That is one part of the "black Egyptian" theory. The people being described by the ancient Greeks could have been in reference to the slaves who were kept there. Other theories describe the ancient Egyptians as white, brown, or a mix of some kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
Whites not being proud of their racial identity is a major factor in why white features are disappearing. Red hair is already extremely rare, and it has been estimated that within 100 years it will be gone. Blond hair and blue/green eyes will eventually follow. We're on a path toward everybody being the same dull shade of brown and black. How exciting. What a "diverse" future to look forward to.
But they were white. Is it any surprise that the only group left in the country that still desires an America like the founders envisioned are white people? Western culture is white culture. Always has been. The more we introduce non-whites into that culture the less Western it becomes.
So... would you be ashamed if you knocked up an Irish red and the child had your (not red) hair color? Would that make you ashamed... that you just helped exterminate a people?
Red hair would still be a possibility, since I have the same recessive genes in me that would allow for red hair. Do you think that same possibility would exist if "Irish red" got knocked up by Tayquan Jackson?
It's not that bad, as it actually gets rid of your fear of your racial features becoming extinct. When everyone is born with the same color and features, you don't need to worry about your color and features disappearing. And you certainly don't need to worry about diversity, people can still dye their hair, wear colored contacts and do Michael Jackson to themselves.
That wasn't the question. If none of your children had red hair... I mean your argument is that it is generationally being bred out... so if none of your children had red hair, you would bear responsibility in that, and according to your logic, she should be ashamed that she did not marry a red head... and you have done a terrible thing to the white race. I would have thought you would be fluent in racial epithets. Ever heard of a red bone? I think a much better argument, since nobody is waging a good one, would be to question snarkily why I have no pride in my country. I was just born here. Those decisions were made long before I got here. Pride because... other people did things? Clearly my argument is that this is a stupid premise... and nationalism is foolish. This would annoy me because I am very proud of my country, and in being an American. My pride in my country should be affected, by my logic, by my level of contribution in furthering that nation... so if a person were unsuccessful without contributing anything innovative... an average person... he should be ashamed of his country... if he is to carry the hubris of American pride. That is a tough argument. I will need to think about that.
why do colleges have courses in "history" and courses in "black history" ? why not just teach all history in one course? we don't have asian history, or native american history, or eskimo history. why do blacks have their own history courses? why do blacks have their own TV network and their own miss america? this is racial bias and I demand that it be stopped immediately !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You assume wrong, once again. No. Two red heads doesn't guarantee a red headed child. Like I said, it would be a possibility with me, since I have the same recessive gene that allows for red hair. That possibility goes to statistical zero if she chooses a non-white mate. Even if red hair doesn't happen, the kid will still have other white features.
In my fine opinion only. There are subsets within history. You have college courses that focus on eras or societies that have existed throughout the world. If someone wants to take a class where the focus was on the African American experience int he US, who really cares? It seems no different to me than taking a class on Greek history, or Roman history or any other area of study.
It would not be possible for me to care any less if a college offered a "white history" class, whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) that means.
Greek history... Roman history... American history... I don't uhh... I don't get your argument. The very act of segregating a single race, as we are a nation comprised of all races... is fundamentally racist.
Sorry you had trouble understanding the concept. Let me be clear: it would be a class on the history of white people. Better?
racial history is by definition, racist. the races have existed on the planet for a very long time. teaching the history of one race and ignoring the others is racist. BET is racist, black miss america is racist, Ebony is racist, most rap music is racist-------------but thats all OK because we once had slavery in the USA, right?
I disagree. The study of a subset of history, an area of particular interest or the experience of a certain segment of society does not seem to be the least bit racist. You are free to go start WET, A "white miss America" contest, or go rap your little heart out. I am no sure what any of that has to do with slavery.
They have their own black history month of celebration, and they have a black magazine called 'ebony' etc. If we WHITES were to create a WHITE History month--we would be called racists in a lib media heartbeat. Why is it that other minorities like the injuns, the hispanics or the asians don't get involved in these race baiting, attention getting, entitlement striving ploys for sympathy? Could it have anything to do with the Bell Curve results that clearly show the inept I.Q. scores of blacks in general?
racial pride to me is retarded...I HATE Black Pride movements and I'm black. I feel racial pride is a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) reason to create separation even if it is perceived as positive. But as for is it wrong? No...not in my opinion...
You have no idea how rare of an individual you are sir. I tip my hat to you sir. I generally agree that racial pride is a little wonky, because really, you are coasting off the successes of your forebears. You can certainly be celebrant of your race or your culture and whatnot and I don't think anything is wrong with that really. I tend to disapprove of La Raza, for the same reason I disapprove of White Supremacy and Black Power. Forceful domination is wrong.
I would be very surprised indeed to see a logical - not merely correlative - connection demonstrated between love of liberty and skin color. America is not, first and foremost, about culture - it's about principles. We can live without baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, but we cannot live, at least in any meaningful sense, without principles. That's why slavery almost destroyed us. That has nothing to do with skin color beyond its utility in the propaganda of victimology. Western culture isn't deteriorating because of the introduction of non-whites, but because of who is introducing them and why.
Well typically racists that hang out with other racists online hear these sorts of things... It is like the black version of a bi-racial ginger, at least where I grew up. and there are lots of redheaded blacks... it is a recessive gene... the statistical probability does not go down to 0.
You've obviously never taken history in college. There are courses in all types of racial history. I've taken quite a few Native American history classes, I specialized in American history, which is basically white history. There are plenty of Asian history or orient history classes.....your clueless.
