PDA

View Full Version : another stupid statement by b hussein o



david gibson
07-29-2010, 02:37 PM
what does he think he is trying to say here??

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The president appeared on ABC’s morning talk show “The View” Thursday, where he talked about the forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, his experience with race and his roots.

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: "We are sort of a mongrel people."

"I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."

The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as "of mixed breed, nature, or origin," according to dictionary.com.

Obama did not appear to be making an inflammatory remark with his statement and the audience appeared to receive it in the light-hearted manner that often accompanies interviews on morning talk shows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

so he is saying black people are just as "mixed breed, nature, or origin" as whites but "they know more about it"?

i can trace my family back to europe in the 16th century, french, dutch, and scottish. lots of mixed origins there. for obvious reasons most african americans cant trace their families more than a few generations because the records just werent kept up as well. but what other races were in africa vigorously blending their races with all??
i just dont get what he means.

life must be hell without a teleprompter when you need one.

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 03:12 PM
what does he think he is trying to say here??

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The president appeared on ABC’s morning talk show “The View” Thursday, where he talked about the forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, his experience with race and his roots.

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: "We are sort of a mongrel people."

"I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."

The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as "of mixed breed, nature, or origin," according to dictionary.com.

Obama did not appear to be making an inflammatory remark with his statement and the audience appeared to receive it in the light-hearted manner that often accompanies interviews on morning talk shows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

so he is saying black people are just as "mixed breed, nature, or origin" as whites but "they know more about it"?

i can trace my family back to europe in the 16th century, french, dutch, and scottish. lots of mixed origins there. for obvious reasons most african americans cant trace their families more than a few generations because the records just werent kept up as well. but what other races were in africa vigorously blending their races with all??
i just dont get what he means.

life must be hell without a teleprompter when you need one.
As you note, "The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as "of mixed breed, nature, or origin," according to dictionary.com" By your own description you come from mongrel lines, "french, dutch, and scottish". You distinguish that from mongrelization based on race which is not mentioned in the definition you quoted ("mixed breed, nature, or origin"). Race is not a genetic or species differentiator; it is simply related to original places of origin. It has taken on a different meaning only because of its use as a differentiator for legal purposes to enforce race laws.

road kill
07-29-2010, 03:19 PM
As you note, "The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as "of mixed breed, nature, or origin," according to dictionary.com" By your own description you come from mongrel lines, "french, dutch, and scottish". You distinguish that from mongrelization based on race which is not mentioned in the definition you quoted ("mixed breed, nature, or origin"). Race is not a genetic or species differentiator; it is simply related to original places of origin. It has taken on a different meaning only because of its use as a differentiator for legal purposes to enforce race laws.

Could you please elaborate on"race laws?"


Thanks,


rk

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 04:49 PM
Could you please elaborate on"race laws?"


Thanks,


rk
By race laws, I mean those laws that explicitly or implicitly defined legal rights and privileges based on the "race" of the individual. Most such laws arose out of laws on slavery and efforts to control marriage between whites and non-whites.

Laws that were explicitly based on "race" or color in the US colonies began in the 17th century. (e.g. a Virginia law providing weapons to all but Negroes). More importantly were laws that defined what would happen when children were born where one parent was a slave and the other was not since these evolved into the frameworks used to define who was a Negro and who was white. Such laws continued to evolve until the Civil War. However, for the most part, laws were not needed since practice was so well understood. The Dred Scot case in 1857 cemented the status of blacks in America by ruling that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States by a vote of 7-2 in the SCOTUS.

With the emancipation proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments, the position of blacks became a little less clear. In the 1860'sthe first anti-miscegenation laws were adopted outlawing relationships or marriage between whites and non-whites (usually blacks, but sometimes others as well). These laws were in place in almost every state from the Civil War until the early 20th century, at which point laws began to be repealed. However, anti-miscegenation laws remained in some states until outlawed by the SCOTUS in 1967. These laws included both general and specific definitions of racial groups. Added to these laws were laws enforcing legal segregation in many states, including the state of my birth. These too included definitions of racial groups.

road kill
07-29-2010, 04:56 PM
By race laws, I mean those laws that explicitly or implicitly defined legal rights and privileges based on the "race" of the individual. Most such laws arose out of laws on slavery and efforts to control marriage between whites and non-whites.

Laws that were explicitly based on "race" or color in the US colonies began in the 17th century. (e.g. a Virginia law providing weapons to all but Negroes). More importantly were laws that defined what would happen when children were born where one parent was a slave and the other was not since these evolved into the frameworks used to define who was a Negro and who was white. Such laws continued to evolve until the Civil War. However, for the most part, laws were not needed since practice was so well understood. The Dred Scot case in 1857 cemented the status of blacks in America by ruling that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States by a vote of 7-2 in the SCOTUS.

With the emancipation proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments, the position of blacks became a little less clear. In the 1860'sthe first anti-miscegenation laws were adopted outlawing relationships or marriage between whites and non-whites (usually blacks, but sometimes others as well). These laws were in place in almost every state from the Civil War until the early 20th century, at which point laws began to be repealed. However, anti-miscegenation laws remained in some states until outlawed by the SCOTUS in 1967. These laws included both general and specific definitions of racial groups. Added to these laws were laws enforcing legal segregation in many states, including the state of my birth. These too included definitions of racial groups.
So, how would any of that apply to NOW???:rolleyes:





rk

YardleyLabs
07-29-2010, 05:06 PM
So, how would any of that apply to NOW???:rolleyes:





rk
In order to overturn the longstanding legal and extra-legal practices used to prevent non-whites from exercising their full rights as citizens, a variety of civil rights laws were adopted to make those practices illegal and to provide statistical data that would support law suits based on the incidence of illegal discriminatory behavior. In the context of this thread, however, the term only has the meaning that David gave it when he used race as his measure of mongrelization and compared that with mixing different national origins, which he did not view as mongrelization.

david gibson
07-29-2010, 05:06 PM
By race laws, I mean those laws that explicitly or implicitly defined legal rights and privileges based on the "race" of the individual. Most such laws arose out of laws on slavery and efforts to control marriage between whites and non-whites.

Laws that were explicitly based on "race" or color in the US colonies began in the 17th century. (e.g. a Virginia law providing weapons to all but Negroes). More importantly were laws that defined what would happen when children were born where one parent was a slave and the other was not since these evolved into the frameworks used to define who was a Negro and who was white. Such laws continued to evolve until the Civil War. However, for the most part, laws were not needed since practice was so well understood. The Dred Scot case in 1857 cemented the status of blacks in America by ruling that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States by a vote of 7-2 in the SCOTUS.

With the emancipation proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments, the position of blacks became a little less clear. In the 1860'sthe first anti-miscegenation laws were adopted outlawing relationships or marriage between whites and non-whites (usually blacks, but sometimes others as well). These laws were in place in almost every state from the Civil War until the early 20th century, at which point laws began to be repealed. However, anti-miscegenation laws remained in some states until outlawed by the SCOTUS in 1967. These laws included both general and specific definitions of racial groups. Added to these laws were laws enforcing legal segregation in many states, including the state of my birth. These too included definitions of racial groups.

none of that has a damn thing to do with my post and question. you take my post go into a historical diatribe that no one cares about.

shall i call a spade a spade? here we go, buckle your seat belts folks, because apparently i have to be very blunt to get the point across.

by b hussein o's definition - a mongrel is a mutt - a mixed breed - whether of origin or race. i dont care if this is true or PC, doesnt matter, its his definition.

next, he says that african americans are mongrels, but hey - so are white folk, its just that they know about their own "mongrelness" and the white people dont.

therein is my disagreement - i think anglos are more mongrels than african americans because our ancestors came from so many angle origins and then mixed here with reckless abandon. heck, i married an italian, my italian/german/scottish/dutch son may marry a german. etc etc., and we also know more about our own "mongrelness" because our ancestry is better and deeper documented, whereas most african american's ancestors were held as slaves and limited ancestral documentation existed at the time and even less is still around today.

is that so hard?

the irony is that b hussein o himself is probably the biggest mongrel of all being that he is halfrican. and god only knows what "mongrelness" his cousin "pookie" has in her/his/its blood.

so if i am missing something that b hussein o intended, please tell me.

road kill
07-30-2010, 09:38 AM
In order to overturn the longstanding legal and extra-legal practices used to prevent non-whites from exercising their full rights as citizens, a variety of civil rights laws were adopted to make those practices illegal and to provide statistical data that would support law suits based on the incidence of illegal discriminatory behavior. In the context of this thread, however, the term only has the meaning that David gave it when he used race as his measure of mongrelization and compared that with mixing different national origins, which he did not view as mongrelization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw



rk:D

ducknwork
07-30-2010, 12:09 PM
Most blacks are not from Kenya either. Some are from Ethiopia,Congo. Australia, Virgin islands Nigeria,,, bla Bla Bla which is no different than Italians,Swedes,French English bla bla bla. Same with orientals or hispanics or Indians.

Pete

I have often found that humorous that every black is referred to as an African American, when in reality there are very many of them that are, as you mentioned, from other places.

Why can't everyone just be an American? I am 50% Italian and 50% your guess is as good as mine, but I don't call myself an Italian American. That would have been my great grandparents that came over on the big boat.

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 01:32 PM
I have often found that humorous that every black is referred to as an African American, when in reality there are very many of them that are, as you mentioned, from other places.

Why can't everyone just be an American? I am 50% Italian and 50% your guess is as good as mine, but I don't call myself an Italian American. That would have been my great grandparents that came over on the big boat.
When Italian Americans were routinely called wops, dagos and such, they were pretty insistent on being called Italian Americans instead. This became less important when the rest of American stopped feeling the need to describe them as Italians at all. The Italian Americans hadn't changed that much, but attitudes toward them had. The terms used to describe blacks and other "non-white" Americans have evolved over the years largely because of negative connotations associated with the terms defined by white America over a period of hundreds of years of slavery and post Civil Wat discrimination. The term African American is actually more closely linked to the terms used in slavery and the Reconstruction period than any others. Blacks were racially defined by the origin in Africa as distinct from whites were defined by their origins in Europe, or during some periods, northern Europe. Persons of "African" descent was the description used in laws limiting the rights of blacks. And, of course, the Dred Scott decision made it clear that no one of African origin would ever be entitled to be called American. After more than 300 years of color based laws and and prejudices, it will be a while longer before color simply becomes a descriptor similar to that used for hair color, and we recognize that no one is actually either white or black. We are simply many different shades in between.