy. i dont see really what your Point is. that gypsies are "ancient sub-saharans"? well 50.000 years ago all humans moved out of east-africa. the gypsy race is not negroid. but they are a People of colour (as they dont have White European Skin).

 

[jtpr312]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

 

[JQPublic1]

Most Gypsies are barely distinguishable from Mexicans, Middle easterners or American Indians.

they are well distinguishable from american Indians but less so from mexicans or middle easterners, i would think.

In fact, most people on the planet look like them.
For the most part, we think of them as a homogenous group with no intermixing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. But is that true? I highly doubt it!

no Group is homogenous for thousands of years, so where is your Point? if you look at old depictions gypsies looked a few centuries ago like they look now.

The larger question, though, is why were they called "gypsies" in the first place? The word "gypsy" does indeed have an affiliation with Egypt. That fact alone lends credence to the
notion that they may have ancient roots in Egypt. Claims that the Gypsies migrated out of India 1500 years ago could be correct also; but, that does not detract from an earlier migration out of Egypt.

Here is a link that might be of interest to you. Please indulge. Many of the points you are attempting to refute are addressed here including the diverse phenotypes of Gypsies as I alluded to earlier.

RADOC

too much to read, i took a look and here is a depiction of a stereotype Romani woman

she doesnt look african, black, or sub-saharan. she Looks like a gypsy. i dont see really what your Point is. that gypsies are "ancient sub-saharans"? well 50.000 years ago all humans moved out of east-africa. the gypsy race is not negroid. but they are a People of colour (as they dont have White European Skin).

Perhaps the article is too much to read for you but others following this thread might want to read it in its entirety.

Reading it would definitely expand your horizons and possibly break you out of that stereotypical cocoon about what gypsies look like.

BTW American Indians don't all look alike either...some DO look noticeably gypsy-like.

Importantly, I have not said or written anything saying that the stereotypical gypsies look black or sub-Saharan African although there are a number of famous African Americans that could definitely pass for gypsies. Muhammed Ali, Halle Berry, Smokey Robinson or even AL Sharpton would fit into the physical model nicely. There are millions of "Blacks" all over the world that look just like them!

You refer to depictions of gypsies from a few hundred years ago resembling those of today and I say that is not good enough. A few pictures don't show the whole story. But this has gone on long enough. Its off topic and needs to end so you can have the last word. I am through with it!

 

[Mortimer]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

well im a "mongrel" im half gypsy, half southeastern european. shouldnt there a place for People like me to exist?

 

[Mortimer]

Most Gypsies are barely distinguishable from Mexicans, Middle easterners or American Indians.

they are well distinguishable from american Indians but less so from mexicans or middle easterners, i would think.



no Group is homogenous for thousands of years, so where is your Point? if you look at old depictions gypsies looked a few centuries ago like they look now.

The larger question, though, is why were they called "gypsies" in the first place? The word "gypsy" does indeed have an affiliation with Egypt. That fact alone lends credence to the
notion that they may have ancient roots in Egypt. Claims that the Gypsies migrated out of India 1500 years ago could be correct also; but, that does not detract from an earlier migration out of Egypt.

Here is a link that might be of interest to you. Please indulge. Many of the points you are attempting to refute are addressed here including the diverse phenotypes of Gypsies as I alluded to earlier.

RADOC

too much to read, i took a look and here is a depiction of a stereotype Romani woman

she doesnt look african, black, or sub-saharan. she Looks like a gypsy. i dont see really what your Point is. that gypsies are "ancient sub-saharans"? well 50.000 years ago all humans moved out of east-africa. the gypsy race is not negroid. but they are a People of colour (as they dont have White European Skin).

Perhaps the article is too much to read for you but others following this thread might want to read it in its entirety.

Reading it would definitely expand your horizons and possibly break you out of that stereotypical cocoon about what gypsies look like.

BTW American Indians don't all look alike either...some DO look noticeably gypsy-like.

Importantly, I have not said or written anything saying that the stereotypical gypsies look black or sub-Saharan African although there are a number of famous African Americans that could definitely pass for gypsies. Muhammed Ali, Halle Berry, Smokey Robinson or even AL Sharpton would fit into the physical model nicely. There are millions of "Blacks" all over the world that look just like them!

You refer to depictions of gypsies from a few hundred years ago resembling those of today and I say that is not good enough. A few pictures don't show the whole story. But this has gone on long enough. Its off topic and needs to end so you can have the last word. I am through with it!

if your Point is not that gypsies are africans what else is your point? american Indians dont look all alike since they are not twins, but they have very different Features then gypsies. american Indians are recognisable as such and they can be told apart easy from gypsies. you are insane if you think muhammed ali passes as a gypsy or halle berry. i dont know who the other guys are. i read a bit through it and some europeans described gypsy slaves as "having wolly hair, african blackness and thick african lips" but im sure that is a racist exaggeration of their non-whiteness since i was called "black and a negroe" too by racist White People. do you think i look like a african? also in eastern europe gypsies are commonly refered to as "blacks" but they are not "black" in the sense africans are.

 

[jtpr312]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

well im a "mongrel" im half gypsy, half southeastern european. shouldnt there a place for People like me to exist?

The topic is inter"RACIAL" dating and the mogrelization of the RACES, not the nationalities. Last I checked both Southeastern Europeans and Gypsys where caucasoid.

 

[KR811]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

well im a "mongrel" im half gypsy, half southeastern european. shouldnt there a place for People like me to exist?

The topic is inter"RACIAL" dating and the mogrelization of the RACES, not the nationalities. Last I checked both Southeastern Europeans and Gypsys where caucasoid.

It's "were" not "where". I think you might have been mongrelized. Since ideologues such as yourself think that all non-whites are inferior, I think suicide may be in order. Make sure you do it in public.

BTW just because you're caucasoid doesn't mean you're white in American society. Immigration policies from the early 20th century prove that, and that race is also a social construct.

 

[skye]

Love is blind and Love is Chemistry and I respect all l love.... I respect Love.

Who am I ? who? to object?

 

[Unkotare]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

You are one seriously ignorant, feeble-minded old fool. You're a coward and a weakling.

 

[Zona]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

You are one seriously ignorant, feeble-minded old fool. You're a coward and a weakling.

Thread killer.

 

[zzzz]

We are all of the same human race. It is only in our minds and our own disillusioned worlds that we are different. Would I date a blue eyed girl or a green eyed girl?

Hmmmm I do have a thing for green eyes though....

 

[Unkotare]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

You are one seriously ignorant, feeble-minded old fool. You're a coward and a weakling.

Thread killer.

Do you disagree?

 

[Unkotare]

We are all of the same human race. It is only in our minds and our own disillusioned worlds that we are different. Would I date a blue eyed girl or a green eyed girl?

Hmmmm I do have a thing for green eyes though....

Are you Lo Pan?

 

[jtpr312]

well im a "mongrel" im half gypsy, half southeastern european. shouldnt there a place for People like me to exist?

The topic is inter"RACIAL" dating and the mogrelization of the RACES, not the nationalities. Last I checked both Southeastern Europeans and Gypsys where caucasoid.

It's "were" not "where". I think you might have been mongrelized. Since ideologues such as yourself think that all non-whites are inferior, I think suicide may be in order. Make sure you do it in public.

BTW just because you're caucasoid doesn't mean you're white in American society. Immigration policies from the early 20th century prove that, and that race is also a social construct.

Never once said all non-whites are inferior, merely pointed out the fact that the black race/culture as whole is inferior and has always been inferior to the other two major racial classifications. As a matter of fact I have said repeatedly here that the white race/culture was inferior to the mongoloids, as represented by certain Asian cultures, for thousands of years, and have only recently, recent being relative here, caught up. The black race/culture has not evolved at anywhere near the same pace and in some instances has not evolved at all on their own, and I can support this with archeological, sociological and anthropoligcal evidence, not to mention current events, crime statistics, welfare statistics, unwed pregnancy statistics, school drop out statistics, etc, etc, etc. As for being caucasion in American "society", that's irrelevent to the definition of the word which means;
1. Anthropology; Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. As for suicide, nah, I love my life and just some FYI, more people around the world and in the US think like I do than like you do. Humans are tribal by nature and anyone who honestly looks at the evidence of racial/cultural evolution must come to the conclusion that as a race/culture the negroid race/culture is nowhere near as advanced as the other two major races. This is an easily proven fact that is supported by not just the preponderance of evidence, but by ALL the evidence. By the way, if I need spell check in the future, I'll let you know.

 

[jtpr312]

If that dating leads to marriage and family it is nothing but the mongrelization of your race and not beneficial to anyone involved.

You are one seriously ignorant, feeble-minded old fool. You're a coward and a weakling.

Thread killer.

I don't see that a-hole's posts unless someone repeats them on their post so his posts are irrelevent.