|
|
| Author |
Message |
lsgh2
Suspended
Joined: 22 May 2008
{Posts: 84 }
|
 Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 19:25 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Where is a clapping emoticon when you need it. |
they've got a beermug-toasting one @ STORMFRONT  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 21:56 Post subject: Re: Vintage Powell |
|
|
| fwsweet wrote: | | Monica wrote: | | May I offer you another theory, that the ODR denotes a strong brother and sisterhood and has nothing to do with evil and envy. More today but has it has also been in the past...immediate family members come out different skin colors. One woman may have children by different fathers, or as in the case of my family of origin, one father had children by three different women. Therefore if I am brown or dark brown and my brother or half brother is light in tone...the blood that binds us may be less than the mutual household, upbringing and parent. |
But all of that applies equally to a Puerto Rican family seeing all other Puerto Ricans as Puerto Ricans, or to a Cockney seeing other Cockneys as kin. It ignores the central and world-unique fact of the U.S. ODR. That central fact is the involuntary attribution of group membership to another person based on the belief that the target has distant biological ancestry of a specific origin (sub-saharan Africa). The ODR is NOT based on shared culture (as Monica implies). It is NOT based on kinship (as Monica imples) it is NOT based on commonality of ethnic self-identity (as Monica implies). In fact, it is based entirely upon the belief that the target has distant sub-Saharan ancestry and it explicitly ignore's the target's protestations that they reject the label. |
Maybe Monica is not refering to the ODR as applied in this forum and is refering to the common acceptance of multiancestral people in her Black etnic community as full members of it? I guess I would have to ask Monica if she would consider a person who specifically states they are not a part of a Black community but just happen to resemble some one from your community, would you still see them as Black?
| Quote: | | Monica wrote: | | How could I as a brown person with a light toned biological brother not see similarly toned people the same way? (considering that the culture you are raised in emphasizes brother and sisterhood) |
I do not know how to stop Monica from imposing her prejudices upon others, merely because of their skin-tone. Nervertheless, Monica would be wise to consider that if she found it irrestistible to express her kinship with a dark Puerto Rican or Dominican merely because of their ancestry, they might resent her overt racism. |
And again my question to Monica would be if her beleif in brother hood to people of multiple shades goes to all people in her ethnic communities or does she apply it to people across the globe with similar looks.
In the first case, I would agree with her assesment. In the second case I would have to agree with Frank, not an an overt racism, but definitely on a overt presumption that similar looks equate to similar culture/peoples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 21:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| sagascend wrote: | | Tyrone wrote: | I hear and partially agree with some thoughts surrounding this. The ODR probably does add fire to some of this. But we have to remember that many of these 'blacks'/AA's are mixed race men. From images that I haves seen 50% or more of the NAACP is mixed and definately light skinned.
The argument has to be looked at from both perspectives. Not just black men desiring light skinned women. There are many 'light skinned' men who date women darker than themselves mixed or not.
Also I remember a conversation with Javier back in the ODR yahoo group about 'sexual partner selection' and that a lot of it falls back on the female, not the persuing male. So if 'non mixed' black/AA men are hooking up with 'light skinned' mixed(AA descendant women) there is a strong possibility that it's the women doing the choosing. That possibly these lighter skinned women mixed race women find these men attractive and desireable.
The Nubile darker skinned man weither unmixed or mixed is considered a high on the attraction chart.
visually Mixed darker skinned men: model Tyson Beckford, Denzel Washington
visually unmixed darker skinned men: Michael Jordan, Taye Diggs
women of all ethnic backgrounds find these guys 'sexually attractive' |
The problem with A.D.'s theory from my perspective is not only the multigenerational impact of what's she'd call "mixed" and "unmixed" Blacks having children. What do you suppose the children of a lightskinned parent and a darkskinned parent look like? And who do these children prefer as partners? How do their children look? So on and so forth from the 1800s to 2007. Wouldn't the A-A population look somewhat different if this preference (assuming it is accurate) is affecting real preferences? At some point we should acknowledge that the proliferation of medium to dark Blacks who are mixed over generations is unlikely to reflect a preference for lightskinned Blacks who are "held hostage" by what A.D. might call "real Blacks" for their genes. I just really find this logic asinine when you look beyond the media images of video girls and one-off celebrity relationships and start looking at Black families and children.
The second problem I have is the inherent gender bias in equating "Blacks" with "Black men" with a fetish for light skin. I'm having a Sojourner Truth moment and asking "ain't a Black woman also Black?" And if so, what are her preferences in a mate? It's clear from demographic data on cross-color line marriage and Black endogamy rates that Black women prefer to marry (or procreate outside of marriage to be blunt about it) Black men. Again I ask, what do these children look like if we assume that lightskinned Black men are not preferred?
This argument sounds good and it might resonate emotionally, especially after being exposed to vitriol by some Black folks (men, maybe?) hell-bent on preserving their ODR-based political power and media images in which visibily mixed lighter skinned women are showcased, but to me it is not supported with evidence and has no generation continuity expressed by a clear skin tone preference for either gender in mate selection. And even if there was, it would HAVE to be bi-directional to minimize the genetic impact of medium to darkskinned Black women who would also have to have an "obsession" with lighter skinned men. But what I hear over and over again is that they prefer darkskinned men (I'm also unconvinced on this point).
As Ty said, selection is a two-way street. Why no discussion about the "obsession" of lightskinned women for darkskinned men (are lightskinned women who choose to self-identify as Blacks simply afraid of losing their access to African breeding stock)? Why no consideration of the darkskinned women who are apparently not "obsessed" over but manage to keep being born and bearing more darkskinned women in some sort of magical process unrelated to physical attraction? Are they being "driven insane" by their inferiority vis a vis lightskinned mothers (but not lightskinned fathers...that NEVER happens  )? I'm being facaetious but hopefully my point is clear.
I talked to my dad about this and he laughed for a good 5 minutes. This might be why he finds it funny: His mother is one of those lightskinned Black "hostages" (or trophy wife if you prefer) who married a man darker than she was. So what about her children? Three sons (all fairly light and married very dark women and produced medium to dark children. Her medium brown daughter married an extremely dark man and has an extremely dark child. One very lightskinned son has yet to marry or have children. Another tidbit: Grandma is the product of a mulatto father who looks 100% European and a mulatto mother who looks predominantly SSA. For good measure, her father was the product of a mulatto mother and a French (white) father. Without knowing what my Haitian mulatto ancestors looked like, but predicting that the miscegenation party got started between an African female and a European male, I believe a similar dissection of a representative sample of Afrodescended families located on the Black side of the U.S. color line would also not yield a clear trend in a preference for light skin in either gender. How could it, if descendants who look like me are what you end up with?
What I believe is that is that one day some researcher will discover that skin tone/phenotype preference has a genetic component, which will be a nice compliment to what we already know about the changes in which male/female physical characteristics are desired over time and how these preference differ between cultures. |
I agree with both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 22:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| lsgh2 wrote: | | Quote: | | Where is a clapping emoticon when you need it. |
they've got a beermug-toasting one @ STORMFRONT |
Wouldn't know. I don't hang out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lsgh2
Suspended
Joined: 22 May 2008
{Posts: 84 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 22:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Powell
Guru
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
{Posts: 2139 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 23:10 Post subject: false interpretation |
|
|
| sagascend wrote: | | Tyrone wrote: | I hear and partially agree with some thoughts surrounding this. The ODR probably does add fire to some of this. But we have to remember that many of these 'blacks'/AA's are mixed race men. From images that I haves seen 50% or more of the NAACP is mixed and definately light skinned.
The argument has to be looked at from both perspectives. Not just black men desiring light skinned women. There are many 'light skinned' men who date women darker than themselves mixed or not.
Also I remember a conversation with Javier back in the ODR yahoo group about 'sexual partner selection' and that a lot of it falls back on the female, not the persuing male. So if 'non mixed' black/AA men are hooking up with 'light skinned' mixed(AA descendant women) there is a strong possibility that it's the women doing the choosing. That possibly these lighter skinned women mixed race women find these men attractive and desireable.
The Nubile darker skinned man weither unmixed or mixed is considered a high on the attraction chart.
visually Mixed darker skinned men: model Tyson Beckford, Denzel Washington
visually unmixed darker skinned men: Michael Jordan, Taye Diggs
women of all ethnic backgrounds find these guys 'sexually attractive' |
The problem with A.D.'s theory from my perspective is not only the multigenerational impact of what's she'd call "mixed" and "unmixed" Blacks having children. What do you suppose the children of a lightskinned parent and a darkskinned parent look like? And who do these children prefer as partners? How do their children look? So on and so forth from the 1800s to 2007. Wouldn't the A-A population look somewhat different if this preference (assuming it is accurate) is affecting real preferences? At some point we should acknowledge that the proliferation of medium to dark Blacks who are mixed over generations is unlikely to reflect a preference for lightskinned Blacks who are "held hostage" by what A.D. might call "real Blacks" for their genes. I just really find this logic asinine when you look beyond the media images of video girls and one-off celebrity relationships and start looking at Black families and children.
The second problem I have is the inherent gender bias in equating "Blacks" with "Black men" with a fetish for light skin. I'm having a Sojourner Truth moment and asking "ain't a Black woman also Black?" And if so, what are her preferences in a mate? It's clear from demographic data on cross-color line marriage and Black endogamy rates that Black women prefer to marry (or procreate outside of marriage to be blunt about it) Black men. Again I ask, what do these children look like if we assume that lightskinned Black men are not preferred?
This argument sounds good and it might resonate emotionally, especially after being exposed to vitriol by some Black folks (men, maybe?) hell-bent on preserving their ODR-based political power and media images in which visibily mixed lighter skinned women are showcased, but to me it is not supported with evidence and has no generation continuity expressed by a clear skin tone preference for either gender in mate selection. And even if there was, it would HAVE to be bi-directional to minimize the genetic impact of medium to darkskinned Black women who would also have to have an "obsession" with lighter skinned men. But what I hear over and over again is that they prefer darkskinned men (I'm also unconvinced on this point).
As Ty said, selection is a two-way street. Why no discussion about the "obsession" of lightskinned women for darkskinned men (are lightskinned women who choose to self-identify as Blacks simply afraid of losing their access to African breeding stock)? Why no consideration of the darkskinned women who are apparently not "obsessed" over but manage to keep being born and bearing more darkskinned women in some sort of magical process unrelated to physical attraction? Are they being "driven insane" by their inferiority vis a vis lightskinned mothers (but not lightskinned fathers...that NEVER happens )? I'm being facaetious but hopefully my point is clear.
I talked to my dad about this and he laughed for a good 5 minutes. This might be why he finds it funny: His mother is one of those lightskinned Black "hostages" (or trophy wife if you prefer) who married a man darker than she was. So what about her children? Three sons (all fairly light and married very dark women and produced medium to dark children. Her medium brown daughter married an extremely dark man and has an extremely dark child. One very lightskinned son has yet to marry or have children. Another tidbit: Grandma is the product of a mulatto father who looks 100% European and a mulatto mother who looks predominantly SSA. For good measure, her father was the product of a mulatto mother and a French (white) father. Without knowing what my Haitian mulatto ancestors looked like, but predicting that the miscegenation party got started between an African female and a European male, I believe a similar dissection of a representative sample of Afrodescended families located on the Black side of the U.S. color line would also not yield a clear trend in a preference for light skin in either gender. How could it, if descendants who look like me are what you end up with?
What I believe is that is that one day some researcher will discover that skin tone/phenotype preference has a genetic component, which will be a nice compliment to what we already know about the changes in which male/female physical characteristics are desired over time and how these preference differ between cultures. |
The problem with Maya (and most of my opponents) is that she attempts to restate my ideas until her interpretation is totally different from what I originally said. IMO, when people are presented with ideas they never thought about themselves (such as the racial continuum in which "white" and "mixed race" are NOT mutually exclusive), they project their own thoughts and experiences unto the person with the new ideas. For example, I have never argued about "light-skinned blacks" versus "dark-skinned blacks.' I don't use those terms unless quoting others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lsgh2
Suspended
Joined: 22 May 2008
{Posts: 84 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 23:17 Post subject: |
|
|
that's because VERY few comprehend the "language" of your scripts, Powell - because "les gens de couleur" are underexposed in our society...
the only woman who even NEARS you is Monique Guillory [University of Virgin Islands]!!!
Last edited by lsgh2 on Thu 03 Jul 2008 01:49; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Jul 2008 23:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| lsgh2 wrote: | that's because VERY few comprehend the "language" of your scripts, Powell - because <<les>> are underexposed in our society...
the only woman who even NEARS you is Monique Guillory [University of Virgin Islands]!!! |
So now you are a guru about other members experiences and how exposed we are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lsgh2
Suspended
Joined: 22 May 2008
{Posts: 84 }
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Jul 2008 01:50 Post subject: |
|
|
if u were powell wouldn't have to fight u all everyday.
if u were there would be no dispute.
if u were mulattos and blacks would be socio-politically separate [again].
but 'til then Powell and the rest of us WAR ON!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Jul 2008 16:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| lsgh2 wrote: | if u were powell wouldn't have to fight u all everyday.
if u were there would be no dispute.
if u were mulattos and blacks would be socio-politically separate [again].
but 'til then Powell and the rest of us WAR ON!!! |
Maybe if Powell's experiences matched more those of the majority of this board on the same issues, then she wouldn't have to defend some of her posts as much. Maybe we were "there" but got a different view of the issues and problems. Even before Jim Crow all people of Mixed ancestry did not separate into Mulato communities and many either mixed into the Black or White communities. So even then, The Black and White communities would have expanded their parameters. But no laws challenging the ancestries of Black people. Just Whites with suspected admixture. That means that even if Mulatto communities still existed, there would still be multiracial Blacks and Multiracial Whites given free choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lsgh2
Suspended
Joined: 22 May 2008
{Posts: 84 }
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Jul 2008 17:13 Post subject: |
|
|
rite. but my point is that Powell takes alot of crap for her perspective;
when she shouldn't. 'cuz it's just that - A PERSPECTIVE.
'lIl
p.s. thanx 4 the clarification *beermug toast emoticon* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salsassin
Suspended
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Jul 2008 17:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| lsgh2 wrote: | rite. but my point is that Powell takes alot of crap for her perspective;
when she shouldn't. 'cuz it's just that - A PERSPECTIVE.
'lIl
p.s. thanx 4 the clarification *beermug toast emoticon* |
I think she only get's critisized for her perspective when it sounds negative towards a certain group in blanket form. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sagascend
Moderator
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2087 }
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
