July 12th, 2010.
Anonymous said...
what in the world is an "extreme" negroid phenotype. So called "negroids" do not all look one way they naturally range from light brown to dark brown to almost black in skin color without admixture. "Negroids" even have the highest skin color variation and many different phenotypes. I would know because i am "pure" myself (nigerian) as well as the rest of my family according to DNA testing and we naturally range in different skin colors and facial features.
http://backintyme.com/essay040608_files/image003.jpg
Vangaurd replied..
Well, an extreme negroid phenotype would be the combination of negro physiognomic traits that are most disparate from the average of the other human races. A stereotype of this might include very thick lips, raised cheekbones, woolly hair, a wide circular face, and very black skin. The image you presented was from a study on African Americans, not pure negroids. Did you even read the paper? You claim that you and four family range in skin color and facial features, but are racially pure? According to what DNA tests are you entirely negroid - autosomal, y-dna, or mtnda? I don't believe you that your appearance is highly variable, you are regurgitating a negro myth that negroids come in all racial variations from White to Black. Nonsense. Submit pictures of yourself and your family along with your DNA tests and evidence that you are not anomalous, and I will publicly withdraw my assertions about negroid phenotypes.
June 25th, 2010.
eshowoman said...
Do you plan to highlight the white ancestry of the millions of black Americans whose white ancestry comes from rape and forced sexual slavery?
Vangaurd replied..
First of all, it didn't come DIRECTLY from White slave masters, it came from Mixed Whites who later interbreed with Negroes. Secondly, what is your point?
June 25th, 2010.
eshowoman said...
Vangaurd replied..
Dishonest? Let's see who is being dishonest. You repeat a negro myth that defining "Black" as anything you want actually makes it so. It doesn't. None of those people are Black by heritage, and that is the lie. They are all White people, with White culture and are caucasians to boot. If they identify as Black, this choice was not made freely. If it were a real option they would NOT have made it in the first place, as you damn well know.
Next, you regurgitate another Negro accusation: the White blood of African Americans comes from slave rape so it's something to be ashamed of. Here's the problem sweety, it doesn't. Most interracial unions have always been Black male - White female according to genetic and historical analysis. During slavery about 40% of mixed race persons were in the South. That's hardly a majority, so how do you know where YOUR White ancestry came from? What's more, the mixed White community did not identify as Black in any way shape or form until it amalgamated with Negroes circa 1930. 75% of the White blood in the African American community comes only indirectly from "pure" Whites. Mixed Whites were not ashamed of their "slave-rape" ancestry, and you know why? It wasn't rape most of the time, and there's nothing shameful about a slave consorting with the master in order to better her children. Your delusion is that vicious White masters stalked innocent coal-black beauties in their slave cabins and ravaged them senseless. Sounds more like a forbidden sexual fantasy to me. In reality, attractive Black women were brought into the household and sought relationships with the master for material gain. Was there rape? Yes. But there is no proof that rape was the major source of interracial sex in the South, and nationally it was most definitely the minor factor.
You expose your ignorance of human genetics and attempt to use this lack of education to your advantage. Physical traits are relatively segregated but highly correlated with genetic ancestry. As a result, the probability of a mostly negro person with some caucasian admixture, acquiring a pure negro phenotype, is relatively LOW but certainly not impossibly so. Weren't you paying attention to my article on the "genetic fraud" myth? I explain that "quadroons" often have a completely European appearance (given their 20% negro ancestry). This is analogous to Don Cheadle and Emmit Smith, who have inverse ancestry proportions and a converse phenotype to quadroons. Somehow this logic escaped you. It's not that there is no admixture apparent in their faces, it's that you can't tell because it is within the variance of the group. Also, Don Cheadle and Emmit Smith do not look like extreme negroid types, and neither do many quadroons look like extreme nordic types, although they may have blonde hair and blue eyes. In general, people at the 20% line look like dark or light versions of caucasians and negroids, respectively. As for berbers and North Africans, they firstly do consider themselves White, and secondly they are caucasoids so their self-perception is accurate. Of course some berbers are actually mixed race but I assume you were speaking of the caucasian looking ones.
Lastly you ask me what's so bad about being Black. Why don't you tell me, since you are so desperate to get White genes into your race in order to improve it. You must have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with it.
Next, you regurgitate another Negro accusation: the White blood of African Americans comes from slave rape so it's something to be ashamed of. Here's the problem sweety, it doesn't. Most interracial unions have always been Black male - White female according to genetic and historical analysis. During slavery about 40% of mixed race persons were in the South. That's hardly a majority, so how do you know where YOUR White ancestry came from? What's more, the mixed White community did not identify as Black in any way shape or form until it amalgamated with Negroes circa 1930. 75% of the White blood in the African American community comes only indirectly from "pure" Whites. Mixed Whites were not ashamed of their "slave-rape" ancestry, and you know why? It wasn't rape most of the time, and there's nothing shameful about a slave consorting with the master in order to better her children. Your delusion is that vicious White masters stalked innocent coal-black beauties in their slave cabins and ravaged them senseless. Sounds more like a forbidden sexual fantasy to me. In reality, attractive Black women were brought into the household and sought relationships with the master for material gain. Was there rape? Yes. But there is no proof that rape was the major source of interracial sex in the South, and nationally it was most definitely the minor factor.
You expose your ignorance of human genetics and attempt to use this lack of education to your advantage. Physical traits are relatively segregated but highly correlated with genetic ancestry. As a result, the probability of a mostly negro person with some caucasian admixture, acquiring a pure negro phenotype, is relatively LOW but certainly not impossibly so. Weren't you paying attention to my article on the "genetic fraud" myth? I explain that "quadroons" often have a completely European appearance (given their 20% negro ancestry). This is analogous to Don Cheadle and Emmit Smith, who have inverse ancestry proportions and a converse phenotype to quadroons. Somehow this logic escaped you. It's not that there is no admixture apparent in their faces, it's that you can't tell because it is within the variance of the group. Also, Don Cheadle and Emmit Smith do not look like extreme negroid types, and neither do many quadroons look like extreme nordic types, although they may have blonde hair and blue eyes. In general, people at the 20% line look like dark or light versions of caucasians and negroids, respectively. As for berbers and North Africans, they firstly do consider themselves White, and secondly they are caucasoids so their self-perception is accurate. Of course some berbers are actually mixed race but I assume you were speaking of the caucasian looking ones.
Lastly you ask me what's so bad about being Black. Why don't you tell me, since you are so desperate to get White genes into your race in order to improve it. You must have a pretty good idea about what's wrong with it.
June 20, 2010.
Anonymous said...
It's best not to give publicity to black-identified scum like the author of the [edited] web site. He does not recognize the existence of mixed-whites because he desperately believes that his "race" needs the supposedly superior genes of his hated but adored "white" enemy "race" to "improve" their stock. If he truly believed in the equality of the "race" he claims to champion, he would not be so desperate to force whites and other NONBLACKS into his "race."
Vangaurd replied..
I agree it's best not to give her publicity and that she is desperate for White genes in order to "improve" the black racial stock. However, people like her need to be confronted and exposed as the malignant stooges of White Purity. Even more importantly, their liberal White masters must be dragged into the spot-light and repudiated. Allowing them to go unchallenged is ultimately a concession. Thus, a response is in order that will not give her undue publicity while refuting her hogwash.
