Will Black Americans breed themselves out of existence in the future?

Birnin Zana

Honorary Wakandan
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
6,106
Reputation
1,570
Daps
22,955
Reppin
Wakanda
No, breeding out of existence won't happen, people sometimes forget that most black people procreate with other black people.

The real question is will black people in the US be politically and economically relevant in the future?

The way I'm looking at it, it's kinda shaky right now.
 

Gravity

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,826
Reputation
2,195
Daps
56,263
Telling biracial kids to self identify as black is a selfish move for both the black community and the biracial community. Telling Biracials to let go of their other non black side is just wrong. If they don't decide that is the way they want to identify imposing them with a "Black" label is just out right wrong and selfish. If you wanted a black kid you should have married a black woman.
:heh:..........:snoop:..........:mjcry:

I don't set out to be insulting but it's really hard not to to be. I seriously wonder how you all make it through life with this blatant lack of reading and comprehension skills. My post didn't have the slightest bit to do with blacks telling biracials to identify as black. If that's what you got from my post then you don't read and comprehend simple English.

I clearly said that biracial people with a black parent have always been classified as black. You don't get to choose your race. It's not about us claiming biracials or tellin them how to ID. We don't have the power to claim people or tell them how to ID. People like Obama and Halle aren't black because black people say so or because we told them to ID as black. They're black because black is simply a term used to classify people who are visibly of African descent. That's my argument. All that talk about trying to get biracials to ignore a side and all that is nonsense and shows that you don't get it. Race is not a math equation. Biracial people aren't literally half white and half black. Acknowledging that Obama is black doesn't discount the fact that he has a white mother because biracial and black have never been mutually exclusive.

If you're going to challenge me then you'll have to disprove the fact that biracial people have always been classified as black ever since our concept of race has been established.

Colorism and Lightskinned privilege is real, I speak as Lightskinned Black person. You don't want to admit it.
I'm also tired of biracials co opting light skinned black people with two black parents spaces. I never had a white parent and I don't identify with biracials who have them. I don't know what it's like to have a non black parent. I knew I was black from a young age.
You're just describing the mentality of a selfish insecure black person who doesn't understand race or racial politics. The ironic thing is that you're trying to deny the blackness of biracial people as a self described light skin black person yourself. Do you not understand that you're only light skinned because someone in your family was non black(white), which led to someone in your family being biracial, which eventually led to you being light skinned? Would you have the gall to confront the biracial person(people) in your family and denounce their blackness? Shame on you if you would.

Look, due to the fact that we are all mixed to some degree we come in different complexions. Colorism doesn't begin and end with biracial people born from parents of two different races. Light skinned blacks with two black parents are privileged in this world over dark skinned blacks with two black parents. Women the complexion of Beyoncé are privileged over women the complexion of Kelly Rowland. Not all people with two black parents have the same experiences. Should people the complexion of Kelly Rowland start denying the blackness of people the complexion of Beyoncé? What would your response be to a darker skinned black person denying your blackness as someone lighter and more privileged?

Reducing the representation of dark skinned black people who statistically are treated worst on average then their lighter counter parts is damaging. A biracial does not represent this group of people or their experiences. A biracial is not more genetically black on average so why do they get to overshadow and represent those who are closer to black? Not to say there are not many lightskin people that are majority black but they are low in numbers. Lightskin is not a dominate trait in the black community.
The cause of the problems you speak of here is systematic white supremacy. As long as whites are in control of who represents blacks then they're going to choose the lightest ones who are closer to their standards. It's that simple. Even if you had a magic wand and could erase all immediate biracial people from the planet, they'd still choose the lightest blacks for any kind of positive representation of blacks. The only solution is to challenge their system and stop being allowing them to be the only one's to choose the people who represent us. Why don't you get this?
yeah yeah MAD...
I use to think that too... But then you find out some funny things....


The USA has a policy of absorbing a first strike.
The USA has been decreasing and not improving it's nuclear arsenal.
Russia and China on the other hand, have been getting ready.


So a massive cyber-attack to take out the usa's early warning systems, national grid, etc. Then a massive first strike to take out as much of the usa's strike capability as possible.

The usa at that point would launch whatever it still has... but the Russians and Chinese will be prepared for that.
You cats will literally just say anything. :snoop: at the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon having a policy of absorbing a first strike. You sound like an idiot.
 

Red Shield

Global Domination
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
21,404
Reputation
2,481
Daps
47,596
Reppin
.0001%
You cats will literally just say anything. :snoop: at the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon having a policy of absorbing a first strike. You sound like an idiot.

:dahell:
Go google it. It became policy in the 90s during Clinton's presidency. That policy was never rescinded.
 

Gravity

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,826
Reputation
2,195
Daps
56,263
:dahell:
Go google it. It became policy in the 90s during Clinton's presidency. That policy was never rescinded.
I don't have to look that up bruh I've got common sense. Where have you been for the last 15 years. Did you not just see us invade Iraq kill Sadaam and remove his regime just off of the guess that he WMDs? If we get into a serious beef with a nuclear capable cointry we're not going to wait for them to bomb first. Use your head man.
 

Red Shield

Global Domination
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
21,404
Reputation
2,481
Daps
47,596
Reppin
.0001%
I don't have to look that up bruh I've got common sense. Where have you been for the last 15 years. Did you not just see us invade Iraq kill Sadaam and remove his regime just off of the guess that he WMDs? If we get into a serious beef with a nuclear capable cointry we're not going to wait for them to bomb first. Use your head man.


The usa govt had plans to destabilize the middle east, long before iraq 2 or 9/11.

And of course the usa would absorb a 1st strike. It would never be brought up, if that wasn't the plan. so yeah I am using my head..

All the vip's and such already have bunkers. The average american on the other hand is toast.
 

Gravity

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,826
Reputation
2,195
Daps
56,263
The usa govt had plans to destabilize the middle east, long before iraq 2 or 9/11.

And of course the usa would absorb a 1st strike. It would never be brought up, if that wasn't the plan. so yeah I am using my head..

All the vip's and such already have bunkers. The average american on the other hand is toast.
Thats not the plan tho. I don't know what you've read but you're clearly confused. Why don't you post what you've "googled" :heh:
 

philmonroe

Superstar
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
28,909
Reputation
730
Daps
37,464
Reppin
The 215
With how America is set up as a melting pot and historical Anti blackness running rampant. Do you think the the Black population in America will decline in the next hundred years?
Funny thing is you see these same types of question on that storm place lol. I swear cats really don't understand how many similarities they have which each other just framed obviously with their slant in mind.

As far as the question No and I don't think it will be that way for a long time but let these dudes tell it everybody dating IR when the avg person don't really even have real friends of differing races
 

Oceanicpuppy

Superstar
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
12,044
Reputation
2,340
Daps
35,924
Funny thing is you see these same types of question on that storm place lol. I swear cats really don't understand how many similarities they have which each other just framed obviously with their slant in mind.

As far as the question No and I don't think it will be that way for a long time but let these dudes tell it everybody dating IR when the avg person don't really even have real friends of differing races
I don't surf white supremacist boards, so I don't know what they would talk about. :manny:
 

Gravity

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
18,826
Reputation
2,195
Daps
56,263

In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons."

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd

Just to show that you're a stupid motherfukker.
 

Red Shield

Global Domination
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
21,404
Reputation
2,481
Daps
47,596
Reppin
.0001%
In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons."

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd

Just to show that you're a stupid motherfukker.

"Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating,"


Keep name calling breh :umad:
 
Top