Kamala's Racial Identity Discussion

Tair

Superstar
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
6,602
Reputation
2,671
Daps
33,134
nope. it is always distinguished. whether it be 'coloured' or 'mixed' race. no way a half white or asian person is viewed as a pure african.

(1) Black =/= pure African

(2) ADOS aren't pure Africans yet are Black, so that little logic you are using falls flat. And we aren't in South Africa, rather we are in America.

:manny:
 

ChatGPT-5

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
17,987
Reputation
2,876
Daps
56,802
(1) Black =/= pure African

(2) ADOS aren't pure Africans yet are Black, so that little logic you are using falls flat. And we aren't in South Africa, rather we are in America.

:manny:
everyone has an admixture even whites, unless you live in an old world nation or something, you most likely have an admixture. but its what the vast majority are.

  • East Africa:
    • Chotara: A Swahili term used in Kenya and Tanzania to refer to people of mixed African and non-African descent.
    • Muzungu-Mwafrika: A Swahili term that can mean "half-European" or "half-white."
  • West Africa:
    • Afro: In Nigeria, this term is sometimes used for individuals of mixed African and non-African descent.
    • Half-caste: An older term that can be considered offensive today. It has been widely used in Nigeria and Ghana but is falling out of favor.
    • Métis: A French term used in francophone countries like Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, and others to describe people of mixed African and European descent.
  • Central Africa:
    • Métis: Also used in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, and Gabon.
    • Mulâtre: Another French term used in several francophone countries to describe mixed-race individuals.

you are behind and better figure it out before asking for reparation. some white parent is going to file and be all over it. white men allocating the funds to who knows where, white/latina women using it as child support, it'll be wild. Brazil already had an issue with this when they tried to give 'negroes' in the north scholarships. prados and white people out of no where became black, blonde and all.
 

Tair

Superstar
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
6,602
Reputation
2,671
Daps
33,134
everyone has an admixture even whites, unless you live in an old world nation or something, you most likely have an admixture. but its what the vast majority are

Your argument was, Black = pure African. That's not true, pure African = pure African.

Black = of African descent.

you are behind and better figure it out before asking for reparation. some white parent is going to file and be all over it. white men allocating the funds to who knows where, white/latina women using it as child support, it'll be wild. Brazil already had an issue with this when they tried to give 'negroes' in the north scholarships. prados and white people out of no where became black, blonde and all.

I don't care how other countries classify people. I live in the USA, not those countries.

If a "biracial" person is ADOS they are Black and they are entitled to reparations.

A white person can claim whatever they want, but (1) they aren't 'Black' nor do they claim to be, and (2) America isn't Brazil and meticulous records were kept here so some random white person can't just claim something without proof.
 

ChatGPT-5

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
17,987
Reputation
2,876
Daps
56,802
Your argument was, Black = pure African. That's not true, pure African = pure African.

Black = of African descent.
same thing. african is not an ethnicity, black is. and I am showing you how the vast majority of black people view biracials and not through your outdated one-drop rule which appears to be being challenged (finally) by black people themselves as I see the thread title and Kamala's daily threads.
 

Tair

Superstar
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
6,602
Reputation
2,671
Daps
33,134
same thing. african is not an ethnicity, black is. and I am showing you how the vast majority of black people view biracials and not through your outdated one-drop rule which appears to be being challenged (finally) by black people themselves as I see the thread title and Kamala's daily threads.

Black = of African descent
is not the same as
Pure African = Pure African

Meditate on it some more.

But like I said before, I don't care about how a bunch of people who don't classify themselves as Black rather classify themselves by their tribal affiliations, define people. I am not running to their countries, they are trying to come to the USA. So, why would I adopt their classification models?

Black folk in the USA made gains because we threw away the type of backwards thinking of those lands you listed. We didn't create a bunch of buffer classes, and that helped us greatly in America that every group you listed is striving to relocate to.

And having an ADOS/Black parent is more than 1-drop.

:manny:
 

ChatGPT-5

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
17,987
Reputation
2,876
Daps
56,802
why would I adopt the classification model of the white man.



:manny:
fixed and what you should be asking.


and calling the classification of the home in which your ancestors come from outdated while simultaneously agreeing to a white person's perspective, whom he himself would never call a biracial white (much like his ancestors), says something.

and there is a reason the rule applied in the first place. to make sure wealth remains within the group. perhaps if you're going to follow their ways, you follow it the right way.
 

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,494
Reputation
1,512
Daps
16,546
How can she be a "Brahmin Indian" when she's not even Hindu? Kamala's mom had already broken all of her Brahmin caste's rules by marrying a non-Indian (thus rejecting her culture and destroying the genetic lines of caste purity),
How can she be a Brahmin Indian when her grandparents were Brahmin Indians and her mother was a Brahmin Indian? Really?


Kamala NEVER mentions that California law in the interview, she's talking about her own anti-truancy programs that she ran as D.A. in San Francisco, where she helped reduce truancy by 30% without putting a single parent in jail. The Department of Education doesn't have any control of criminal law and wouldn't be able to make any law jailing parents for truancy, she's just talking about them implementing programs to try to reduce truancy among children.

Breh I literally gave you these exact quotes in my post and then my personal thoughts on it:

Rye asked Harris if she would "extend the [anti-truancy] program on a federal level, or try to figure out ways to address truancy on a federal level?"

"Yeah," Harris responded, "but as president it would be really doing it through the Department of Education. I did it through the mechanisms I had, because I wasn't running the city, I wasn't running the county. I wasn't running the state."



I'm going to need someone to dig a little deeper in that given Brahmin Indian Kamala Harris's history on truancy laws. I'm also going to need timelines on what you're referencing when you say she'll drop the issue altogether. Was this at a later date than that 2019 Angela Rye interview?


Did you just read past this? I'm going to need people to dig a little deeper on this Brahmin Indian's stance on truancy at the federal level based on her telling Angela Rye that she would look at ways to address truancy at the federal level.

I do not want her anywhere near the subject given her history and am very concerned about whatever solutions she comes up with. Based on her history I believe these solutions have a strong likelihood of somehow disproportionately harming the bottom casted Americans.

Especially if I'm to believe that she doesn't fully understand the nature of the solutions she pushes for, and in fact, did not understand that the law she sponsored and championed could and would be used the way it was used.

She went "to" the jail to have her booking photo taken and be charged. She was never jailed.

Again this is a fictional recount of the event that you made up.

Wrong yet again. The law was passed in 2010, Kamala was still just D.A. of San Francisco at the time (though she was running for Attorney General).

Kamala pushed for the law as the San Francisco D.A., but it was also officially endorsed by the California District Attorneys Association, the California State Parent-Teachers Association, and the California Teachers Association. It passed 58-17 in the Assembly and 23-13 in the Senate with strong bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican governor.


Like I said already, I don't support the idea at all and I'm not a fan of her time as prosecutor. But I'm also far-left on prosecution compared


Let me help you out here with this tangent that you went on based on not understanding what you quoted.

This is the full context of what you quoted.


"That's out her mouth in the interview that she went to jail. Also, Brahmin Indian Kamala was the Attorney General at that time and states-wide truancy laws were her pet project. Stop the deflecting. If Brahmin Indian Kamala was never born Ms. Peoples wouldn't have been arrested and would not have gone to jail. "


The entire paragraph was literally about Cheree Peoples being in jail. The intent behind the word "also" was to link the context of sentence two to sentence one.


The "at that time" in sentence two was the time Cheere Peoples went to jail. April 2013


since that entire paragraph and the prior response was talking about Cheree Peoples being in jail.

Brahmin Indian Kamala Harris was Attorney General at this time. Please stop looking for ways to fill posts with off tangent and empty rhetoric and ask questions if there are things you are unclear on.
 
Last edited:

Gritsngravy

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
8,286
Reputation
627
Daps
16,745
Dems in power choose their positions about 50-50 weighing what the middle class wants and what the rich want (as opposed to Republicans, who 100% follow the rich - there's actually a political study on this exact topic). If their constiuencies in the middle class / rich want to help poor people, they'll do it, but that's not common. Dems in 1990s-2010s specifically were dominated by neoliberals who push capitalism and the global agenda and were especially close to Republicans-lite.

However, starting in 2016 and especially 2018-2020, there's been popular pressure pushing Democrats further to the left and somewhat more in support of the poor. As I noted back in 2019, Kamala was running on a fairly liberal agenda, though she hadn't been nearly as liberal when she was a DA/AG. Biden in 2020 was running on a MUCH more liberal agenda than he had legislated as a senator from the 1970s-2000s. Though he didn't govern quite as liberal as he ran, he still governed significantly more liberal than he used to be, even more liberal than Obama goverened when Biden was his VP.

I think Kamala, similarly, has been feeling that push from the left and will govern even more liberal than Biden.







This isn't true. The majority of Dems vote against the Republican tax cuts for the rich, increased military spending, authorizing the War in Iraq, etc. However, you are right that SOME dems vote for some of those things, and that sometimes included dems with power (like Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq War). And they deserve to take shyt for that when they do so.
Biden and by proximity Kamala since she is part of this administration really haven’t done anything for the have nots, if anything they sacrificed the people for the sake of corporations and the banks and I doubt a kamala administration is going to move the needle as far as helping the people is concerned, and the Ukraine war was provoked by the west because they got agendas that the public aren’t privy too

Or the fact that folks been predicting a South China Sea war for at least the last couple of years, they talking about getting shyt popping by 2030, like what type of shyt is that, how do you predict a whole ass war, and again the establishment dems reps is operating on a agenda that we don’t know about for real and they ready to sacrifice the citizens to make this shyt happen
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,890
Reppin
the ether
How can she be a Brahmin Indian when her grandparents were Brahmin Indians and her mother was a Brahmin Indian? Really?


Because the ENTIRE concept of Brahminism is based on purity, dumbass. As her mother said, her mom broke a 1000-year line of staying within the Brahmin genetic purity and left.

Not to mention the whole part about her being a Black Baptist her entire life and never once identifying as Hindu or following the basic Brahmin Hindu rules regarding vegetarianism, caste purity, etc. :mjlol:

The funny thing is, by your argument you just admitted that she's Black, although your logic only works for race and doesn't work for religion. :dead:





Breh I literally gave you these exact quotes in my post and and then my personal thoughts on it:

Rye asked Harris if she would "extend the [anti-truancy] program on a federal level, or try to figure out ways to address truancy on a federal level?"

"Yeah," Harris responded, "but as president it would be really doing it through the Department of Education. I did it through the mechanisms I had, because I wasn't running the city, I wasn't running the county. I wasn't running the state."


You claimed she was talking about the state law, when in the interview she is CLEARLY talking about the anti-truancy programs she ran in San Francisco and says nothing about the state law. And she had already explicitly denied that she would want to take the state law national and expressed regret for how others had abused it.







Again this is a fictional recount of the event that you made up.

You're the one who lied and claimed she was convicted, jailed, had a conviction on her record which was hurting her job prospects. You made ALL of that up and are trying to hang on the last scraps of the false narrative you made up.






The "at that time" in sentence two was the time Cheere Peoples went to jail. April 2013



Breh, NOWHERE in that entire article does it ever say that Cheere Peoples was in jail. The article doesn't even use the word "jail" in reference to Peoples's case. It said she was ARRESTED, not put in jail. That's why they spend so long emphasizing the humiliation of being in handcuffs but don't say a single word about being put in a cell.

There's a reason why you haven't said whether she spent 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, etc. in jail, despite this being a famous case that people have talked about for over 10 years. That would be a clear feature of a story if it had happened. But you can't find it, and you're straight up quoting a story that never says she spent any time in jail at all as your "evidence". Because she was arrested, booked, and released by a right-wing Republican D.A. who was being a hardass for election cred in a right-wing Republican county.

You got caught lying, again, for the 4th or 5th time this thread.
 
Top