"Whiteness" an existential threat to US--the language of genocide in US academia

[JQPublic1]

I doubt the fluidity of gender identity will ever become a national norm. Even among core Democrats some norms are considered immutable. But confuse upholding the unalienable rights of gays and lesbians as acceptance of that lifestyle.

I don't even aspire to entertain the notion that superficial cosmetic differences define race. I leave picking and choosing of undefined racial parameters to those who
emerse themselves in biological fiction. But how did you inherit that million year evolutionary human development yarn?
I have been inculcated with the notion that all modern humans originated from an African mitochondrial EVE less than 100,000 years ago. Wow...your lessons on human evolution were sure different from mine.

Physiological evidence shows humans are generally similar under the skin. Biologically, genetic variations occur more frequently intra racially than they do inter-racially. Also, the critical point that nails your RACE hypothesis to the wall is peer reviewed scientic evaluation showing no human gene is exclusive to any particular group of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

So how is it that the shadowy promulgators of your pseudo concept of race decided to include people of India under the Caucasian umbrella with no real scientific basis for doing so.? And how is it that sometimes Caucasian does not equate to White...depending on the agenda of the white person/group judging a person of color in a spur of the moment decision ....and among those sometimes spuriously denied admission to the white club are Jews, many having blonde hair, blue eyes and pink skin....

I'm having trouble finding information online pertaining to race classifications on US identification cards so I'm skeptical about what you said. It's silly anyway, to think that the concept of race was invented by evil old men as part of some diabolical master plan. That sounds an awful lot like the notions about Jewish people controlling the world, except with white europeans playing the role of the greedy jew. Regardless of what drivers' licenses say, it doesn't prove your crazy theory. Do store clerks check a person's ID before following them around to make sure they don't shoplift? "Oh says here you're in the white person's club, carry on my good fellow." Give me a break.

We all know the difference between a white person and a black person. Even our voices are different. No, not always but more often than not.

Nothing I've said is personal conjecture. If you are too lazy to google my premises...oh well. Just STFU.

 

[IM2]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month. To ask this question, one must either be severely mentally challenged, suffering from psychosis, or are a racist purposefully building a strawman. I’m serious when I say that. I am always stumped when I am asked that question. Are these people really that stupid? Do they not pay attention to how American history has been portrayed? Is it that just because it’s not called white history do they not think that whites have not been described as part of history?

How much plainer does it need to be made? The founders of this nation were all white men. Do we need to say that 55 white men founded this nation for whites to feel they have been given their accurate place in American history? Do we describe George Washington as the first white president and continue to name 44 presidents as the white presidents for some whites to understand just how much white history has been taught? They whine about February but what do we call the other months in reference to American history? Should we call the 11 other months of the year white history month so that whites can understand?

You don't have to take the lack of black founding fathers as a personal insult. It is what it is. Why can't you just accept it? It's in the past. There's no changing it.

I'll take it as what I want to take it. It is what it is. 55 slave owning racist pieces of white trash who founded nothing.

 

[IM2]

I doubt the fluidity of gender identity will ever become a national norm. Even among core Democrats some norms are considered immutable. But confuse upholding the unalienable rights of gays and lesbians as acceptance of that lifestyle.

I don't even aspire to entertain the notion that superficial cosmetic differences define race. I leave picking and choosing of undefined racial parameters to those who
emerse themselves in biological fiction. But how did you inherit that million year evolutionary human development yarn?
I have been inculcated with the notion that all modern humans originated from an African mitochondrial EVE less than 100,000 years ago. Wow...your lessons on human evolution were sure different from mine.

Physiological evidence shows humans are generally similar under the skin. Biologically, genetic variations occur more frequently intra racially than they do inter-racially. Also, the critical point that nails your RACE hypothesis to the wall is peer reviewed scientic evaluation showing no human gene is exclusive to any particular group of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

So how is it that the shadowy promulgators of your pseudo concept of race decided to include people of India under the Caucasian umbrella with no real scientific basis for doing so.? And how is it that sometimes Caucasian does not equate to White...depending on the agenda of the white person/group judging a person of color in a spur of the moment decision ....and among those sometimes spuriously denied admission to the white club are Jews, many having blonde hair, blue eyes and pink skin....

I'm having trouble finding information online pertaining to race classifications on US identification cards so I'm skeptical about what you said. It's silly anyway, to think that the concept of race was invented by evil old men as part of some diabolical master plan. That sounds an awful lot like the notions about Jewish people controlling the world, except with white europeans playing the role of the greedy jew. Regardless of what drivers' licenses say, it doesn't prove your crazy theory. Do store clerks check a person's ID before following them around to make sure they don't shoplift? "Oh says here you're in the white person's club, carry on my good fellow." Give me a break.

We all know the difference between a white person and a black person. Even our voices are different. No, not always but more often than not.

There is no equivalence between your anti Semitism and the reality of white racism. Whites did the things described.

 

[jillian]

Challenge to all liberals in this forum >> Are you gong to use that handy race card that you keep in your shirt pockets, to condemn this blatant, racist pig ? If so, let's hear it.

Show up with some objectivity (if you have any).

we don't have to, you white trash losers are doing it for us.

we don't have to

You do not have to be objective? Then there is no point in listening to anything you say.

Why does she have to be objective to the racism by you and your buddies?

I don't. and calling bigots what they aren't isn't bigotry. they keep trying to tell themselves that because it makes them feel better about themselves

 

[cnelsen]

Another anti-white racist professor providing the language for the coming genocide against whites has surfaced. Lisa Anderson-Levy, a professor at Beloit University, argues that "whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S."

Sounds serious, huh?

View attachment 182457

Her work explores the "ubiquity and violence of whiteness" and she advocates whiteness be "dismantled".

Let's get one thing clear: whiteness is the same thing as white. When that guy in South Africa advocates "cutting the throat of whiteness", he is advocating racial murder. When Ms Anderson-Levy advocates dismantling whiteness, she is advocating "dismantling"--or disappearing--whites.

Anderson-Levy teaches American young people that whites, the founders of the country, threaten the US with annihilation by our very existence; we are an existential threat. Our existence as whites means everyone everywhere is necessarily a victim of the violence our existence perpetrates against them.

Clearly, this Jamaican immigrant, hates whites and wants to exterminate the native people of her adopted land. And I'm guessing the "Levy" means she is married to a Jew (she did do a discussion panel with the notorious, foaming-at-the-mouth Jewish white-hater, Tim Wise).


UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’

I did not read the article......but given I would assume that "whiteness" means "white supremacy".

White supremacy = white.
White nationalism = white
Whiteness = white

 

[cnelsen]

Lol. People who talk with this. Just laugh at them and carry on. What are they gonna do, attack you physically? If you don't say anything, there's nothing they can use against you out of context either. Just laugh and carry on. Not worth taking seriously.

She's a professor teaching the next generation of lawyers, judges and politicians to hate white people. Her school receives tax money in the form of student loans. She's the lead on a $600,000 project at Benoit to "strengthen diversity". If a professor was lecturing on how to deconstruct brownness or blackness, would you still think everyone should just sit back and ignore it?

If they are weak-minded enough to listen to that whacked out bitch, probably not worth taking seriously themselves, no?

Stop worrying about shit you can't change. People are gonna hate you for your skin color, regardless of what color it is. That's just the world we live in, and ain't nothing changing about it. Get used to it.

I really do think whites need to think about why there may be people of color who don't like whites. Because they are not getting disliked only because of skin color.

Actually, if you don't know the person and you dislike them because they are white, then yeah; you are pretty much just disliking them for their skin color/how they look in general. Not sure how one can possibly come to any other conclusion without some impressive mental gymnastics.

No. Whites have a record of hating people because of race that has created a mistrust of whites by other races.

The racist always has his justification, don't you.

 

[AKIP]

Another anti-white racist professor providing the language for the coming genocide against whites has surfaced. Lisa Anderson-Levy, a professor at Beloit University, argues that "whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S."

Sounds serious, huh?

View attachment 182457

Her work explores the "ubiquity and violence of whiteness" and she advocates whiteness be "dismantled".

Let's get one thing clear: whiteness is the same thing as white. When that guy in South Africa advocates "cutting the throat of whiteness", he is advocating racial murder. When Ms Anderson-Levy advocates dismantling whiteness, she is advocating "dismantling"--or disappearing--whites.

Anderson-Levy teaches American young people that whites, the founders of the country, threaten the US with annihilation by our very existence; we are an existential threat. Our existence as whites means everyone everywhere is necessarily a victim of the violence our existence perpetrates against them.

Clearly, this Jamaican immigrant, hates whites and wants to exterminate the native people of her adopted land. And I'm guessing the "Levy" means she is married to a Jew (she did do a discussion panel with the notorious, foaming-at-the-mouth Jewish white-hater, Tim Wise).


UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’

I did not read the article......but given I would assume that "whiteness" means "white supremacy".

White supremacy = white.
White nationalism = white
Whiteness = white

White, in and of itself, is no different than "black" or "brown". They are just "visible" traits. She is talking about whiteness when seen as more than just a visible trait, but rather, a marker or trait of supremacy over other visible traits called "races". In other words, she is talking about whiteness in the context of a juxtaposition.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

Do you think the skeletons of Ashkenazi Jews, including the skulls, are any different from yours?

Another factor often overlooked in evaluating racial differences is interbreeding. Skeletal physiology in mixed individuals could show affinity with either parent...or something in between.


But let's take this debate to the place where modern humans are said to have originated: Africa. The diverse physiologies found among autocthonous peoples of continental Africa seem to reflect any and all human characteristics in the world. That being said, I am puzzled by anthropologists who attempt to assign one set of physiological values to blacks. Pygmies are as different from Watusi
as they are from German dwarfs and other Africans. The skeletal remains of a Somali warrior would be indistinguishable from those of a northern European. Are you beginning to see how silly this race thing is?

Just because there's some overlap doesn't mean there's no race.

There's also some overlap in some bird sub-species, but yet they still are just that.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

Because Africans are all different from each other too. Africa is in fact the most genetically diverse continent on earth.

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

I'm not sure forensic exanlminations of skeletal remains to determine race are always accurate for a number of reasons.
1. Millions of people are mixed race

2. Africans are not genetically monolithic. The African continent is the most genetically diverse place on earth. There are no single skeletal characteristics that defines all the black peoples of Africa by one physiological paradigm. Some Africans, such as the Somalis, share skeletal traits consistent with nordic European types, others ..such as the Khoi San resemble nappy headed Chinese.
And neither of those two groups share skeletal frames/skulls with central and western Africans.

The concept of race fails in Africa. But for those who study physical anthropology...you know that Europe is nearly as genetically diverse as Africa.

There are multiple African races, indeed.

 

[Picaro]

Examples of what's fashionable now among the assorted racist deviants like AKIP, IM2, etc. Did you know arithmetic is 'whiteness' and like, way rayciss n stuff?

Prof: Algebra, geometry perpetuate white privilege

 

[bgrouse]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month. To ask this question, one must either be severely mentally challenged, suffering from psychosis, or are a racist purposefully building a strawman. I’m serious when I say that. I am always stumped when I am asked that question. Are these people really that stupid? Do they not pay attention to how American history has been portrayed? Is it that just because it’s not called white history do they not think that whites have not been described as part of history?

How much plainer does it need to be made? The founders of this nation were all white men. Do we need to say that 55 white men founded this nation for whites to feel they have been given their accurate place in American history? Do we describe George Washington as the first white president and continue to name 44 presidents as the white presidents for some whites to understand just how much white history has been taught? They whine about February but what do we call the other months in reference to American history? Should we call the 11 other months of the year white history month so that whites can understand?

You don't have to take the lack of black founding fathers as a personal insult. It is what it is. Why can't you just accept it? It's in the past. There's no changing it.

I'll take it as what I want to take it. It is what it is. 55 slave owning racist pieces of white trash who founded nothing.

Yet it is you who stays with all the supposed oppression and racism in this "nothing" of a country because deep down you know you don't want to live in a black-run shithole.

 

[Picaro]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month. To ask this question, one must either be severely mentally challenged, suffering from psychosis, or are a racist purposefully building a strawman. I’m serious when I say that. I am always stumped when I am asked that question. Are these people really that stupid? Do they not pay attention to how American history has been portrayed? Is it that just because it’s not called white history do they not think that whites have not been described as part of history?

How much plainer does it need to be made? The founders of this nation were all white men. Do we need to say that 55 white men founded this nation for whites to feel they have been given their accurate place in American history? Do we describe George Washington as the first white president and continue to name 44 presidents as the white presidents for some whites to understand just how much white history has been taught? They whine about February but what do we call the other months in reference to American history? Should we call the 11 other months of the year white history month so that whites can understand?

You don't have to take the lack of black founding fathers as a personal insult. It is what it is. Why can't you just accept it? It's in the past. There's no changing it.

I'll take it as what I want to take it. It is what it is. 55 slave owning racist pieces of white trash who founded nothing.

Yet it is you who stays with all the supposed oppression and racism in this "nothing" of a country because deep down you know you don't want to live in a black-run shithole.

Africans don't give a crap about their scams for shaking down Americans. They would just shoot the whiners and go on about their business.

 

[IM2]

She's a professor teaching the next generation of lawyers, judges and politicians to hate white people. Her school receives tax money in the form of student loans. She's the lead on a $600,000 project at Benoit to "strengthen diversity". If a professor was lecturing on how to deconstruct brownness or blackness, would you still think everyone should just sit back and ignore it?

If they are weak-minded enough to listen to that whacked out bitch, probably not worth taking seriously themselves, no?

Stop worrying about shit you can't change. People are gonna hate you for your skin color, regardless of what color it is. That's just the world we live in, and ain't nothing changing about it. Get used to it.

I really do think whites need to think about why there may be people of color who don't like whites. Because they are not getting disliked only because of skin color.

Actually, if you don't know the person and you dislike them because they are white, then yeah; you are pretty much just disliking them for their skin color/how they look in general. Not sure how one can possibly come to any other conclusion without some impressive mental gymnastics.

No. Whites have a record of hating people because of race that has created a mistrust of whites by other races.

The racist always has his justification, don't you.

Facts and truth are not justifications.

 

[jillian]

She's a professor teaching the next generation of lawyers, judges and politicians to hate white people. Her school receives tax money in the form of student loans. She's the lead on a $600,000 project at Benoit to "strengthen diversity". If a professor was lecturing on how to deconstruct brownness or blackness, would you still think everyone should just sit back and ignore it?

If they are weak-minded enough to listen to that whacked out bitch, probably not worth taking seriously themselves, no?

Stop worrying about shit you can't change. People are gonna hate you for your skin color, regardless of what color it is. That's just the world we live in, and ain't nothing changing about it. Get used to it.

I really do think whites need to think about why there may be people of color who don't like whites. Because they are not getting disliked only because of skin color.

Actually, if you don't know the person and you dislike them because they are white, then yeah; you are pretty much just disliking them for their skin color/how they look in general. Not sure how one can possibly come to any other conclusion without some impressive mental gymnastics.

No. Whites have a record of hating people because of race that has created a mistrust of whites by other races.

The racist always has his justification, don't you.

You’re confused as to who the racists are.

 

[JQPublic1]

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

Do you think the skeletons of Ashkenazi Jews, including the skulls, are any different from yours?

Another factor often overlooked in evaluating racial differences is interbreeding. Skeletal physiology in mixed individuals could show affinity with either parent...or something in between.


But let's take this debate to the place where modern humans are said to have originated: Africa. The diverse physiologies found among autocthonous peoples of continental Africa seem to reflect any and all human characteristics in the world. That being said, I am puzzled by anthropologists who attempt to assign one set of physiological values to blacks. Pygmies are as different from Watusi
as they are from German dwarfs and other Africans. The skeletal remains of a Somali warrior would be indistinguishable from those of a northern European. Are you beginning to see how silly this race thing is?

Just because there's some overlap doesn't mean there's no race.

There's also some overlap in some bird sub-species, but yet they still are just that.

Since blacks were the first modern humans i guess that makes YOU a subspecies then. But that is your kind if logic...not mine.

Look, if your argument is centered on the notion that genetic diversity somehow plays a part in the pseudo concept of race; you're wrong. There is more genetic diversity among purported " homogenous" groups than between that group and other "racial" groups.

 

[JQPublic1]

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

Because Africans are all different from each other too. Africa is in fact the most genetically diverse continent on earth.

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

The idea of race and gender being social constructs was invented by communists to help dismantle western capitalist society. If you believe that women are exactly the same as men, and you can't tell the difference between a Frenchman and a Australian aborigine then I am not going to waste any more time talking to you.

Race is a social construct. Gender is not.
That you would even bring gender into a discussion on race is wierd. Wierder still is the notion you inherited from pseudoscience positing that the human race is divided into myriad sub-races with the "white" race on top as the master race. Your silliness continued when you referenced differences between a frenchman and the autocthonous peoples of Australia as being racial . Yet, your pseudoscience conveniently usurps the rich history of India, whose citizens don't look French EITHER, and arbitrarily deems them to be of the same race you claim to be. But if you are discovered to be an Ashkenazi Jew , such as Kirk Douglas, you lose your white race card. So go on...slink yo ignorant arse on up outta here...go lick your wounds 'cause you been served sucka.

If race is just a social construct, explain how by examining genetic material can tell race, as can a skeletal remains including the skull can tell race too?

I'm not sure forensic exanlminations of skeletal remains to determine race are always accurate for a number of reasons.
1. Millions of people are mixed race

2. Africans are not genetically monolithic. The African continent is the most genetically diverse place on earth. There are no single skeletal characteristics that defines all the black peoples of Africa by one physiological paradigm. Some Africans, such as the Somalis, share skeletal traits consistent with nordic European types, others ..such as the Khoi San resemble nappy headed Chinese.
And neither of those two groups share skeletal frames/skulls with central and western Africans.

The concept of race fails in Africa. But for those who study physical anthropology...you know that Europe is nearly as genetically diverse as Africa.

There are multiple African races, indeed.

Says who? I'd like to see the study. And if sych s study exists i want to see what it says about multiple White races. Or does " whiteness" go beyond race?

 

[JQPublic1]

Another use of the false equivalence by whites pertains to the issues of history and cultural identification. For example, whites have been whining for years about why they cannot have a white history month. To ask this question, one must either be severely mentally challenged, suffering from psychosis, or are a racist purposefully building a strawman. I’m serious when I say that. I am always stumped when I am asked that question. Are these people really that stupid? Do they not pay attention to how American history has been portrayed? Is it that just because it’s not called white history do they not think that whites have not been described as part of history?

How much plainer does it need to be made? The founders of this nation were all white men. Do we need to say that 55 white men founded this nation for whites to feel they have been given their accurate place in American history? Do we describe George Washington as the first white president and continue to name 44 presidents as the white presidents for some whites to understand just how much white history has been taught? They whine about February but what do we call the other months in reference to American history? Should we call the 11 other months of the year white history month so that whites can understand?

You don't have to take the lack of black founding fathers as a personal insult. It is what it is. Why can't you just accept it? It's in the past. There's no changing it.

There was no lack of Black founding fathers. They just weren't included in the curriculums of our school systems. And notably, Black historians, if they were aware of the rather significant knowledge, have not done a good job of bringing these lost histories to light.
Ironically, the historical revelations i am about to present were placed before the public eye by a highly unlikely narrator. Would you believe ...its the one and only...Glen Beck.

Wait! Don't laugh. It first I too thought this was a joke. But the more I emersed myself into the video, the more I realized Beck was serious and credible. Armed with an arsenal of paintings, charts and several historians to assist him, Beck taught and I learned. I've included part 1 of 5 in this post and a link for those interested in learning more.



glenn beck black founding fathers - Bing

 

[cnelsen]

Another anti-white racist professor providing the language for the coming genocide against whites has surfaced. Lisa Anderson-Levy, a professor at Beloit University, argues that "whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S."

Sounds serious, huh?

View attachment 182457

Her work explores the "ubiquity and violence of whiteness" and she advocates whiteness be "dismantled".

Let's get one thing clear: whiteness is the same thing as white. When that guy in South Africa advocates "cutting the throat of whiteness", he is advocating racial murder. When Ms Anderson-Levy advocates dismantling whiteness, she is advocating "dismantling"--or disappearing--whites.

Anderson-Levy teaches American young people that whites, the founders of the country, threaten the US with annihilation by our very existence; we are an existential threat. Our existence as whites means everyone everywhere is necessarily a victim of the violence our existence perpetrates against them.

Clearly, this Jamaican immigrant, hates whites and wants to exterminate the native people of her adopted land. And I'm guessing the "Levy" means she is married to a Jew (she did do a discussion panel with the notorious, foaming-at-the-mouth Jewish white-hater, Tim Wise).


UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’

I did not read the article......but given I would assume that "whiteness" means "white supremacy".

White supremacy = white.
White nationalism = white
Whiteness = white

White, in and of itself, is no different than "black" or "brown". They are just "visible" traits. She is talking about whiteness when seen as more than just a visible trait, but rather, a marker or trait of supremacy over other visible traits called "races". In other words, she is talking about whiteness in the context of a juxtaposition.

So, then, ask her to implement a policy--any policy--meant to address "whiteness" and you will soon see that, in the real world, she is talking about whites and she is a vicious, hate-filled, genocidal racist.

 

[IM2]

Another anti-white racist professor providing the language for the coming genocide against whites has surfaced. Lisa Anderson-Levy, a professor at Beloit University, argues that "whiteness poses an existential threat to social, political, and economic life in the U.S."

Sounds serious, huh?

View attachment 182457

Her work explores the "ubiquity and violence of whiteness" and she advocates whiteness be "dismantled".

Let's get one thing clear: whiteness is the same thing as white. When that guy in South Africa advocates "cutting the throat of whiteness", he is advocating racial murder. When Ms Anderson-Levy advocates dismantling whiteness, she is advocating "dismantling"--or disappearing--whites.

Anderson-Levy teaches American young people that whites, the founders of the country, threaten the US with annihilation by our very existence; we are an existential threat. Our existence as whites means everyone everywhere is necessarily a victim of the violence our existence perpetrates against them.

Clearly, this Jamaican immigrant, hates whites and wants to exterminate the native people of her adopted land. And I'm guessing the "Levy" means she is married to a Jew (she did do a discussion panel with the notorious, foaming-at-the-mouth Jewish white-hater, Tim Wise).


UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’

I did not read the article......but given I would assume that "whiteness" means "white supremacy".

White supremacy = white.
White nationalism = white
Whiteness = white

White, in and of itself, is no different than "black" or "brown". They are just "visible" traits. She is talking about whiteness when seen as more than just a visible trait, but rather, a marker or trait of supremacy over other visible traits called "races". In other words, she is talking about whiteness in the context of a juxtaposition.

So, then, ask her to implement a policy--any policy--meant to address "whiteness" and you will soon see that, in the real world, she is talking about whites and she is a vicious, hate-filled, genocidal racist.

Seems like she's a truth teller.

 

[cnelsen]

The cross-burning, pretend-tough violent bullshit wannabe image of the racist has now become the pretend-victim, shameless, illogical pussy crying loser racist image that the weakest links have chosen to embrace. What a joke.

How do you think white people should react to the all too common attacks on "whiteness"...?

Stop pretending you speak for "white people," and stop imagining "attacks."

I am a white person though- blonde hair and green eyes. When these professors talk about dismantling whiteness, they're talking about people like me.

Whiteness is a state of mind invented to establish a racial hierarchy in the world. At first some men with skin as fair as the Aryan Nordic ideal were deemed unfit to be designated White. The Irish, italians, and Greeks were admitted to the social club of whiteness fairly recently. And the ancient people of North Africa, specifically the black people of KMT, have been LACQUERED with and enshrined in whitness posthumously.

So whiteness has been a mantle of superiority given to those peoples who
the hegemonic factions feel have contributed something to the world. Whiteness has been extended to the peoples of India although India is in Asia. Further, despite the obvious fact some are blacker than or as black as any random African, in America they are deemed White. How do I know? When i was a cop i saw the driver's licenses. Evevery one if them were classified white....ok.your turn...

And who are these "hegemonic factions "?