← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · eric von zipper
Thread ID: 1053 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2002-05-30
2002-05-30 13:49 | User Profile
Gorgeous esthetic prop Denise Richards is gonna end up in the sack with the negro star in this latest of the never ending jew assault on the flagging resistance of white girls to interracial sex.
Having succeeded so far in persuading every fat assed white girl in the USA with skid marked drawers to having a baby by a homie with an 85 IQ, Hollywood has now raised their sights on the good looking but ever so impressionable white girls who have other options in that they can actually get a white man to hump them.
And of course, since the last thing any ever so eager to be admired white girl wants is to be called a racist, after having been subjected to 16 years of state sponsored brainwashing, the deservedly despised hollywood types should find them easy marks.
Funny, ain't it, how this brainwashing is always directed at white girls not boys?
And it really is directed at girls, not women.
As for white guys, despite the endless hype about all the slave women supposedly raped by ole massuh, there doesn't seem to be enough capital in Hollywood to fund an attempt to persuade white boys to actually boink a dusky woman, since there aren't enough Hale Berries and Beyonces to go around. And after those two, let's face it, based on my experience working for the gummitt, which qualifies me as an expert, the quality drops rather precipitously to the "do duh bus stop heah" level.
2002-11-25 03:27 | User Profile
I was (pleasantly) astonished to discover how FEW mixed-race marriages there actually were! From the media it seemed so common as to be ubiquitous. Turns out that's just ads and movies and TV!! Maybe there's still hope that more people can be enlightened!
[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/12/kennedy.htm]http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/12/kennedy.htm[/url]
From Article in Dec. Atlantic Monthly: Interracial Intimacy by Randall Kennedy
... In 1960 there were about 51,000 black-white married couples in the United States; in 1970 there were 65,000, in 1980 there were 121,000, in 1990 there were 213,000, and by 1998 the number had reached 330,000. In other words, in the past four decades black-white marriages increased more than sixfold. And black-white marriages are not only becoming more numerous. Previously, the new couples in mixed marriages tended to be older than other brides and grooms. They were frequently veterans of divorce, embarking on second or third marriages. In recent years, however, couples in mixed marriages seem to be marrying younger than their pioneering predecessors and seem more inclined to have children and to pursue all the other "normal" activities that married life offers.
It should be stressed that black-white marriages remain remarkably rareââ¬âfewer than one percent of the total. In 1998, when 330,000 black-white couples were married, 55,305,000 couples were married overall. Moreover, the racial isolation of blacks on the marriage market appears to be greater than that of other people of color: much larger percentages of Native Americans and Asian-Americans marry whites. According to 1990 Census data, in the age cohort twenty-five to thirty-four, 36 percent of U.S.-born Asian-American husbands and 45 percent of U.S.-born Asian-American wives had white spouses; 53 percent of Native American husbands and 54 percent of Native American wives had white spouses. Only eight percent of African-American husbands and only four percent of African-American wives had white spouses. The sociologist Nathan Glazer was correct in stating, in The Public Interest (September 1995), that "blacks stand out uniquely among the array of American ethnic and racial groups in the degree to which marriage remains within the group." Of course, the Native American and Asian-American populations are so much smaller than the African-American population that relatively few intermarriages make a big difference in percentage terms. But the disparity is real: it has to do not only with demographics but also with generations' worth of subjective judgments about marriageability, beauty, personality, comfort, compatibility, and prestige. Even now a wide array of social pressures continue to make white-black marriages more difficult and thus less frequent than other interethnic or interracial marriages. ...
2002-11-25 12:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Nov 24 2002, 22:27 I was (pleasantly) astonished to discover how FEW mixed-race marriages there actually were!
This would seem like good news. But then I wonder how many of these matches would marry anyway? Such couplings are not between people who have much respect for social order, and tradition. And as I believe 66 percent of black, and 30 percent of white children are born out of wedlock the incident of marriage doesn't tell us all we need to know about these abominations.
2003-01-13 03:31 | User Profile
[url=http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article_print.cfm?i=54338]http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article_p...int.cfm?i=54338[/url]
Mixed race marriage on rise
In his 33 years at the Marion County clerkââ¬â¢s office, Henry C. Mattson never saw a black man and a white woman show up for a marriage license together.
The 94-year-old also canââ¬â¢t recall any black women who married white men, or any other newlyweds who claimed different races or ethnicities.
ââ¬ÅThere were no doubt some black couples, but I canââ¬â¢t remember any where they were mixed,ââ¬Â said Mattson.
More than half of his career, from 1929 to 1963, took place during a state ban on interracial marriages.
The ban, one of the toughest in the nation, was lifted in 1951.
Five decades later, the rite of marriage is a case study for the Mid-Valleyââ¬â¢s growing diversity.
A Statesman Journal analysis of state health records shows that couples of different races or ethnicities accounted for one in eight marriages in Oregon last year, up from one in 12 a decade earlier.
Among the related findings:
ââ¬Â¢The most common unions were between Hispanics, the stateââ¬â¢s largest minority, and whites.
ââ¬Â¢A majority of two groups ââ¬â Asian Americans and American Indians ââ¬â chose partners outside their own race.
ââ¬Â¢White women were far more likely than white men to tie the knot with a person of another race. There were 866 white men in Oregon who married a person of another race or ethnicity in 2001. But 1,188 white women joined mixed-race marriages, or 37 percent more than men.
The trend is contributing to a record number of multiracial children in Oregon, and to a blend of cultures, languages and belief systems that hasnââ¬â¢t been seen since the stateââ¬â¢s pioneer era.
Dr. David del Mar, a professor of history at Portland State University, estimates as many as one in four Oregonians could claim multiracial backgrounds.
Most simply arenââ¬â¢t aware of their backgrounds, or choose not to identify with them.
In Salem, a growing number of high-profile figures are part of mixed families.
State legislator Jackie Winters, who is African American, is married to a white man, Ted Winters. Willamette University President M. Lee Pelton, also black, has a white wife, Kristen Wilson. And Salem-Keizerââ¬â¢s school superintendent, Kay Baker, has two adopted daughters who are black.
Dr. Thomas Wright, president of the Portland-based Oregon Council on Multiracial Affairs, points to a growing number of mixed-race celebrities, such as golf champion Tiger Woods and actress Halle Berry.
Still, Wright said interracial marriages of all types can be discouraged by friends and relatives.
Some fear changes to the familyââ¬â¢s racial status, or they worry the coupleââ¬â¢s children will face unwanted scrutiny. Some minorities are discouraged from marrying whites, he added, especially if older generations have seen discrimination themselves.
Wright, who claims African American and white heritage, believes those concerns arenââ¬â¢t as prominent in Oregon as they are in the Southeast and other parts of the country. He said Oregonââ¬â¢s smaller minority population makes it seem less of a threat.
A case in point
Jorge and Cynthia Cuellar of West Salem would have been a rarity in 1960.
Back then, Salem was still more than 99 percent white. But 20,000 Hispanics call the city home today, or about 15 percent of the overall population.
Marriages between Hispanics and non-Hispanics accounted for nearly one in four mixed marriages in the state in 2001.
Because Hispanic is an ethnicity ââ¬â you can be a white or a black Hispanic ââ¬â many of those couples technically arenââ¬â¢t inter-racial.
But differences still exist.
Cynthia was born in Eugene, but spent her childhood bouncing between small towns in Mexico, Columbia, Costa Rica and Ecuador. Her father was a missionary. Her family, including her two sisters and mom, were white minorities.
Cynthia and Jorge fell in love in Belize, where marrying a ââ¬Ågringoââ¬Â was considered a status symbol by locals. Cynthia said that wasnââ¬â¢t the case for her. She was smitten when Jorge, a sugar farmer who dropped out of school after the sixth grade, brought her plant cuttings from the jungle.
Her two sisters also found husbands from other countries. One lives in Corvallis, married to a man from Kenya. The other, in Eugene, has a husband from Mexico.
Language remains the most visible divider for the Cuellars, even though both are bilingual.
When they go shopping with their 3-year-old son, Caleb, sales clerks often ignore Jorge, assuming he doesnââ¬â¢t speak English.
ââ¬ÅPeople are afraid to ask questions,ââ¬Â Cynthia said. ââ¬ÅThey donââ¬â¢t even know how to ask.ââ¬Â
Another challenge arrived two years ago during the federal census.
Jorge was born and raised in Belize and had parents of Mayan and Mexican heritage.
It was the first year the government offered the option of claiming ââ¬Åtwo or more racesââ¬Â on census forms. But his complex background wasnââ¬â¢t reflected in the choices, so he simply checked ââ¬ÅHispanic.ââ¬Â
Cynthia and Jorge donââ¬â¢t view their marriage as anything out of the ordinary. After more than two decades living abroad, Cynthia said she relates easier to Latin Americans than to other U.S.-born residents.
And when Caleb is older, his blend of European and Latin American backgrounds, and his ability to speak two languages, will be an asset.
ââ¬ÅI think heââ¬â¢s got the best of both worlds,ââ¬Â Cynthia said. ââ¬ÅHeââ¬â¢s got his dad to look to for understanding Hispanic culture, and me for Anglo culture.ââ¬Â
HONEY for mixed-race kids
Multiracial students have an easier time in school today, says Sarah Ross, a co-founder of the Eugene-based group HONEY, or Honoring Our New Ethnic Youth.
HONEY, a small nonprofit, focuses on providing play groups and social activities for mixed-race children.
ââ¬ÅKids of mixed heritage like to get together and socialize,ââ¬Â she said. ââ¬ÅSometimes they feel like theyââ¬â¢re the only ones, especially if the parent of color is absent from the family.ââ¬Â
Support groups like HONEY are hard to find. Several non-profit groups and school committees offer minority advocacy programs in Marion and Polk counties, but there are no groups that focus solely on multiracial issues.
Linda Busey, the lone Salem resident on the board of the Portland-based multiracial council, said she sought out the group because there were no resources locally.
Del Mar, the PSU professor, says most people who identify with multiple races or ethnicities choose to live in Oregonââ¬â¢s more densely populated areasââ¬â from Eugene to Salem to Portland ââ¬â where the climate is more politically progressive and socially tolerant.
Mixed-race couples will be well-represented in those areas in the upcoming session of the state Legislature. Three state representatives ââ¬â all of them white Republicans ââ¬â are or have been married to Hispanic men.
One of those is Cornelius resident Mary Gallegos, who has three children with her husband, Tony.
Gallegos said sheââ¬â¢s learned important lessons just from having a last name associated with another ethnicity. Constituents, assuming she is Hispanic, have left dozens of messages for her concerning immigration laws and bilingual education.
Such misunderstandings may become less common as the number of blended families grows. Wright, president of the multiracial council, says a critical mass of mixed families in Oregon will help chip away at subtle prejudices and poor assumptions.
ââ¬ÅAt some point the numbers will be so great that people will have to accept the fact that thereââ¬â¢s all these people who identify with multiracial,ââ¬Â Wright said. ââ¬ÅAll predictions are that there wonââ¬â¢t be any majority races here in this country.ââ¬Â
2003-01-13 04:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 13 2003, 03:31 ** Wright said, ââ¬ÅAll predictions are that there wonââ¬â¢t be any majority races here in this country.ââ¬Â **
Actually, there will be a majority race in this country. It'll be TAN EVERYMAN.
2003-01-14 03:58 | User Profile
One thing that has always puzzled me about miscegenation is that people get upset when they see a Black guy and White girl together, yet don't mind when it's a White guy and a Black or Asian girl holding hands or getting it on. The latter form of interracial mixing has been going on since the days of slavery. What makes one form of miscegenation better or worse than the other? Am I the only one here who sees a Double Standard?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm no advocate for miscegenation or anything of the sort. But it seems that some of you have forgotten that, in this country, we have a little something called Freedom of Association and Individual Rights. If two people from different races wish to get together, they have a God-given right to do so and laws against that (such Anti-miscegenation laws in the old days) violate those rights.
BTW, this post caught my interest because my older brother was interracially married for a time, which produced two bi-racial children--my nephew and niece. I love them as much as I love any member of my family and I take it a personal offense when some f--kin' a--hole makes insulting remarks about mixed-race people.
2003-01-14 04:53 | User Profile
Kminta, I suspect it's less people mind when they see, lets say, a white guy with an Asian girl. To be blunt, Asians don't have the 'rep' that blacks have - and by that I mean crime, destruction of cities, dependency on welfare, inability to accept blame for any problems at all. While we are now starting to see Asians slowly jumping on the ethnic goodies/blame-game bandwagon, for the most part, East Asians in the U.S. did not cause many Whites problems. Like I just mentioned, that's slowly starting to change (it seems that way in some areas, anyhow) but black overall has earned the disdain of whites. Period. Study after study has shown that most East Asian highschoolers study 3 - 5 hours per DAY. How many black youngsters put in 3 or 4 hours in a YEAR? (Yeah, I've said it before, and I'll say it again as I can anticipate certain remarks: White kids could stand to emulate the study habits of Asian and jewish youngsters - Favortism in admissions is best left on another thread and has nothing to do with this) Blacks have a murder 10 times that of whites, and commit rapes at rates that are astounding. The Mexicans are doing their best to try and wrest the titles in some of these areas from their black counterparts. They already have in Los Angeles. Yesterday Mexicans closed down one of the main freeways here in town because they decided to shoot at each other from their respective vehicles. I don't see too many Chinese guys pulling these stunts, never mind whites. But blacks do stuff like this here in L.A. all the time, just like the Mexicans.
So, before I get too far off the beam, there you go. Blacks carry all kinds of negative baggage - and in films depicting white/black relationships - it seems to ALWAYS be the black that is suave, intelligent, on top of things (yeah, here come more remarks, I can feel it) and generally just all around so far above those lame whites it's a wonder he even bothers with some stupid white woman. Of course, it's all helped along with the panting white woman unable to hold herself back from groping Leroy's schnitzel, such is the awesome aura of black male sexuality in the movies. The message is for white women to stay away from those lame white guys and bed down with some gold chained bedecked, St. Ives guzzling knucklenoggin.
People aren't disliked because of who they are, it's because of what they do. And a lot of blacks cause a lot of trouble. This is undeniable.
BTW - when people see a mixed race person of black/white background, the person usually looks more black, and tends to act so. This isn't the thread to go into the reasons for that. I know several mixed race couples that are white/Asian, and the kids either look mixed half the time, or entirely white the other half of the time. And act so. The Asian women (and these women were born here, not FOB's) tend to act like ... women. They hadn't been infected with all the feminist clap trap that too many white women have bought into. That is why they ended up with white husbands, as some of these guys kept running into white women that wanted to wear the pants in the family, and seemed like they probably want to wear a stap-on in the bedroom.
2003-01-14 04:58 | User Profile
kminta- I agree with you. I am no fan of interracial marriage but that view should never justify cruelty or a nasty attitude towards people of mixed background. I also concur that the prohibition of interracial relationships is not the province of the State. With respect to the double standards you mention, though, I believe that blacks are as guilty as whites, at least to the extent that black men for the most part don't appreciate white men dating "their" women whereas they are not too concerned, generally speaking, with black men dating white women.
2003-01-14 05:03 | User Profile
Roy Batty,
I can't stand them, the ones born born in Asia are mindless and dull, and the ones born in the US are like [url=http://www.margaretcho.com/]Margaret Cho[/url]!
2003-01-14 05:15 | User Profile
Race mixing is a biological threat to the white race. Even if blacks didn't have the high crime rates and social pathology that they do inter-racial breeding would be something to oppose. The races until very recently were kept apart by oceans and mountain ranges. This type of situation must be restored if the white race is to survive. I wonder how many white women would choose blacks as their mates if they had to live the rest of their lives in a black community even after the relationship went south. While hatred of mixed race people is wrong ,however if we found out a child was produced by a brother and sister having an affair together ,we wouldn't hate the baby but we couldn't approve of the act that created it.
2003-01-14 05:31 | User Profile
Yeah, I know what ya' mean Faust. But I'm commenting on what I've experienced. As an aside, a few years ago I actually lived not too far from that pig, Margaret Cho. And I mean pig. I'd run my dogs to the dog park, and she'd show up once in awhile, wearing nothing but a ratty ass bathrobe, and looking like Wladimir Klitschko had worked her over. Just awful. And proud of it. Again, a real pig.
That said, the blacks and Mexicans in L.A. are runnin' wild, and not shooting enough of each other if you ask me. Of course, it's all whitey's fault. You can expect a TV movie on that soon ... after the news reports and specials that pinpoint whites as the nexus of all black and brown misbehavior. These people are too wordly and cool to be at fault. Just go to the movies, you'll see.
2003-01-14 09:43 | User Profile
While I don't think the innocent half-breed offspring of miscegenators should be mistreated, I also don't believe in any "God-given" right to be a race traitor. Those with the most firepower (Uncle Shmuel, for the moment) decide what rights we have - God or the Constitution notwithstanding. That's the way it's always been and always will be.
And since that's the case, we should be working toward becoming strong enough to set the standards in the future.
2003-01-14 14:24 | User Profile
**kminta: I'm no advocate for miscegenation or anything of the sort. But it seems that some of you have forgotten that, in this country, we have a little something called Freedom of Association and Individual Rights. ** No, actually we DON'T have freedom of association! Just TRY to sell your house to only someone of your own race! Just TRY to hire only people of your own race! Just TRY to form or join a club of only your own race! The armed might of the govt FORCIBLY PREVENTS freedom of association!!
And we are fer shure fighting a losing rearguard action to retain ANY of our "individual rights."
2003-01-14 14:39 | User Profile
I work in a department store, where I am used to seeing mixed-race families and their children. As much as I know deep inside I'm opposed to it, I can't let my attitudes about it show in public. Still, it is very disheartening for me to see a White man with a woman of another race. We are so used to thinking that mixed-race couples are black male/white female only, for it has been the only coupling that has been tolerated for so long. You would be surprised to see when it is vice-versa.
I can see some logic as to why White men have wives and/or lovers of another race. I don't think that too many White women have bought into feminism; I think feminism is generally a part of the White female psyche. In whatever degree, it leaves a permanent mark on them. True, there are some who never exposed themselves to it, but the numbers are few and far between. Then there are those who claim they are not feminists but seem to have no problem accepting some of their ideas. Non-White women weren't the major benefactors of the "women's movement". I think there are White men who find comfort in being with a non-White woman. If you watch commercials these days, and see how relationships between White men and women are very skewed, that could very well be a reason why the mixed-race relationships are where they are today.
2003-01-14 16:27 | User Profile
**One thing that has always puzzled me about miscegenation is that people get upset when they see a Black guy and White girl together, yet don't mind when it's a White guy and a Black or Asian girl holding hands or getting it on. **
This reaction has a biological basis -- a woman has a more limited reproductive capacity, and when this capacity is monopolized (temporarily or permanently) by a member of another race, it prevents the production of monoracial babies. A further problem -- under current circumstances -- is that the taxpayer is much more likely to pay the cost of rearing a child of a black man/white woman union than the child of a black woman/white man union.
2003-01-14 20:22 | User Profile
Robbie Posted on Jan 14 2003, 08:39
**I am used to seeing mixed-race families and their children. As much as I know deep inside I'm opposed to it, I can't let my attitudes about it show in public. **
I live in a very mongrelized part of a city that cackles non-stop about its multi-cultural status and unfortunately has the statistics to prove it. Keeping violent impulses in check is something I am accustomed to though, admittedly, I do not have to contort my face for the sake of pretence. MWDallas is probably right in positing a biological basis for a reaction most sane men have in seeing a female sister with men of other races. Observing the same subdued response in otherwise PC minded men is no consolation.
Miscegenation is a crime and while our society and Mother Nature may be indifferent, the consequences are real to the products of suchââ¬Â¦ unions. If references are desired consider signing out ââ¬ÅCaucasiaââ¬Â or any other testament to mental misery ââ¬â likely to be conspicuously displayed -- from your library, but I warn you, the material makes for painful reading. The mental schism that an unfortunate child endures because some high-minded white ââ¬Åactivistââ¬Â slut played a temporary game of house with a black professor/intellectual is enough to make one long for the revival of firing squads. What a relief that the bi-racial author discovers in the end that ââ¬Åthere is no such thing as a race.ââ¬Â Fortunately, the current climate is conducive to producing writers who will pen works of ââ¬Ëfictionââ¬â¢ in lieu of cathartic experiences best reserved for a couch, and who can best educate the rest of us.
In two short centuries the advertising departments of mega-corporations openly governing North America will be allowed to cut back in staff and target their trinket prodding weaponry on a single coffee-coloured demographic. Of course, our overseers will long before such time derive ancillary benefits that accompany an indifferent populace but one that can be quickly made restless by judicious application/withdrawal of bonbons. The prospect of one everyman who combines the whiteââ¬â¢s neuroticism, the blackââ¬â¢s hostility, the yellowââ¬â¢s subservience, and the mestizoââ¬â¢s indifference is enough to make a competent advertising exec salivate.
So much for the genetic heritage of Tacitus' "Germania." :(
2003-01-14 22:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sisyfos@Jan 14 2003, 20:22 **
In two short centuries the advertising departments of mega-corporations openly governing North America will be allowed to cut back in staff and target their trinket prodding weaponry on a single coffee-coloured demographic. **
There are too many cracks in the struts. It is never going to get that far.
There is nowhere to run, and things will crumble well before the powers that be are able to create the hodge-podge they desire. Always overreaching.
2003-01-15 01:30 | User Profile
Ja wohl, things will change before we reach Tan Everyman as the norm. But the point that media corporations see some benefits in destroying race consciousness is valid. It is indeed easier for the current occupiers of powerful media positions to be able to ignore people's pesky interest in ancient cultures. This is were I like neo-Marxists analysis: the neo-Marxist will point to the way the culture industry attempts to create drives and wants that serve the moneyed-interests, rather than those of authentic, de-alienated cultures. The neo-Marxist goes wrong in imagining that the overthrow of capitalism is the answer, but she provides some interesting insights.
2003-01-15 07:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by kminta@Jan 13 2003, 21:58 ** One thing that has always puzzled me about miscegenation is that people get upset when they see a Black guy and White girl together, yet don't mind when it's a White guy and a Black or Asian girl holding hands or getting it on. **
I don't know how true your assumption is; I took a female black friend to a Chinese place for lunch a few months back, and you wouldn't believe the looks we got. Mostly from blacks. :P
Your assumption about whites and asians is questionable too; I've known some white-girl-asian-man couples, and they get mostly the same reaction as their white-man-asian-girl inverse. Ie, "kind of a waste of a good smart [white or asian, depending on who's reacting] person, but at least they picked a smart one--and their kids won't be vandalizing my car".
2003-01-15 17:48 | User Profile
Yggdrasil wrote this short essay about the race-mixing phenomenon in 1996. Interestingly, he only discusses the preferences of white males.
YGGDRASIL
Statistics on Interracial Marriage
In response to a recent thread in which one poster alleged that the white race was disappearing because of intermarriage, I offer some analysis of hard numbers by Census bureau statisticians, and a history lesson from a Nobel prize winner, Robert Fogel.
The pattern that clearly appears from the numbers is that White males have an overwhelming preference for white females.
Blacks and whites have lived together on this American continent for approximately 400 years. That is a long time. If white males were attracted to black females, then the races would have blended long ago. In the Words of Fogel and Engerman in "Time on the Cross" (p 132):
"The fact that during the twenty three decades of contact between slaves and whites which elapsed between 1620 and 1850, only 7.7 percent of slaves were mulattoes suggests that on average only a very small percentage of the slaves born in any given year were fathered by white men."
And more telling (p 134):
"Nor should one underestimate the effect of racism on the demand of white males for black sexual partners. While some white men might have been tempted by the myth of black sexuality, a myth that may be stronger today than it was in the antebellum South, it is likely that far larger numbers were put off by racist aversions. Data on prostitution supports this conjecture. Nashville is the only southern city for which a count of prostitutes is available. The 1860 census showed that just 4.3 percent of the prostitutes in that city were Negroes, although a fifth of the population of Nashville was Negro. Moreover, all of the Negro prostitutes where free and light-skinned. There were no pure blacks who were prostitutes; nor were any slaves prostitutes. The substantial underrepresentation of Negroes, as well as the complete absence of dark-skinned Negroes, indicates that white men who desired illicit sex had a strong preference for white women."
This pattern of aesthetic preference of white males is about as durable as any trend can be. As long as white males continue to restrict their mates in this manner, the race is bound to exist at least until the next Ice Age.
The 1990 census data discussed below demonstrates that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yggdrasil
May 9, 1991 Wall Street Journal p B1
Interracial Marriages Increase, but Still Rare
INTERRACIAL marriages increase, though they still aren't that common. Census Bureau specialists Roderick J. Harrison and Claudette Bennett report that the 1990 census showed about 1.1 million interracial couples, up slightly from not quite one million in 1980 and more than triple the 321,000 in 1970. When marriages between Hispanics and members of other minority groups or non- Hispanic whites are added in, there were 2.3 million interracial and intergroup marriages in 1990, compared with 1.6 million in 1980.
Nonetheless, interracial couples represented only about 2% of married couples in 1990, and interracial and intergroup marriages only 4%. Non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks were proportionately the least likely to marry outside their group, the analysis reveals, with more than 95% of these whites and 92% of these blacks marrying within their own group. Only 68% of Asians or Hispanics and only 25% of American Indians had married within their groups.
When members of a minority marry outside their group, the spouses are most likely to be non-Hispanic whites, according to the researchers; marriages involving members of two minority groups are less frequent. Most "out-marrying" whites tend to have married Hispanics; only 0.01% of white married men and only 0.03% of white married women have married blacks.
"If persons married without regard to race or Hispanic origin, and simply in proportion to each group's percentage of the married population, about 5.5% of [non-Hispanic] white males and females should have Hispanic spouses, and another 5.5% have black spouses," the authors observe. "This is about five times as many marriages as actually occur between whites and Hispanics, about 20 times the percentage observed between white women and black men and 50 times that realized between white men and black women."
© 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.
2003-01-15 19:47 | User Profile
Good post Uncle. I remember reading that a while back at Ygg's site. For the most part, people marry their "own", media manipulation to the contrary. The powers that be would like all of us to think that the numbers are higher than they are, one would think in the juvenile hope of everyone thinking they'd better jump in or they'll be left out. The numbers are always manipulated, much like everyone being concerned about the numbers of third worlders on the planet in comparison to whites. When things collapse, the aid $$$ will stop flowing, and the usual, natural forces prevelant in third world living will cull those populations.
It's the message the Hollyvitz brainwash meisters are spitting out that is part of the problem - but in terms of their dreams being fulfilled, it's hard to fight tastes that may in some fashion be related to genetics as anything else. All in all, a lot of their b.s. runs along the same lines as claims that jews are disappearing because of intermarriage (sure), jews are only 2-3% of the U.S. population (don't believe it, considering their open instructions to other jews early in the 20th century to not admit to their being jewish when the census came calling, and their propensity to try and hide same these days) whites should give up and join the brown hordes because there's hardly any whites left, blah blah blah.
In some ways, jewish filmmakers are probably trying to see if they can irritate whitey, goad whitey, by showing a white woman with the most ghetto foul of blacks like the clowns in Undercover Brother. ** I suspect it's a product of anti-white hatred more than any attempt to brainwash. **They can live and vent their twisted sexual perversions and hatreds on screen.
2003-01-16 04:22 | User Profile
Drakmal Posted on Jan 15 2003, 01:49
**Ie, "kind of a waste of a good smart [white or asian, depending on who's reacting] person, but at least they picked a smart one--and their kids won't be vandalizing my car". **
A ââ¬Åsmart oneââ¬Â is all nice and dandy but ranks up there with ââ¬Åfunnyââ¬Â as the most overused and redundant of adjectives applied to potential mates. The reality of regression to the mean implies that it is the totality of a mateââ¬â¢s genetic heritage that should be of concern and whether oneââ¬â¢s partner fluked in the more myelinated neurons department is not as decisive as most think. I am less concerned about the resulting litterââ¬â¢s treatment of my car than I am about propagation of mongrels whose temperament and absence of group identity makes them an easy mark for vampires and parasites. The claim may seem ludicrous considering our present state of consumption but wait for tomorrow.
Roy Batty Posted on Jan 14 2003, 16:46
** There are too many cracks in the struts. It is never going to get that far. There is nowhere to run, and things will crumble well before the powers that be are able to create the hodge-podge they desire. Always overreaching. **
It pleases me that you think as much, RB, but a collapse, no matter how apocalyptic, will still leave a continent inhabited by different races and the consequent struggle for survival may even hasten miscegenation. I do not understand why it is assumed by nationalists that a collapse/revolution will rectify our social ills because, presumably, whites will have learned the error of their ways and engage in group-oriented behaviour. For the record, I agree with you that a collapse is coming, but in terms timing, or scale, or what sectors of society will be impacted, I havenââ¬â¢t a clue. At a minimum, it will dawn on people that our modern economy is merely a variant of a pyramid scam -- the extent of our debts (6.3 trillion for US) ought to be a clue and, of course, will NEVER, NEVER be repaid -- and can only endure for so long. Closer to home, increasing poverty and underground economy will impact taxation and hence social services. Only Homeland Security will see business growth and our overseers will furnish ample resources to provide for ââ¬Ëcustomer needs.ââ¬â¢ My initial posting on this thread was the safest prediction in that it assumed only this certainty. But if you wish to speculate let us do so.
First, ZOG -- as some have called it and which is as good name as any -- will never be brought down by external means, short of natural disaster(s). Eighteen Ohios (nuts, I am talking old-school nonsense as anything from frigate on up can carry a nuclear-tipped tomahawk), countless silos in mid-western states, and unprecedented technological superiority in weaponry ensures that regardless of the number of Vietnam-type humiliations it endures, the continent will remain unscathed.
Second, for an internal collapse to deliver what you seek (I assume all or nearly all-white population deprived of Jews and other undesirables, and living a content existence grounded in conservatism and steered via old Republic principles) it must indulge, at least temporarily, in National Socialist methods. We need not deny it between ourselves nor should we harbour any illusions that regardless of banners, slogans, and uniforms we adopt, our aims will be perceived by the majority (our race included) for what they are because though their schooling may not have taught them much, it has taught them well (depending on your perspective) in the ways of Nazism.
The essential lesson of National Socialism is that uncompromising action, not rhetoric and half-hearted measures, delivers spectacular results, particularly when it does so unapologetically and spares no effort including sacrifice of own group members to achieve its selfish aims. It says openly: we mean to survive, expand, and see our people/race prosper no matter the cost to others and self. Those who stand in the way -- whether Jews or Waffen-SS Generals, for perception of disobedience and hindrance of group goals is sufficient -- face firing squads. Right or wrong is irrelevant only what is good for my people as I see it ââ¬â that was Hitler!
Now, what is good for our people as we see it, RB? We see it tad differently no doubt but the implementation problem remains and we cannot avoid the unpleasant fact that the effect of cutting corners in methodology is bound to correlate with decreasing accomplishments. Realistically, it means you or I must grab a riffle point it at the nearest alien and say ââ¬Åmarch or else,ââ¬Â and see to it that he and his family make their way to their designated embarkation point. The trains, ships and planes will have nearly 100 million people to accommodate if we wish to be thorough and not discriminate against mongrels. Incidentally, you may recall that Milosevic (not that he ever had a chance) lost the propaganda war the moment the images of boxcar trains made CNN. Where they full? What was their actual destination? All irrelevant, for it only matters that the clips accompanied pics of malnourished men behind barbwires. Universal outrage and cries of ââ¬Ånever againââ¬Â followed as easily as canine salivation followed rung bells in a lab only Milosevic was the meat on this occasion. Letââ¬â¢s be clear, deluded and morally hindered whites will by our most fanatic opponents and it will be necessary to kill many of them toââ¬Â¦ save them.
Say that you are more modest in your aims and would be content if the ZOG collapse resulted in a divided populace, more or less along racial lines, which would translate into separate countries arrived at by a combination of limited conflicts, population displacements and negotiations. All major races would have a nation and Liberals would have a country where multiculti could still be practised. Predictably, disparities would develop and demands would follow. Have you given thought to the merit of sharing a border with a country comprised of brothers with an average IQ of 85 and equipped with nuclear weaponry, since it is a foregone conclusion that equitable negotiations would ensure all new countries would have their share of US goodies to keep each other honest? Further, have you reflected on the fact that the only resourceful savage their wretched continent of origin ever produced was a chap who followed a motto of ââ¬Ånever leaving an enemy behind.ââ¬Â
My prediction stands for scenarios not involving the physical separation of races do not harm it and, as history attests, sex drive trumps common sense. Unless you can in short order produce legions of like-minded souls eager to get their hands bloody, the hominid genetic content on this continent will most resemble a pitiful country that, however, must have some endearing quality of which I am unaware because it is the object of fetish of one OD court jester. :rolleyes:
2003-01-16 04:28 | User Profile
The rate of white outbreeding is fairly minimal. The only reason it is a problem is because the white birth rate is so low. We do not need a lot of bloodletting if we can just convince whites to increase their family size to the point for 5 or 6 is a family norm; while also cutting 3rd world immigration. Neither of these goals requires a major overhaul of our political system or economy. A gradual reduction in the size of the federal governement and changes in immigration policy would suffice.
2003-01-16 04:49 | User Profile
The rate of white outbreeding is fairly minimal. The only reason it is a problem is because the white birth rate is so low. We do not need a lot of bloodletting if we can just convince whites to increase their family size to the point for 5 or 6 is a family norm...
I must disagree for I see nothing beneficial in engaging in a breeding war that can only lead to a Bangladesh-type misery. Remind me if your can of the merits of a society whose population and consumption doubles every twenty years. 200 million on this continent is plenty.
Regarding miscegenation, my surroundings are too depressing to allow for statistical consolation. No doubt a multicultural city provides for different animal scenery than say Omaha. But do you suppose that those blue-eyed and blond-haired mummies uncovered in Egypt ever thought that their kind would become extinct and supplanted by Aryan-Semite-Nubian mongrels, or did they think ââ¬Åtheirââ¬Â progeny would go on forever and that the Nubians would take care of their lawns in perpetuity?
2003-01-16 04:54 | User Profile
I see no proof for the claim that increasing the white birth rate in America or N. Europe would cause poverty. I suggest that it would instead lead white to feel an increased vigour that would translate into a massive economic boom.
We have more than enough food, we can grow more, we have the resources to build more houses, etc. We aren't Bangledesh or the Bangeledeshi.
If the white birth rate increases sufficiently, the odd interracial marriage or so wont diminish the continuance of fair-haired, Nordic peoples to any extent worth worrying about.
2003-01-16 05:59 | User Profile
Europe is and has reached its optimal hominid carrying capacity long ago. Current immigration policies are products of insane or treacherous thoughts. North America can go further, but why ââ¬â more whites to nourish even more parasites, dark[da]ddy? I repeat: societies whose economies, populations and consumption rates are depended on continuous growth are NOT VIABLE in a context of a finite world. Todayââ¬â¢s food products are nutritionally inferior to those grown a century ago. Vitamin supplements anyone?
Here is a scientific experiment for you to invest in. Get yourself a fish tank and put in more goldfish every two weeks. Spare no expense (think non-stop economic boom) for fish and food and see how long you can go. Maintain an inventory of fish put in, fish in tank, and insane/dead fish found in tank and on floor next to tank. That food provisions come via exterior source is a confounding variable and works against my hypothesis but I am confident in my prediction so you need not neutralize it. A batch of fish regularly added is a confiding variable that is biased in my favour but I included it so as to speed up the process. You could allow the fish to go about reproducing the old fashion way but that will only add to your burden time wise. See if at any time the volume of live fish meat in tank nears or exceed the cubic space of your tank. Write up a report and share with OD members. If you are correct, your powers of ratiocination are grossly underutilized on a forum such as this and you would better serve your country by seeking a position with Alan Greenspanââ¬â¢s staff.
2003-01-16 06:10 | User Profile
2003-01-16 06:47 | User Profile
Ja jsem se narodil v Evrope ty netopyrske strasidlo and I had occasion to walk the street of many a cultured city, including Amsterdam. Europe, most especially the Netherlands, does not need more people. 1/3 of the country ought to be underwater and it is a tribute to their engineers that it is not.
Assuming we are not dealing with sub-molecular dimensions, everything solid below the exosphere is measurable and therefore finite.
I have nothing against white birthrate but even in an all white world it too would eventually have to be controlled if we desire optimum lifestyles.
Your faith the white manââ¬â¢s technological prowess is commendable, but some things are best use sparingly and our failure to do so was one mistake. Sharing our technology with other races was another.
Jââ¬â¢en ai assez icy.
Cau
2003-01-16 12:10 | User Profile
Granted some European nations need to stabilise their population decline but the illusion that we need even more people is the most cherished big lie of pyramid economics. White nations do not need more white people but they certainly need fewer non-whites.
More worrying than overall lack of white population growth are the specific demographics for the growth that does take place. The sections of white population that do replace themselves are the ever-useless underclass. Unfortunately the professional and blue-collar classes are the ones who have very few, if any children. In other words the white race is undergoing a reverse evolution - the survival of the weakest. Personally I find the fact that we may be 5% of the world's population by a certain date trivial next to the fact that we may be 5% of the world's population with an average IQ of 80.
2003-01-16 19:14 | User Profile
--I fully agree that, in particular, intelligent white people need to have large families.
--Let me try a different approach. Let me assume that our shared goal is the survival and flourishing a biological white populations with a shared, authentic sense of ethnic identity. The question then, is how to we achieve this goal?
One answer I have seen offered on this site: get rid of the non-whites in white nations, or break up Western nations into smaller nations, some white, some non-white.
I will put aside that issue of the morality of expelling non-white citizens (to say nothing of simply killing them off). I will just focus on the question of, is there or will there be the means and will in place to achieve this end of white-only nations through the limiting of non-white populations? It is clear to me, at any rate, that the answer is no. People are not going to support breaking up the US into ethnic states, people are not going to support the expulsion of non-white citizens, and people are certainly not going to support committing genocide against these citizens.
So while I sympthize with the dream of ecological sound, smaller sized white nationalism, I have to conclude that it will never in a million years happen. If we try to proceed down this route, the majority white nations will see their white populations dwindles into nothingness. The survival of authentic white civilization will be doomed.
However, what about the route of leaving the current non-white citizens in place, but increasing our birthrate to at least match theirs, and, better yet, surpass it? Would this ensure that the nations of N. America and Europe have white majorities--yes, if we also limit 3rd world immigration. In addition, the overall increase in the global white population would serve as a safety net for authentic white civilization, even if it were to fail in, say, America.
Is possible that white would support the idea of having larger families to stabilized the birthrate, and then actively contribute to the flourishing of white populations dear to them (say, the Germano-Celtic racial group)? Yes, this is possible. It is plausible. It could be made to happen.
2003-01-16 22:31 | User Profile
Increase the white population. As a non-white, I have to say that isn't such a bad idea (makes you wonder why this hasn't been suggested before, doesn't it?). But tell me darkeddy, how would you go about implementing such a program. And more importantly, how would you convince the vast majority of whites to go along with it? And wouldn't such a population increase just make this planet we live on all the more crowded? Six billion people on the Earth and counting, you know.
2003-01-16 22:43 | User Profile
People are not going to support breaking up the US into ethnic states, people are not going to support the expulsion of non-white citizens, and people are certainly not going to support committing genocide against these citizens.
I'm not disputing any of this, but isn't a bit inconsistent for you to assume that the status quo will continue in these and so many other respects while also assuming that the white birth rate can so easily change -- and drastically at that? Why isn't the success of an effort to "convince whites to increase their family size to the point [where] 5 or 6 is a family norm" similarly unthinkable?
2003-01-16 23:46 | User Profile
I think it is much, much more likely that people will support something positive--having larger white families and just generally having more white around--rather than something negative, such as getting rid of non-whites, or allowing that the multiracial state is a total failure. So I don't think I am being inconsistent.
What is best about solving our problems through larger families is that much of this can be done without changing the nature of the government. One does not have get politicians to agree with one to work toward larger white families.
Still, it would certainly help if we could get rid of anti-family policies such as found in Social Security, Medicare, compolsury education, our public school system, etc. And the need to make changes in immigration policy is still very pressing.
2003-01-17 00:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 22:43 ** > People are not going to support breaking up the US into ethnic states, people are not going to support the expulsion of non-white citizens, and people are certainly not going to support committing genocide against these citizens.
I'm not disputing any of this, but isn't a bit inconsistent for you to assume that the status quo will continue in these and so many other respects while also assuming that the white birth rate can so easily change -- and drastically at that? Why isn't the success of an effort to "convince whites to increase their family size to the point [where] 5 or 6 is a family norm" similarly unthinkable? **
In times of great stress, and especially in the periods after calamities, population numbers do rise, as did the birth rates throughout the U.S. and Europe after WWII. While I'm sure some people deride my belief that we are headed toward a massive collapse, etc., the status quo will not remain in place. No way. Once things crumble, I think you will see a healthy increase in the white birthrate (although I'm afraid a lot of whites will be dropped during the collapse, reconstitution) after the clean up.
For the moment, we have Federally Funded Incubators in terms of Public Housing, Section 8, etc. for blacks and mestizos, to go along with the welfare, WIC, foodstamps and other freebies tossed indiscriminately at non-whites. The people that fund these "programs" are for the most part having their asses taxed off, and can't afford a large family. This is as big a reason for the lower birthrate amongst whites as is all the whining about feminism.
BTW - if we collapse into civil war (and I think there is no doubt we are headed that way, with the military eventually fracturing along racial lines, all the better for "whitey") you can bet we will see mass deportations - primarily of mexicans, and any other "groups" that decided to take up arms against "the man". It's not as much of a logistical nightmare as so many defenders of immigration have tried to make it seem. It's also worth mentioning that the brainwashing from the one-eyed zionist in the living room goes right down the toilet once you are backed up against the wall. Sure, it's probably going to cost a fair amount of whites their lives at first due to the brainwashing, but in the end, you have to fight. And the whites here have more at their disposal than the white farmers in Zimbabwe that would hold off droves of savages for days, before finally running out of ammo - and their nearest white neighbor 20 miles away. I don't think that whites are going to have the chance to consider doing something "positive" like having larger families, until calamity has hit and gone. And by then, they aren't going to want members of the opposition around. It's best to keep in mind how many non-whites and non-white organizations have openly expressed their desire to get rid of whites in the U.S. and Europe. I guess it would seem like paradise to them. Until something broke.
To answer Sisyphos in short order - I don't think there will be close to 100 million people to deport after a civil war. I think it's going to be a quicker war than anyone imagines, and very, very costly in terms of lives. I don't think mentioning Milosevic has any bearing, as we have no one to lose the propaganda war to - the propanda machine is here. It's tempting to believe that some European nations may actually follow suit. From what I have seen and read, I actually expect something to happen in the Nordic countries first, given the problems they are now receiving from African and Arab "immigrants" (they are really NWO footsoldiers, sent to break down society). It may not go all the way, the FIRST TIME AROUND in those countries, but it will be a definite sign of things to come. Some elements in the Nordic countries are already openly speaking of civil war - in very serious terms - to expel the invaders - or plow them under. I think it will be the same here. It's sounds cruel, but a lot of the enemy is going to go up in flames, and I can't say I'd be sorry, because that's what they want to do to us. Too much philosophizing goes on, rather than looking at human nature in some instances. It is likely it is going to come down to several groups thinking "it's us or them", and that's it. Sure, it's human nature - at least among whites - to want to somehow get out of it peacefully. But it won't happen. The other side of human nature is to fight, and then get rid of the vanquished, you don't want your enemies around for another shot at you. Anyway, this post is too long, we'll continue thoughts on civil war, etc. in some other thread.
2003-01-17 01:24 | User Profile
Dark Eddy: However, what about the route of leaving the current non-white citizens in place, but increasing our birthrate to at least match theirs, and, better yet, surpass it? Would this ensure that the nations of N. America and Europe have white majorities--yes, if we also limit 3rd world immigration. In addition, the overall increase in the global white population would serve as a safety net for authentic white civilization, even if it were to fail in, say, America. Clearly Darkeddy is NOT a married man!! How do you EVER envision getting ANY white women to buy in to poppin' 'em out every other year?!
** I think it is much, much more likely that people will support something positive--having larger white families and just generally having more white around--rather than something negative, such as getting rid of non-whites, or allowing that the multiracial state is a total failure. So I don't think I am being inconsistent.**
And just WHO is going to support these 5-6 white kids while ALSO having to support (by taxes and all those multiracial state requirements and restrictions on white producing men) all those welfare brood mares and Hispanic litter-birthers? The VAST majority of white folks who want to have a big family WON'T because they can't afford it and KNOW they can't afford it! The vast majority of black and hispanic women who want to have a bunch of kids just DO, and let the "state" (you know, those white guys who WANT more kids but can't afford them!?) pay for the raising and feeding of 'em!
2003-01-17 01:55 | User Profile
--Avalanche, surely you know of white families that have 5 or 6 children? Why the white pastor at my church just had his 7th child!
From your comments about men wanting 'wives' as slaves I see that you are in the grips of a New England leftist feminism. This is sort of ideology is unfortunately not exactly limited to that fair region, and represents perhaps the greatest threat to the white race to which one can currently point.
--I don't know how to adjudicate the dispute that Roy Batty brings up with his comments about 'collapse.' I don't see it happening, but maybe RB has a firmer grip on the pulse of the nation. How are we to resolve this disagreement?
How about this idea--since predicting the future is notortiously difficult, shouldn't we have contingency plans in place in case collapse doesn't occur? If so, is not the plan of working to increase the white birth rate--to however high as pampered, selfist white women will allow--a very importat part of this contingency plan, since it provides one hope of maintaing authentic white civilizations in Europe and America, and does not immediately involve politically-untenable changes in government policies?
Again, we do need to reduce the size of the state if we are to promote large white families. But it is better to raise children who will have to, for example, rely upon student loans to go to college, than not have kids while one wait for the government to change.
2003-01-17 03:29 | User Profile
Hey, Darkeddy. I was hoping that you would respond to my post. Since you obviously think that the solution to the White race's plight is to simply reproduce more, how would you go about it?
2003-01-17 04:44 | User Profile
I was responding to your post indirectly, but I see you want a reply specifically about the 'how' question.
Since we have gotten far from 'undercover brother,' I will start a new topic listing about increasing the white population, and reply there.
2003-01-17 04:47 | User Profile
Avalanche and darkeddy,
Just a few thoughts.
One member of my Family back in the midwest lives next door to a family with 12 children. And He has 3 children and I think 12 grandchildren. When I over there for a vist I saw lots Euro-American Families with 3 or 4 children more walking around town. All of the nice Women I meat in my College Class seem to be married and have 2 or 3 children. And they are very often prettier and thinner than the sick slutty "Co-eds."
2003-01-17 23:03 | User Profile
Darkeddy: From your comments about men wanting 'wives' as slaves I see that you are in the grips of a New England leftist feminism. This is sort of ideology is unfortunately not exactly limited to that fair region, and represents perhaps the greatest threat to the white race to which one can currently point.
Not even close! I happen to believe, that IF men (and I'm speaking of white men and women -- whatever sociological systems other types wish to set up, have at it -- just quit expecting US to pay for it) would only return to their appropriate leadership role (which includes more than anything, caring for, providing for, supporting, and guiding their women), then women would be able to safely quit fighting for 'feminism.' (This, of course, 'assumes' that the jews quit propagandizing and brainwashing... and we somehow institute a 'let's return to sanity' program.')
Men (AND women) want servants... who wouldnââ¬â¢t?! The problem is most modern men expect their wives to BE servants! A manââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åjobââ¬Â in my view of the world, which I learned from my southern gentleman husband, is to provide for his wife: give her a home, a safe place to raise their kids (if any), adequate food and clothing and safety and so on. Because of the commerce-footing and the destruction of this society, most couples now require two salaries to provide those things. Why, then, if the woman is out in the work-a-day world, JUST LIKE THE MAN, does it follow that SHE is supposed to (also or still) be the house drudge, cook and clean and mop and wash, while HE watches TV or whatever? If you want a SERVANT, hire one (or capture one in battle)! A ââ¬Ëkept wifeââ¬â¢ should, rightly, provide those kinds of services, out of love, respect, and gratitude for the man providing her a home. A working woman, because she is NOT provided a home, should not be expected to be a servant to the man who is NOT providing it to her!
For years, I was your typical angry hostile feminist who didnââ¬â¢t believe there was such a thing as a mature/loving man, but I was recoverable (and recovered!). But, as I've asked elsewhere here -- how many of you men expect your wives to be house servants? And why should they NOT reject that?
Until men recover THEIR commitment to caring and providing for and protecting their women, women will have to do it for themselves, and thus they become feminists! (Well, that and ubiquitous jewish propaganda!! <_< )
Faust, I'm ALL FOR larger white families! I'm also all for licensing child-production! Let's require all women who want to produce a child to show means of support, intelligence, and ability to care for and raise that child! Ideally, let's also require the father to be there, committed and able to show means of support, intelligence, and ability to care for and raise that child! That will automatically provide darkeddy with his larger white families, and probably smaller non-white families!!
2003-01-19 18:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@Jan 15 2003, 02:49 ** I don't know how true your assumption is; I took a female black friend to a Chinese place for lunch a few months back, and you wouldn't believe the looks we got. Mostly from blacks. :P **
A Canadian I work with moved down South and married himself a black girl. He says that hands down they get more looks and comments from blacks than they do whites.
2003-01-19 18:18 | User Profile
Well sure, why would whites care if some white guy marries a black girl? That just frees up more white girls for white males.