NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice said:
Oh you mean this wikipedia page:



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

Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved people (not all of them). Translation: YOU DONT NEED A SLAVE ANCESTOR TO QUALIFY.

Most first generation immigrants from Africa do not consider themselves as African American, their children (people like Barrack Obama) often do.

It's literally telling you you're wrong, yet you're citing it as an authority you're right!

Barrack Obama identifies as (and is primarily viewed as) African American. He also describes himself as a 'mutt' (his own words), and while he embraces his 'White' background, he does not identify as 'White' having been treated like a Black man his whole life by people around him.

The above is simply highlighting the difficulty faced by people with obvious mixed heritage. We (as humans) tend to associate with a particular ethnic group very strongly; when you're a member of two ethnic groups generally people often choose to identify with one of those over the other (the one they're treated as, and feel the closest affinity towards).

In my case that's my English background. I dont feel any affinity towards my Aboriginal background, and dont identify as such, and never have.

It's a matter of curiosity in my family tree. That's about it.
Click to expand...


So I was right. The term originally came from referring to the black people in America who were descended from the slaves. That's how you end up with most.

Translation: I'm going to change the original meaning behind its history to be inclusive

It had no ties at all to African immigrants when it was first used.

You really don't think there are gatekeepers out there for the word "African American"? They exist.
 
Bostonian said:
So I was right. The term originally came from referring to the black people in America who were descended from the slaves. That's how you end up with most.
Click to expand...

That's not what it ****ing says! Nowhere does it say 'the term originally came from referring to black people who were descended from slaves'.

It says:

The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States.[6][7]
Click to expand...

Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved people within the boundaries of the present United States.[8][9] While some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African American, the majority of first-generation immigrants do not, preferring to identify with their nation of origin.[10][11] Most African Americans are of West African and coastal Central African ancestry, with varying amounts of Western European and Native American ancestry.[12]
Click to expand...

It says:

1) The term generally denotes the descendants of Africans enslaved in the USA (generally but not exclusively).
2) Most (but not all) African Americans are descendants of enslaved people in the USA.
3) The majority (but not all) of 1st generation migrants from Africa prefer to instead identify with their national origin.
4) Black immigrants, and the children of 1st generation migrants (like Obama) may come to identify as African American (like Obama did).

It's literally telling you you're wrong, but you're still holding it up as an authority you're correct.

That's a whole new level of Dunning Krueger right there.
 
Bostonian said:
And for a long time the accepted terminology was African American referred to those who came from the early slave.

I'll post it again... The term "African American" generally denotes descendants of Africans enslaved in the United States.

I didn't post that on wiki. And I can't help it if you're rather dumb when it comes to history.
Click to expand...
I'm rather dumb, and according to you neither Obama nor Harris is black

Got it :tearsofjoy:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice said:
It's also an Ethnic group.


Just like Japanese is both (an ethnic group, and a nationality). I can be Japanese by nationality (but not ethnically) or I can be ethnically Japanese but have an entirely different national identity.

English people are an admixture of various Germanic and Celtic ethnic groups (mainly the Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Celts and the Angles - the latter of whom is where the word 'England' comes from).



Yeah, the term is generally 'Eurasian' (in some contexts) and they belong to two ethnic groups (English and Chinese).

It's up to them how they identify though.
Click to expand...


And that's why only nationality matters. Rest of it is nothing more than a conversation piece.

A perfect example of that was when recently a white woman won Miss Zimbabwe.

Coped a torrid of abuse on how she's not African or Zimbabwean. Zimbabweans didn't care.

The only people that seemed to have an issue with it were from a left leaning western world view.
 
Bostonian said:
And that's why only nationality matters.
Click to expand...

I wish this were the case, but its not.

Ethnic identity is important to most people, and to a small section of people (the KKK, Nazis, White and Black Nationalists etc) it's core to their identity and belief system.

Humans have a need to put people in groups, and to identify as a member of a group. It's wired into us.

Its the same with Religion, gender identity (or even Nationality). They're all social constructs (just like Ethnicity) but for most people, they're important parts of how they self identify and how the see the world.
 
Malifice said:
That's not what it ****ing says! Nowhere does it say 'the term originally came from referring to black people who were descended from slaves'.

It says:

It says:

1) The term generally denotes the descendants of Africans enslaved in the USA (generally but not exclusively).
2) Most (but not all) African Americans are descendants of enslaved people in the USA.
3) The majority (but not all) of 1st generation migrants from Africa prefer to instead identify with their national origin.
4) Black immigrants, and the children of 1st generation migrants (like Obama) may come to identify as African American (like Obama did).

It's literally telling you you're wrong, but you're still holding it up as an authority you're correct.

That's a whole new level of Dunning Krueger right there.
Click to expand...

"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.
"
 
Malifice said:
I wish this were the case, but its not.

Ethnic identity is important to most people, and to a small section of people (the KKK, Nazis, White and Black Nationalists etc) it's core to their identity and belief system.

Humans have a need to put people in groups, and to identify as a member of a group. It's wired into us.

Its the same with Religion, gender identity (or even Nationality). They're all social constructs (just like Ethnicity) but for most people, they're important parts of how they self identify and how the see the world.
Click to expand...

Well it is the case for me. It can be the case for you.

Why would you not hold that view if you agree with it?

I don't think ethnic identity is that important at all these days to a growing majority of people.

I've seen different waves of migrants over the years arrive here in Australia and can say without a doubt a lot of them now have far less interest in their ethnic identity than the generations before them.

No way the kids of the Italians or Croatians I grew up with care anything like their parents did about their ethnic identity.

I'd say that would also apply to different groups who arrived from parts of Asia. I bet we see it with all the Aussie born kids of Indian parents.
 
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.
 
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.
 
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top