That's racist!

#24,226
#24,226
^^^ thats quite impressive by the SE. I am honestly surprised by that and pleased. Look at the great lakes states like Michigan and some of the southwest. Ouch.
 
#24,227
#24,227
LouderVol said:
I don't know if you know this, but the baby usually survives if the dad is killed. dad being hung doesn't mean there are no babies.

the law was written to make sure mixed children stayed BLACK. not slaves. race didn't confer slavery. and its racist as hades to say the mixing was only in one direction. sure it was dominated by the slave owners due to access, but the census tracked mixed race so it wasn't an insignificant number. looks like it was a pretty consistent 10%.
Click to expand...

So you think white women in the 1800s were clamoring to have mixed race children with black men? Stop with this nonsense. The average African American is around 80% African in terms of DNA and 20% European. That 20% is found almost exclusively in the Y-chromosome meaning its DNA from European males. African Americans have almost no European female DNA which proves that most of race mixing that happened during slavery was white men forcing themselves on black women.
 
#24,228
#24,228
@Dobbs 4 Heisman
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
So you think white women in the 1800s were clamoring to have mixed race children with black men? Stop with this nonsense. The average African American is around 80% African in terms of DNA and 20% European. That 20% is found almost exclusively in the Y-chromosome meaning its DNA from European males. African Americans have almost no European female DNA which proves that most of race mixing that happened during slavery was white men forcing themselves on black women.
Click to expand...
moving this here so its in an appropriate thread.

you are straight up lying now. I never claimed they were clamoring for them. I even pointed out it was only 10% of the black community was considered mixed and free. that doesn't get any where close to "most of the race mixing". if anything you are proving my point.

I am willing to bet it worked a lot like today. people in similar situations bond with people in similar situations. I know you don't believe it, but there were poor and disenfranchised whites, including women, in 1800s America. you had several well known communities that mixed, the Creole are probably the most famous, the black Appalachians are locally relevant to TN. you had a lot of coastal communities with mixing.

you are displaying what I was talking about earlier. This self created/maintained racism targeted at your own people that denies reality and focuses on victimhood.

thats not to say there were no victims, just saying it wasn't all victims.
 
#24,229
#24,229
LouderVol said:
@Dobbs 4 Heisman

moving this here so its in an appropriate thread.

you are straight up lying now. I never claimed they were clamoring for them. I even pointed out it was only 10% of the black community was considered mixed and free. that doesn't get any where close to "most of the race mixing". if anything you are proving my point.

I am willing to bet it worked a lot like today. people in similar situations bond with people in similar situations. I know you don't believe it, but there were poor and disenfranchised whites, including women, in 1800s America. you had several well known communities that mixed, the Creole are probably the most famous, the black Appalachians are locally relevant to TN. you had a lot of coastal communities with mixing.

you are displaying what I was talking about earlier. This self created/maintained racism targeted at your own people that denies reality and focuses on victimhood.

thats not to say there were no victims, just saying it wasn't all victims.
Click to expand...

But race mattered even more than poverty back then. Ever heard the quote from Lyndon B. Johnson where he said that if you let a poor white man feel he's better than the richest black man he'll give you the money from his pocket. Ideas of racial supremacy made it almost impossible for black men to be in sexual relationships with white women before the last 50 or so years let alone back during slavery. You're crazy if you think there was any level of race mixing back then involving black men and white women. The white men of that era wouldn't allow it. Its one of the reasons the KKK was founded by the way. To protect white women from the sexual interests of black men.

And once again DNA testing supports what I'm saying. You conveniently ignored that point in my last post. Of the 20% European DNA in the genomw of the average African American, almost all of it is found in the Y-DNA which is passed from father to son. Meaning its only European male DNA found in the African American genome. Not European female DNA. Meaning there was no sexual reproduction between black men and white women in the past. The only interracial children being borne were from sex between white men and black women. And given the context of slavery we know how that happened. It was white slave masters forcing themselves on their black female slaves creating mixed race children who they kept as slaves.

Just because this history is barbaric doesn't mean you can try to rewrite it.
 
#24,230
#24,230
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
But race mattered even more than poverty back then. Ever heard the quote from Lyndon B. Johnson where he said that if you let a poor white man feel he's better than the richest black man he'll give you the money from his pocket. Ideas of racial supremacy made it almost impossible for black men to be in sexual relationships with white women before the last 50 or so years let alone back during slavery. You're crazy if you think there was any level of race mixing back then involving black men and white women. The white men of that era wouldn't allow it. Its one of the reasons the KKK was founded by the way. To protect white women from the sexual interests of black men.

And once again DNA testing supports what I'm saying. You conveniently ignored that point in my last post. Of the 20% European DNA in the genomw of the average African American, almost all of it is found in the Y-DNA which is passed from father to son. Meaning its only European male DNA found in the African American genome. Not European female DNA. Meaning there was no sexual reproduction between black men and white women in the past. The only interracial children being borne were from sex between white men and black women. And given the context of slavery we know how that happened. It was white slave masters forcing themselves on their black female slaves creating mixed race children who they kept as slaves.

Just because this history is barbaric doesn't mean you can try to rewrite it.
Click to expand...
get your own posts straight before you come at me. you go from almost all of it, to only real fast. I pointed out it was only 10% of the black population. that fits in with your "almost all of it". in a sea of 90% they are going to have to cast a really wide net to catch a representative 10% of DNA.

I gave you two examples where we know mixing was happening. sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.

there being interracial groups by choice doesn't do anything to diminish slavery. you are just being defensive instead of looking at facts that challenge your preconceived notions. like I said, its part of your victimhood. instead of acknowledging that life/history/the system wasn't designed to come after you and you alone, you just dig in to the point where you have to contradict yourself within two sentences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#24,232
#24,232
LouderVol said:
get your own posts straight before you come at me. you go from almost all of it, to only real fast. I pointed out it was only 10% of the black population. that fits in with your "almost all of it". in a sea of 90% they are going to have to cast a really wide net to catch a representative 10% of DNA.

I gave you two examples where we know mixing was happening. sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.

there being interracial groups by choice doesn't do anything to diminish slavery. you are just being defensive instead of looking at facts that challenge your preconceived notions. like I said, its part of your victimhood. instead of acknowledging that life/history/the system wasn't designed to come after you and you alone, you just dig in to the point where you have to contradict yourself within two sentences.
Click to expand...

You seem confused by what I'm saying. Sure only 10% of black people might be biracial/mixed. But those 10% did intermarry with other black people. That's where the 80/20 genetic split comes from. You can get angry all you want but the AVERAGE African American is about 20% European. That is scientific fact. And of that 20% European DNA almost all of it is found in the Y-DNA. Once again an indisputable fact. From those facts we can summarize that almost all of the mixing that happened between African Americans and white people in this country was between white men and black women.

Now please give me an explanation of how this can be the case unless it was white slave masters forcing themselves onto black women?
 
#24,233
#24,233
Dobbs4Heisman is pretty radical but he does make some solid points about black people. I tend to think the real evil and worse time for black people in America wasn't slavery but segregation period.

Slavery was bad but black people were put further behind by Segregation in my view. Slaves were often treated the way people treat pets today in that they were worth money and valuable to the owner. Not a great relationship but better than the racism of segregation where they were treated like a nuisance or trash by society. Not everyone black was a slave and not every white person treated black people bad or owned slaves. However, there were stereotypes unique to the Americas (it wasn't just North America but all of America thanks to Colonialism) that drove this mentality.

Therefore, Dobbs has a point that a stigma existed and sometimes still exists. I will say this, though. Most modern generations have started to move further and further away from that mentality. I see more acceptance of black people today than ever before. It helps me as my family is mixed race and that is become more and more common. 20 years ago, my wife and I would have been frown at for adopting a child of a different race but today we tend to get very positive feedback from all races.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#24,235
#24,235
volbound1700 said:
Dobbs4Heisman is pretty radical but he does make some solid points about black people. I tend to think the real evil and worse time for black people in America wasn't slavery but segregation period.

Slavery was bad but black people were put further behind by Segregation in my view. Slaves were often treated the way people treat pets today in that they were worth money and valuable to the owner. Not a great relationship but better than the racism of segregation where they were treated like a nuisance or trash by society. Not everyone black was a slave and not every white person treated black people bad or owned slaves. However, there were stereotypes unique to the Americas (it wasn't just North America but all of America thanks to Colonialism) that drove this mentality.

Therefore, Dobbs has a point that a stigma existed and sometimes still exists. I will say this, though. Most modern generations have started to move further and further away from that mentality. I see more acceptance of black people today than ever before. It helps me as my family is mixed race and that is become more and more common. 20 years ago, my wife and I would have been frown at for adopting a child of a different race but today we tend to get very positive feedback from all races.
Click to expand...
There is a large contingent of black folks that want segregation back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and lookoutmtn17
#24,236
#24,236
volbound1700 said:
Dobbs4Heisman is pretty radical but he does make some solid points about black people. I tend to think the real evil and worse time for black people in America wasn't slavery but segregation period.

Slavery was bad but black people were put further behind by Segregation in my view. Slaves were often treated the way people treat pets today in that they were worth money and valuable to the owner. Not a great relationship but better than the racism of segregation where they were treated like a nuisance or trash by society. Not everyone black was a slave and not every white person treated black people bad or owned slaves. However, there were stereotypes unique to the Americas (it wasn't just North America but all of America thanks to Colonialism) that drove this mentality.

Therefore, Dobbs has a point that a stigma existed and sometimes still exists. I will say this, though. Most modern generations have started to move further and further away from that mentality. I see more acceptance of black people today than ever before. It helps me as my family is mixed race and that is become more and more common. 20 years ago, my wife and I would have been frown at for adopting a child of a different race but today we tend to get very positive feedback from all races.
Click to expand...


My family is also mixed. Both my little sisters are black and I adore them. I am roughly 15 and 20 years older than them so my role was far different than a normal sibling and i have always been very protective of them. That said...I hate the Democrat Party, DEI, Affirmative Action, CRT, and all that racist garbage. Racist against white is still racist. Sexist against males is still sexist. Human beings should be judged based solely on merit, skills, relevant education etc. Any form of identity politics is garbage. There are plenty of Leftists that would call me a racist myself for these beliefs. I don't care at all. Everyone is generally more comfortable with and apt to feel welcome among people who look like them. Thats human nature. Those of us who have family members who don't look anything like us have a little different perspective though obviously. I am so tired of hearing the Left cry racism that I automatically tune them out when i hear that word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Carl Pickens and volbound1700
#24,238
#24,238
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
You seem confused by what I'm saying. Sure only 10% of black people might be biracial/mixed. But those 10% did intermarry with other black people. That's where the 80/20 genetic split comes from. You can get angry all you want but the AVERAGE African American is about 20% European. That is scientific fact. And of that 20% European DNA almost all of it is found in the Y-DNA. Once again an indisputable fact. From those facts we can summarize that almost all of the mixing that happened between African Americans and white people in this country was between white men and black women.

Now please give me an explanation of how this can be the case unless it was white slave masters forcing themselves onto black women?
Click to expand...
not every white male who had sex with an african woman would have been slave master/slave relationship. again, there was a free population of "blacks", even in the south, that represented at least 10% of the total black population.

Until you can address Creole and Black Appalachians (Melungeons), you haven't refuted that it was ALL slave master taking advantage of the slaves. I am sure there are others, but those are the "major" populations I am aware of as a southerner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#24,239
#24,239
marcusluvsvols said:
My family is also mixed. Both my little sisters are black and I adore them. I am roughly 15 and 20 years older than them so my role was far different than a normal sibling and i have always been very protective of them. That said...I hate the Democrat Party, DEI, Affirmative Action, CRT, and all that racist garbage. Racist against white is still racist. Sexist against males is still sexist. Human beings should be judged based solely on merit, skills, relevant education etc. Any form of identity politics is garbage. There are plenty of Leftists that would call me a racist myself for these beliefs. I don't care at all. Everyone is generally more comfortable with and apt to feel welcome among people who look like them. Thats human nature. Those of us who have family members who don't look anything like us have a little different perspective though obviously. I am so tired of hearing the Left cry racism that I automatically tune them out when i hear that word.
Click to expand...

Same here for two reasons:

1. It cites to stuff that is flat out not accurate
2. It can create more racism

Now a small part of DEI isn't a bad thing but definitely stuff like the 1619 Project (which is flat out wrong) is problematic. Having groups that celebrate Black or Hispanic history in the work place is not a bad thing IMO and I support that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#24,240
#24,240
LouderVol said:
not every white male who had sex with an african woman would have been slave master/slave relationship. again, there was a free population of "blacks", even in the south, that represented at least 10% of the total black population.

Until you can address Creole and Black Appalachians (Melungeons), you haven't refuted that it was ALL slave master taking advantage of the slaves. I am sure there are others, but those are the "major" populations I am aware of as a southerner.
Click to expand...

Now tell me what sort of white man would marry a black woman in the 18th or 19th century with racism at an all-time high? You do know that his children would be subject to potentially being kidnapped by runaway slave catchers and being sold into slavery. Did you not watch 12 Years A Slave? What sort of person would put his future children in that peril?

I know you don't want it to be the case that most of the race mixing at that time was as a result of rape but let's be real. Almost all of interracial children being born at that time were the result of slave masters raping black women. The mixed race children who were borne to two loving parents were the exception not the rule.
 
#24,241
#24,241
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Now tell me what sort of white man would marry a black woman in the 18th or 19th century with racism at an all-time high? You do know that his children would be subject to potentially being kidnapped by runaway slave catchers and being sold into slavery. Did you not watch 12 Years A Slave? What sort of person would put his future children in that peril?

I know you don't want it to be the case that most of the race mixing at that time was as a result of rape but let's be real. Almost all of interracial children being born at that time were the result of slave masters raping black women. The mixed race children who were borne to two loving parents were the exception not the rule.
Click to expand...
How is me arguing that up to 10% weren't slave masters raping slaves, mean that I think most of mixed weren't the result of rape? you really struggle with percentages, and or you keep a really racist view of your own people.

if you knew anything about the Creole or the Melungeons you would know they lived far out, by themselves, in isolated communities. where slave grabbers would have had a hard time finding, or getting out alive. those are the type of people who would have had children with a black woman. independent types, that weren't part of "polite" society. maybe men already on the run for their own crimes, real of perceived. none of them were really rich, most probably had very few options.

you continue to act like the worst possible answer was the only thing to happen. while the worst possible did dominate the landscape, its foolish to take on such an absolutist view when there are clear exceptions.
 
#24,242
#24,242
LouderVol said:
How is me arguing that up to 10% weren't slave masters raping slaves, mean that I think most of mixed weren't the result of rape? you really struggle with percentages, and or you keep a really racist view of your own people.

if you knew anything about the Creole or the Melungeons you would know they lived far out, by themselves, in isolated communities. where slave grabbers would have had a hard time finding, or getting out alive. those are the type of people who would have had children with a black woman. independent types, that weren't part of "polite" society. maybe men already on the run for their own crimes, real of perceived. none of them were really rich, most probably had very few options.

you continue to act like the worst possible answer was the only thing to happen. while the worst possible did dominate the landscape, its foolish to take on such an absolutist view when there are clear exceptions.
Click to expand...

I never said it was the only way it happened. Just the most common way that 20% European DNA found its way into the African American gene pool. If only people in Louisiana had European ancestry you might have a point. But considering that 20% number is pretty universal it means black people as a whole were getting this European ancestry introduced into the gene pool. Which means this was a widespread thing not just a regional Louisiana thing.
 
#24,243
#24,243
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I never said it was the only way it happened. Just the most common way that 20% European DNA found its way into the African American gene pool. If only people in Louisiana had European ancestry you might have a point. But considering that 20% number is pretty universal it means black people as a whole were getting this European ancestry introduced into the gene pool. Which means this was a widespread thing not just a regional Louisiana thing.
Click to expand...
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
But race mattered even more than poverty back then. Ever heard the quote from Lyndon B. Johnson where he said that if you let a poor white man feel he's better than the richest black man he'll give you the money from his pocket. Ideas of racial supremacy made it almost impossible for black men to be in sexual relationships with white women before the last 50 or so years let alone back during slavery. You're crazy if you think there was any level of race mixing back then involving black men and white women. The white men of that era wouldn't allow it. Its one of the reasons the KKK was founded by the way. To protect white women from the sexual interests of black men.

And once again DNA testing supports what I'm saying. You conveniently ignored that point in my last post. Of the 20% European DNA in the genomw of the average African American, almost all of it is found in the Y-DNA which is passed from father to son. Meaning its only European male DNA found in the African American genome. Not European female DNA. Meaning there was no sexual reproduction between black men and white women in the past. The only interracial children being borne were from sex between white men and black women. And given the context of slavery we know how that happened. It was white slave masters forcing themselves on their black female slaves creating mixed race children who they kept as slaves.

Just because this history is barbaric doesn't mean you can try to rewrite it.
Click to expand...
yes you did say it was the only way. try again, this is the second time I have referenced this particular quote of yours. you have used that bs elsewhere, but I doubt bringing those quotes in will make any difference either.

even if they were the only populations, which they weren't, you realize the Creole in Louisiana, and Melungeons, wouldn't have only stayed in their "homes". some of them would have spread out over the decades.

and the way genetics works you are going to get a decent bit of spread over time even from a pretty small number of incidences. not all of the "mixed blacks" would have only bred with other mixed blacks, like you assume.
 
#24,244
#24,244
LouderVol said:
yes you did say it was the only way. try again, this is the second time I have referenced this particular quote of yours. you have used that bs elsewhere, but I doubt bringing those quotes in will make any difference either.

even if they were the only populations, which they weren't, you realize the Creole in Louisiana, and Melungeons, wouldn't have only stayed in their "homes". some of them would have spread out over the decades.

and the way genetics works you are going to get a decent bit of spread over time even from a pretty small number of incidences. not all of the "mixed blacks" would have only bred with other mixed blacks, like you assume.
Click to expand...

Looks like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

I said the 20% European DNA in the African American genome came from white men having children with black women. However, I never said every instance of white men sleeping with black women was rape. I do acknowledge there may have been a small number of consensual relationships between lower status white men and black women. But those were the outliers. Not the norm. What didn't happen in a statistically significant number was black men having children with white women. That's the thing I denied happened.
 
#24,245
#24,245
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Looks like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

I said the 20% European DNA in the African American genome came from white men having children with black women. However, I never said every instance of white men sleeping with black women was rape. I do acknowledge there may have been a small number of consensual relationships between lower status white men and black women. But those were the outliers. Not the norm. What didn't happen in a statistically significant number was black men having children with white women. That's the thing I denied happened.
Click to expand...
my reading comprehension is fine, its your use of absolutes that is the issue.

and to the last I guess it depends on how you define statistically significant. to me even a couple percentage points, when talking about hundreds of thousands of people, is still significant.

the white slave owners raping black women, would not have counted to the free blacks. so that percentage wouldn't have contributed to the ~10% that shows up as free in the census of the time. meaning the 10% were ONLY the "free" blacks including mixed race.

if you continue to deny the existence of any free totally black communities, I would guess that within that 10% the percentage of black fathers vs black mothers would have followed pretty closely to whatever the break down of those sexes were within the community. which I am going to assume is roughly 50%. for the record I know those communities existed so I am not assuming everyone of those 10% were actually mixed race.
 
#24,249
#24,249
LouderVol said:
my reading comprehension is fine, its your use of absolutes that is the issue.

and to the last I guess it depends on how you define statistically significant. to me even a couple percentage points, when talking about hundreds of thousands of people, is still significant.

the white slave owners raping black women, would not have counted to the free blacks. so that percentage wouldn't have contributed to the ~10% that shows up as free in the census of the time. meaning the 10% were ONLY the "free" blacks including mixed race.

if you continue to deny the existence of any free totally black communities, I would guess that within that 10% the percentage of black fathers vs black mothers would have followed pretty closely to whatever the break down of those sexes were within the community. which I am going to assume is roughly 50%. for the record I know those communities existed so I am not assuming everyone of those 10% were actually mixed race.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge there were free black communities. I just don't think there was much consensual race mixing happening in those communities. Remember it was only in 1967 with Loving vs Virginia was decided where the Supreme Court said laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. If interracial relationships were considered illegal in many parts of this country as late as the 1960s, you really think during slavery it would happen?

You can quibble about percentages and what is or isn't significant. The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming reason the average Black American in modern times carries roughly 20% European male DNA is because of rape by white slave masters during slavery. Consensual relationships were not the reason. It was because of the brutal history of slavery in this country.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top