NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bostonian said:
"To many of these men and women, Juneteenth celebrations—the commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States—are at best an afterthought. The new arrivals frequently echo the words of the men and women I met outside the radio broadcast booth. Some have struggled over the very appellation “African-American,” either shunning it—declaring themselves, for instance, Jamaican-Americans or Nigerian-Americans—or denying native black Americans’ claim to it on the ground that most of them had never been to Africa. At the same time, some old-time black residents refuse to recognize the new arrivals as true African-Americans. “I am African and I am an American citizen; am I not African-American?” a dark-skinned, Ethiopian-born Abdulaziz Kamus asked at a community meeting in suburban Maryland in 2004. To his surprise and dismay, the overwhelmingly black audience responded no.
Such discord over the meaning of the African-American experience and who is (and isn’t) part of it is not new, but of late has grown more intense.
"
Click to expand...

That's not saying what you think its saying.

I'm somewhat reminded of the conflict among 'Black British' people I know in the UK and the animosity between those who descend from African migrants directly, or those who descend from Caribbean migrants.

The African group don't really consider the Caribbean guys 'African' while the Caribbean guys look down on the African guys as the descendants of the people that sold their ancestors to Slavery hundreds of years ago.

Its a little like how English descended Americans, Kiwis, Aussies and Canadians share some things in common (like appearance) but identify differently, and express very different cultural values and notions of ethnic belonging (and even some intense rivalries).
 
Bostonian said:
Well it is the case for me. It can be the case for you.
Click to expand...

You're saying you dont care about ethnic identity.

While simultaneously admitting to doing a DNA test on yourself to determine your background, and arguing for dozens of posts about Obamas ethnic identity, and what it means to be 'African American'.

Can you see how I might have some difficulty believing you when you say you dont care about it?
 
Malifice said:
That's not saying what you think its saying.

I'm somewhat reminded of the conflict among 'Black British' people I know in the UK and the animosity between those who descend from African migrants directly, or those who descend from Caribbean migrants.

The African group don't really consider the Caribbean guys 'African' while the Caribbean guys look down on the African guys as the descendants of the people that sold their ancestors to Slavery hundreds of years ago.

Its a little like how English descended Americans, Kiwis, Aussies and Canadians share some things in common (like appearance) but identify differently, and express very different cultural values and notions of ethnic belonging (and even some intense rivalries).
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, the original users of the term are the gate keepers.

They feel they own the term and it is theirs. They challenge anyone else who might think to use the term.

Their reaction should tell you enough about the origins of it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice said:
You're saying you dont care about ethnic identity.

While simultaneously admitting to doing a DNA test on yourself to determine your background, and arguing for dozens of posts about Obamas ethnic identity, and what it means to be 'African American'.

Can you see how I might have some difficulty believing you when you say you dont care about it?
Click to expand...


I did a test because a parent was adopted. I was after some potential hereditary disease information.

The other stuff was just side information. So I never said I got it done to determine my background.
 
Bostonian said:
As I mentioned, the original users of the term are the gate keepers.
Click to expand...

Just like it is with every ethnicity. Jewish people decide who's Jewish, and Japanese people do the same, as do every other ethnic group.

Look at Aboriginal ethnicity. To be considered Aboriginal you require 3 factors: Descent (not necessarily biological but almost invariably so), self identification, and mutual acceptance.

Or in other words, if Aboriginal people don't consider you Aboriginal, you're not Aboriginal.

Remember; its all a social construct. Meaning that it's socially agreed on and enforced.

Its the same thing with Gender identity, nationality, religious affiliation and plenty more related (but slightly different) concepts.

All social constructs. All with a bar for entry.
 
Malifice said:
Just like it is with every ethnicity. Jewish people decide who's Jewish, and Japanese people do the same, as do every other ethnic group.

Look at Aboriginal ethnicity. To be considered Aboriginal you require 3 factors: Descent (not necessarily biological but almost invariably so), self identification, and mutual acceptance.

Or in other words, if Aboriginal people don't consider you Aboriginal, you're not Aboriginal.

Remember; its all a social construct. Meaning that it's socially agreed on and enforced.

Its the same thing with Gender identity, nationality, religious affiliation and plenty more related (but slightly different) concepts.

All social constructs. All with a bar for entry.
Click to expand...

You're not Aboriginal if you don't have Aboriginal DNA though. It's that simple.

I feel the bar is being set lower and lower to cater for the ridiculous.
 
Bostonian said:
Conan O'Brien is apparently 100% Irish.

Dr told him he's probably inbred.

I've seen other 100% results. Seems Munster province on the west coast throws them up.
Click to expand...

zill

'Irish' is an admixture of Gaelic, Norman, Angle, Saxon and tons of other ethnic groups. It's a 'mixed race' like every other ethnic group on the planet.

Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann or Na hÉireannaigh) are an ethnic group and nation native to the island of Ireland, who share a common ancestry, history and culture. There have been humans in Ireland for about 33,000 years, and it has been continually inhabited for more than 10,000 years (see Prehistoric Ireland). For most of Ireland's recorded history, the Irish have been primarily a Gaelic people (see Gaelic Ireland). From the 9th century, small numbers of Vikings settled in Ireland, becoming the Norse-Gaels. Anglo-Normans also conquered parts of Ireland in the 12th century, while England's 16th/17th century conquest and colonisation of Ireland brought many English and Lowland Scots to parts of the island, especially the north. Today, Ireland is made up of the Republic of Ireland (officially called Ireland) and Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom). The people of Northern Ireland hold various national identities including British, Irish, Northern Irish or some combination thereof.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people#Genetics

So Irish as an ethnic group is no different from any other ethnicity, in that its a mixture of other ethnic groups. Saying you're '100 percent Irish' means you're X percent Gaelic Celt, and X percent Norman/ Saxon Pict/ Angle/ Norse/ Jutes etc.

We're all mixtures of previous ethnic groups (many of which are now extinct). We're also all descended from a single shared ancestor (Mitochondrial Eve) who existed around 230,000 years ago:

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (more technically known as the Mitochondrial-Most Recent Common Ancestor, shortened to mt-Eve or mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

From this one woman, we branched out, formed distinct ethnic groups, then those ethnic groups either died out or merged with other ethnic groups, forming new ethnic groups, and so on.
 
Malifice said:
No, that's not how it works.

You don't need 'Aboriginal DNA' (whatever that is) to be Aboriginal.

You need:

1) Descent (usually biological, but not necessarily biological)
2) Self identification
3) Community acknowledgement
Click to expand...


So you're saying so long as a 10th generation Chinese person identifies as an Australian Aboriginal and has some community say they are then they are an Australian Aboriginal?
 
Bostonian said:
So you're saying so long as a 10th generation Chinese person identifies as an Australian Aboriginal and has some community say they are then they are an Australian Aboriginal?
Click to expand...

Only if they have some form of descent. There are three criterion remember (not just self identification, and mutual acceptance).

The element of descent is usually (almost invariably) biological (as in having an Aboriginal parent or grandparent) but it could also be via adoption or similar.

It's theoretically possible an Aboriginal family could adopt a non Aboriginal child, treat and raise that child as an Aboriginal person, and then should that person consider themselves Aboriginal (and should they be accepted as such by other Aboriginal people) they would be legally Aboriginal, despite not having a shred of Aboriginal 'DNA'.

I don't think its ever happened, but it's a possibility.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice said:
zill

'Irish' is an admixture of Gaelic, Norman, Angle, Saxon and tons of other ethnic groups. It's a 'mixed race' like every other ethnic group on the planet.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people#Genetics

So Irish as an ethnic group is no different from any other ethnicity, in that its a mixture of other ethnic groups. Saying you're '100 percent Irish' means you're X percent Gaelic Celt, and X percent Norman/ Saxon Pict/ Angle/ Norse/ Jutes etc.

We're all mixtures of previous ethnic groups (many of which are now extinct). We're also all descended from a single shared ancestor (Mitochondrial Eve) who existed around 230,000 years ago:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

From this one woman, we branched out, formed distinct ethnic groups, then those ethnic groups either died out or merged with other ethnic groups, forming new ethnic groups, and so on.
Click to expand...


If they had Angle or Saxon in their DNA it would show up as them having English ancestry. Same with Norman which could also come under Scandanavia or NW Europe. If you have those in your line you should not get 100% Irish.
 
Malifice said:
Only if they have some form of descent. There are three criterion remember (not just self identification, and mutual acceptance).

The element of descent is usually (almost invariably) biological (as in having an Aboriginal parent or grandparent) but it could also be via adoption or similar.

It's theoretically possible an Aboriginal family could adopt a non Aboriginal child, treat and raise that child as an Aboriginal person, and then should that person consider themselves Aboriginal (and should they be accepted as such by other Aboriginal people) they would be legally Aboriginal, despite not having a shred of Aboriginal 'DNA'.

I don't think its ever happened, but it's a possibility.
Click to expand...

How do you prove they have descent then?

DNA test?
 
Bostonian said:
How do you prove they have descent then?

DNA test?
Click to expand...

No, because 'DNA' is not relevant to the test.

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication...-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/

Biological descent is not strictly necessary to be an Aboriginal person, but as far as I'm aware the element of 'descent' has always been established on biological grounds. Case law recently has moved the discussion away from biological classifications of race (which we now know to be scientifically wrong) towards a more accurate socially constructed model.

That said, biological descent alone is sometimes enough. There are cases where a person with Aboriginal ancestry, who did not consider themselves Aboriginal, and was not accepted as such by any Aboriginal people, was deemed to be 'Aboriginal' on the basis of descent alone.

Criterion for membership in ethnic groups is not necessarily determined biologically remember (see Jewish people).

Most ethnic groups have some kind of criterion (skin color for example) but even those rules are flexible in most cases.
 
Malifice said:
No, because 'DNA' is not relevant to the test.

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication...-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/

Biological descent is not strictly necessary to be an Aboriginal person, but as far as I'm aware the element of 'descent' has always been established on biological grounds. Case law recently has moved the discussion away from biological classifications of race (which we now know to be scientifically wrong) towards a more accurate socially constructed model.
Click to expand...

Well it would make sense for biological to be the only way to claim it then.

Otherwise you get grifter politicians trying to claim NZ bikies are Aboriginal.
 
Bostonian said:
Grease the palms of the right people and hey presto, you're now an Aboriginal.
Click to expand...

How does 'greasing palms' lead to anyone magically having Aboriginal descent, and being accepted as Aboriginal by other Aboriginal people where they didn't before?

Race is a social construct. I know you cookers and conservatives like to live in some kind of fantasy land where reality doesnt count, but that's the reality of it.

If race is a social construct, then having a 'DNA test' to prove it, doesn't necessarily establish a damn thing (although seeing as most ethnic groups claim a biological basis to membership, such a test is usually sufficient).
 
Malifice said:
How does 'greasing palms' lead to anyone magically having Aboriginal descent, and being accepted as Aboriginal by other Aboriginal people where they didn't before?

Race is a social construct. I know you cookers and conservatives like to live in some kind of fantasy land where reality doesnt count, but that's the reality of it.

If race is a social construct, then having a 'DNA test' to prove it, doesn't necessarily establish a damn thing (although seeing as most ethnic groups claim a biological basis to membership, such a test is usually sufficient).
Click to expand...

Being "accepted" as Aboriginal is peak cooker nonsense.

A DNA test proves you are or you are not of a specific group.

Does not matter one single bit if someone does or doesn't accept you.

The fantasy is thinking it does matter.
 
Bostonian said:
A DNA test proves you are or you are not of a specific group.
Click to expand...

No, it doesnt.

Identical twins have virtually identical DNA. So you’d think if a set of twins both sent in a DNA sample for genetic ancestry testing, they’d get the exact same results, right?
Not necessarily, according to a recent investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In fact, the journalists demonstrated that twins don’t often get the same results from a single company. And across the industry, estimates of where an individual’s ancestors lived can differ significantly from company to company.
In one instance, the consumer genetics company 23andMe told one twin she was 13 percent “Broadly European.” The other twin’s test, meanwhile, showed she had just 3 percent “Broadly European” ancestry, and had more DNA matched to other, more specific regions in Europe. What’s more, when the twins had their DNA tested by five companies, each one gave them different results.
Click to expand...

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...cestry-dna-23-me-myheritage-science-explainer
 
Nancy pelosi is native american.

Rachel dolezal is african american.

Also, who would have known that Mal is an expert on bloodlines? Your similarities to a certain someone are quite striking. Did you also get rejected by art school?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top