A Synopsis of My Hypothesis on the Dissolution of Races in the U.S.

Hello Brother Darryl,

I don’t necessarily prescribe to the beliefs of Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi—who was an Austrian-Japanese politician and philosopher in the mid-20th century (wiki). In his book, Praktischer Idealismus, he predicts Jewish supremacy after the fall of European leadership and the subsequent dissolution of all other national ethnicities, but this quote from him, sums up my hypothesis:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals”.

I started out to write a long explanation of my hypothesis but then I realized that, it’s really not that complex at all. That combined with the fact that you are a S.S.B.W.R (Super Smart Brother Who Reads), convinced me to give you a brief synopsis of my hypothesis and a couple of references.

First let me give you a couple of examples of multi-cultural societies that are archetypes of what I think this country will look like (racially) in the relatively near future (please note the word relatively):

1.       Brazil

2.       Egypt

3.       Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, in particular, I think of as a microcosm of what a multi-cultural society eventually morphs into. Most Puerto Ricans contain some combination of European (Spanish), African, or Native (Indian) admixture. Very few are purely of any one “race”.

I think this is the eventuality of any multicultural society in which the diverse groups are allowed to inter-breed freely.

It has been scientifically proven that; brown-skin, brown-eyes, dark hair etc. are dominant traits, so it would stand to reason that, barring any restrictions on inter-breeding, these traits would present in higher numbers, in a multi-cultural society, than the recessive traits of: blue, green, or hazel eyes; blonde, or red hair; or fair skin.

Add to that, the facts from the following excerpts from a U.S. Census report which predicts that: “…by as early as 2044 America will become a “majority-minority” nation, where no one racial group will account for over half of the population”.

This report also states that: “Although white Americans are expected to continue to account for the largest single racial group, decreases in fertility and increases in immigration will cause those who identify as, ‘non-Hispanic white alone’ to technically become a minority”.

A report by the UPI says that, “…by 2044 the number of white children living in America will be outnumbered by the number of non-white children”. The report says; “…a major reason for the declining white population is declining white fertility. The New York Times reported that 2013 marked the first year in U.S. history where the number of white deaths outnumbered white births”.

And then there’s this:

The current increase in interracial relationships may also be accountable for the decline in white only populations. The “two or more races” population is expected to be the fastest growing racial group, with the Census Bureau estimating this group’s numbers to triple and account for 6.2 percent of the U.S. population by 2060”.

The population of “single-race non-Hispanic White” children will drop to 36 percent by 2060, compared with 52 percent today. (The figures in the report are based on the 2014 National Projections, the second series of projections based on the 2010 Census updating projections released in 2012).

The eventual result of this type society would be dissolution of races, as we currently define them.

References for the above:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/us-census-predicts-future-race-america-2044-whites-become-minority-324788 Retrieved November 2016

www.Newsmax.com Retrieved November 25, 2016

67 Comments

  1. Hello Brother Ron,

    Great piece! Thank you for taking the time to pen this as a response to the conversations Marie and I were having on the thread! It is always a pleasure to engage with you and bounce ideas back and forth. Critical discussion -through any medium-is growing more and more scarce.

    I am unfamiliar with the particular scholars you quote, so I am thankful that you have supplied the references! On the whole, though, I am familiar with the contexts, countries, and theory of racial mixing.

    You are absolutely correct that Puerto Rico and Brazil are described as multi-cultural. However, if we are interested in having a discussion about racism, it is problematic to include Ancient Egypt. The reason is because race is a relatively modern invention. Race and racism was created by Europeans around 1441 during the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The oppression of Jews in Egypt, which occurred thousands of years ago, and the sexual intercourse between these two groups – does not fall under the header of “racial mixing” because there were no races back then. The battle was between Jews (religion/ethnicity) and Egyptians (nationality), not blacks and whites (races). But present-day Egypt is very much impacted by modern racism!

    The authors you cite in this lovely blog contend that race mixing will be the future of man. But we should also realize that race mixing, ever since the beginning of race in 1441, has been the history of man! Lets take the examples of Puerto Rico and Brazil. Before European intervention, what we now call “Puerto Rico” and “Brazil” were called different names and populated solely by the indigenous people. Once the Europeans took over, we began to see populations of racial mixture. “Mestizos” are the products of white/Native American intercourse. Once black folks were introduced to these lands as slaves, we began to see even more racial mixture: “mulattos” became the products of white/black intercourse, “pardos” became the products of white/Native/black intercourse, and there were Native/black mixes as well (I cannot think of the term for these offspring – but there are plenty of black Natives such as the Cherokee and the Seminoles). So, in a sense, the history of Latin America has always been one of racial mixing. But, in spite of this fact, neither Puerto Rico nor Brazil are post-racial paradises. Both countries were founded on anti-black slavery. Brazil was the last country to abolish the slave trade, and today it is profoundly racist.

    Thing is: these countries pay lip service to the notions of “diversity” and “mixing” and “multi-culturalism” but these are just fancy terms for non-blackness. Puerto Ricans and Brazilians, for the most part, have African heritage. But they deny identifying as “black” because it has been stigmatized. They choose to identify as something other than black (i.e. mixed, Puerto, Brazilian, etc) in such a way to get away from blackness.

    Puerto Rico and Brazilians often consider themselves “Hispanic” or “Latino/a”. But we should consider the history of these terms. Once upon a time, there was a “one drop rule” of blackness. This meant that if you had one drop of black blood, you were considered black. Case closed! This meant that all of the Caribbean countries, and some of the countries in South America like Brazil who took part in the slave trade, would have an overwhelmingly black population. Well, in the 1960’s the Black Power Movement really began to scare the United States government. The Black Panther Party was galvanizing people, and was attempting to raise people up in Third World countries against their oppressors. Seeing as Puerto Rico and Brazil would have been considered majority “black” under the one drop rule, they could have easily fallen into the ideology of black militancy. So in 1970, on the heels of the Black Power Movement, the United States government literally created the category of “Latino/a” for the Census – and offered it to people from countries in Latin America that would otherwise have to consider themselves black. Latino/a, of course, was not associated with blackness – and thus, was a step closer to whiteness. In other words, the US government manufactured the identity of “Latino/a” to divide black people in America from blackened people in Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, etc., from identifying with blackness in common struggle. It is a divide and conquer strategy.

    I contend that the logic of “multiracialism” or “multiculturalism” is all about avoiding blackness at the end of the day – as these very logics came into being after the Black Power Movement was promoting a revolution in the name of blackness.

    That being stated, multiracialism/multiculturalism is anti-blackness at its finest. The key premise of this logic is that if we simply mix the races together, the races themselves will disappear. I disagree with this.

    By way of (imperfect) analogy, I will hint at why this line of reasoning is untrue. Lets say you are thirsty and you want a rum and coke. To make this drink, you have to possess two separate drinks: rum and coke. When you mix them together, the rum does not disappear and the coke does not disappear. All they did was mix together. How is it that mixing two separate entities somehow signifies a disappearance of one or both of the entities in question?

    The same way we cannot have hot without cold, or tall without short, we cannot have separation without mixture. The author seems to be arguing that mixture will liberate us from separation – but there has always been mixture and there is still separation. Mixture upholds the logic of separation; mixture is the flip side of separation, it is the same thing by another name.

    You make a good point about the rising Hispanic population. According to statisticians, yes, these populations are rising. But we must also take into account that whiteness is capable of expanding and incorporating seemingly non-white groups. The Irish, the Italians, and Jews -in the past-were not considered white, but now they are. Some researchers, such as George Yancey, argue that this will happen again with Hispanics. We are already seeing the consolidation of whiteness among these communities – as more and more Latinos are engaging in a flight towards whiteness. Here is a quick piece of evidence for that claim (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/upshot/more-hispanics-declaring-themselves-white.html) . If you notice, Hispanic or Latino/a is an ethnicity, not a race. This means these groups of people have the opportunity to identify as white if they choose, and black if they choose (which most Latino/as do not).

    This means that, despite the “browning” of America, whiteness is not really under threat … blackness is! Remember, Latinos were once considered black, but they were offered the “gift” of this identity as a bribe to not be in solidarity with black folks. If Latinos are identifying as white (or “mixed” or anything other than “black”) this will only feed into the logic of anti-blackness. The dreadful point remains: black folks are going to be at the bottom! So it may not matter as much about who is “white” or “mixed” – the name of the game is, was, and always will be about NOT being black.

    Thank you for taking the time to engage me Dear Brother! I hope some of this was clear – please let me know if it is not, I am typing this half awake lol.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. *Goes back to your page and refreshes memory* lol

        Yes, that whole angle about being 100% Puerto Rican or 100% Mexican American is absurd! Narratives like this are denying their roots in blackness, and they are denying their Native American roots as well!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. LOL!!
        Exactly! Have you seen this program called “The Black Grandma in the closet?” (I think that’s the name, I can’t be bothered to google it! LOL)
        Anyway, it addressed the fact that Africans were present and prevalent all over Pre-Columbian North America.
        That said, many people in Mexico and other parts of the Caribbean have close African Ancestry.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Yes – I heard about it in the DR in particular! This is certainly true, and they deny it to the death lol. No one wants to claim blackness in any way shape or form.

        I once had a super dark skinned Haitian tell me “I’m not black … I’m Haitian”. Really? You look like Flava Flav, but you ain’t black, bruh?!?!?! 😂😂

        Liked by 3 people

      4. Hahahahahahaha! Me too! I personally don’t get into politics of identifying myself. It is more important how we are identified. The police officer does not care that I am “Puerto Rican” or whatever name we want to make up … all he sees is another ni**er and that is what really matters.

        Liked by 4 people

    1. Your argument is a good one, however, you, like so many of the early philosophers, are much too embroiled in semantics, rather than physical, observable facts.

      Take your example of the rum and coke. It’s simply a linguistic conjuration, that the name for a rum and coke, contains the names of each liquid.

      The antithesis of that analogy would be, a mixed drink containing orange juice and vodka. Semantically, it’s no longer an “orange juice and vodka”, it’s a “screwdriver”.

      The old philosophers attempted to argue their points this way. The fallacy of doing so, is that words, themselves, are man-made.

      You yourself say that “Race and racism, was created by the Europeans during the Transatlantic Slave Trade”. I think you said it was around 1441.

      If this is true–and I have no reason to doubt its veracity of your statement–then the purpose of its creation must have been to create a method of labeling, by which, those men could categorize themselves as well as other men, according to relatively minor; anatomical, biological, and physiological differences in his self-same species.

      If this system and its terms were created by man, why can’t man UNCREATE them? Have we created something more enduring and more powerful than we, the creators? Are we the proverbial Frankenstein and race is our monster?

      Brother Darryl, each spring, I watch hundreds of Robins flock to my yard. On occasion, I’ve observed them closely. Although, at first glance, they all appear to be the same (i.e. black, gray, with brilliant red breasts), they are not, in fact, homogenous.

      Some have the brilliant orange chests, some don’t. Some have a smaller area of orange. Some have completely black heads, some have speckles of white, interspersed among the dark feathers. Some have white tipped wings, some have wings that are completely grey or black. Yet, we call them all robins! For they are all the same species.

      That’s human beings my brother, any divisive labels which are applied to some of us, was created by US, to divide ourselves.

      Look at yourself, my brother. You’re not black. The color of your skin, attests to the fact that, you are not of entirely African descent. I, personally, am 61% African.

      Who said that “one drop of black blood”, makes you Black. First of all, blood isn’t black, nor is it white. But, If I’m not mistaken, didn’t White men make this determination, to further delineate between themselves an us? We were not free to make a decision to abide by this “rule” when it was created, but we are now.

      Do you identify yourself as “Black” because of the rule made by White men during the time of slavery? What makes you Black? Is there a new standard; a new touchstone, by which we determine what “race” (again, a made-up term) we belong to? What criteria will we use, DNA? DNA is touted to be infallible at this point in time. Shouldn’t that be the “gold standard?”

      The statistics don’t like bro. This country is “soon” to reach a point that there will be no “purity” in what we identify as “race”. Human nature is to reproduce. Scientifically, reproduction is the purpose for life. The evidence of this is readily observable in the Animal and Plant Kingdoms. Organisms live, strive, move, grow, fight, and struggle to reproduce, above all else.

      Given this innate tendency, and the decrease in the fertility rate of Whites and the increased fertility rate of Non-Hispanic non-Whites, there will naturally be more instances “mixed” intercourse between what we currently identify as races. The dominant genes will prevail. The result will be, as I said earlier, a population resembling that of Puerto Rico, Egypt, and Brazil.

      Race is a fallacy!

      I don’t want to get too long-winded here but, think about it brother. We, as a species, make all of this shit up!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you for your response. I offer the following message in return.

        I will begin by saying you have missed the wisdom of my analogy. I argued that if we have rum and coke and mix them together, the ENTITIES themselves do not disappear. Words are not entities; they are abstractions. I made a physical argument. Even if we have orange juice and vodka and mix them together, neither the orange juice ITSELF or the vodka ITSELF disappears. We can call it a “screwdriver” a “hammer” or a “cell phone” – it does not change the fact that the ENTITIES remain in existence. You, brother, are arguing semantics here because you missed the physical (observable) nature of my argument by making it all about language (semantics).

        There is one thing that needs to be made clear about making an argument: there are different registers and every point cannot be made at once. Of course … race is a social construction. This much is obvious. But the fact that I left that out of my analysis does not mean I am unaware of it. The fact that I have not dedicated an analysis to the ways we “make all of this shit up” simply means I am more interested in having another, higher level of conversation. To be honest, the social construction argument of racism is addressed on page one of every single book. On my own blog I have pieces that address the social construction race. I am not necessarily interested in having that discourse again – as everyone is already having it – and that was not a discourse that presented itself in your original article.

        In a sense, I think your response is unfairly dismissive as it dismisses it under the header of “semantics”. Yet, no offense, it is obvious to me you do not possess a knowledge of the one drop rule. If you knew more about it, you would understand the register in which I was speaking about it – and you would understand its connection to multiculturalism.

        I am arguing that the one-drop rule created by whites has been supplanted by multiculturalism because they feared the specter of a black revolution. These are clear, objective facts. Not semantics.

        If you think my commentary was semantic, I urge to you re-read it, with the intention of engaging it, not dismissing it. I was interested in having a higher level of discussion – above mere “social construction”. My discussion was about how multiculturalism destroys our ability to come together in solidarity to fight against white supremacy – which is more important now than ever.

        Besides: simply asserting that race is a social construction does not address its very real consequences. We can say its all made up … and then what? “Race is a fallacy” but black folks being locked up in jail is real. My argument is interested in social movements on the ground (this is why I discussed the Black Panthers and the specters of revolution). Race is a fallacy but you are missing the point of my argument: people take it seriously!! Latino/as are taking it seriously and they are identifying themselves as white. This means that they are actively siding against black identity and black struggle. This means that it will only get harder for black people in the future because now our Caribbean brothers and sisters have been turned against us. This is not a semantic argument – this is all about fighting a common oppressor and being in solidarity in real life.

        Remember…I am an activist and I care more about real people in the streets if nothing else. In our last discussion, you were trying to talk me out of an ethic of violence because you said that a revolution cannot be won physically. I am the last person to make semantic arguments, trust me. I believe in armed revolution. You have demonstrated on this thread and the other thread that you are more interested in words (the terrain of semantics) than actions.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Your entire argument is about semantics, you just don’t realize it.

        What is “race”, in the context of your argument? It is definitely not a physical trait, for you are not “black”.

        What are you?
        What is “black”?
        Who is “Black”?
        Am I black simply because I say I am; or worse, am I “black” because someone told me I was?

        What criteria qualifies one as Black?

        If you’re going to have a “black” movement, who will be in it?

        Only those who identify as “black” or will “African Americans ” be allowed?

        What about Negroes?

        Will you go by the “one drop rule”?

        How much is a drop?

        How will this drop be measured?

        Can it be seen or is it simply a “figure of speech”?

        All these words are just labels and semantics to promote divisiveness when we should be promoting togetherness.

        Your argument is dated . It harkens back to pre Civil Rights rhetoric. I’m sorry you missed those times, but I didn’t, I lived them. They were indeed some interesting times but we can’t bring them back. They will not work in today’s society.

        It’s akin to the difference between Revolutionary War tactics and today’s computerized warfare. There are no more enemy lines.
        There are no good guys or bad guys.
        There is no more territory to fight over.
        There is no unified effort behind a charismatic “King-like” or Malcom-like leader.

        Those days are gone. Races don’t exist,nor did they ever. Race is simply a made-up thing, and as long as we choose to cleave to it, progress will elude us.

        And you’re wrong about entities. An entity is “a thing with distinct and independent existence” (Webster).

        The “rum and coke” now has a distinct and independent existent.

        Can you ‘unmix’ them?

        They CAN be unmixed, but YOU nor I can Unmix it.

        When you breed a horse and a donkey, you get a mule, a new creation, a new entity, a MULE, which contrary to your implications, IS a distinct and independent thing, An ENTITY! You can’t unmake the MULE and get a horse and a donkey!

        Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids!

        You’re arguments are interesing but not very evolved.

        You remind me of me, “Once upon a time”.

        Keep up the good work! We need minds like yours going forward.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Ron. You are trying too hard to make a theoretical intervention here. You are not saying anything profound. It is obvious that race is a social construction, we have established this. I agree with you. Everyone does. I have a bunch of pieces addressing your questions on my blog. That is not what is at stake here.

        But your intention here seems less about having a conversation … as it seems to be more about being combative and posturing in an intellectual hierarchy type of manner.

        You said “races do not exist nor did they ever”. Ron. Yes, you are correct … but this is the type of argument rich white men make once they get tenure in the academy. Try telling Trayvon Martin that race never existed. Try telling the native Americans in North Dakota that race never existed. Your entire tone here is smug and dismissive and it demonstrates a profound disconnect with actual struggle. Gender is a social construction, but women still get raped. Try telling a rape victim gender is a hoax. All you have here is a bunch of random questions that seek to dismiss real people and the real blood they shed. It’s not about whether race is real … the blood they shed is. Case closed. But when you are not part of an actual movement in the streets, you become comfortable with ideas not actions.

        I also do not need paternal advice about revolutionary struggle – as I assert that your words here are not helpful. Just because racism is made up doesn’t mean the struggle against it is invalid. Saying class is made up doesn’t address poverty, Ron. I am addressing STRUGGLE … and if you think that is semantic, you have already sided with your oppressor.

        And I hate to spoil your fun, but there is no such thing as independence. I wrote a blog addressing this titled “Stop Saying You Are Independent”. In short, independence is a bourgeois/white concept – which is hindering your ability to understand my words.

        The mule is not independent, because the only way you can say it is separate is if there is ANOTHER being to differentiate it. In other words, the mule is only a mule if there is something that is not a mule! At this point, we can discuss figure and ground and existentialism and post structural theory but I do not have that kind of energy. Check out that blog entry, as it shuts down this idea of independence altogether. Your notion of independence is exactly why people feel they do not need to come together!
        What if the slaves followed your logic that race did not exist? Black folks would still be slaves. Your entire logic is anti freedom and has no connection to real people. You really need to understand how this sounds to real people who are about that life. I am in the streets. There is a time and place for everything and your ideas belong solely in the library. But if our ancestors who fought for freedom took your words seriously, we would still be hanging from trees. Please stop advancing such a dismissive worldview that has an odd way of pretending to “know better than everyone else”. The idea that race does not exist is the exact same rhetoric that rich white folks in coffee shops use because they want to retain their racial privilege. We live in an Era of colorblindness. Once again, I have another blog on this topic. The last thing we need is black men out here saying race does not exist – that is exactly what white folks want to hear. Your logic is based on colorblindness. Your logic is racist, you just don’t see it. Every movement needs a rallying point – but anyone can join. Black Lives Matter includes non blacks. It’s a worldview, Ron. You wouldn’t understand if you are not in the streets. I’ll tell you what – the next time a protest is popping in your area … try going. Listen to the organizers. Try telling everyone in the streets that race does not exist … so Trump’s plan to deport Mexicans doesn’t exist either?! Your ideas on this are absurd and I don’t even truly believe you hold these positions at the end of the day.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. First of all Darryl, you don’t know me well enough to know my background or whether I’m in the “sreets”, just as I don’t know if you’re really, “in the streets”.

        You could be sitting comfortably somewhere, far removed from any street; simply living a dream; imagining that you are one of the great activists of old.

        I like that you picked up on the fact that I was indeed, saying nothing profound, nor were you. It’s all old hat brother!

        The answers to our problems does not lie in the type of activism you suggest.

        There are many “activists” with much higher platforms from which to pontificate and with much broader audiences to whom to appeal, and yet, they’ve achieved nothing of substance since the deaths of Martin and Malcolm.

        One of the worse things an army can do is use old “tried and true” tactics against an ever changing and versatile foe.

        Tactics must change as the opponents change.

        The opponents we face today, are far removed from the opponents faced in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. That stuff you’re talking is straight out of the history books bro.

        To another of your points, I’ve never heard any rich White man argue that race doesn’t exist. My argument, as to the non-existence of race, is purely a scientific one.

        Trayvon is dead, and there is nothing you, I or anyone else can tell him, our responsibility is to our posterity; to the survival of the human race; the only race.

        What of the Native Americans of North Dakota, their plight has less to do with “race” than “manifest destiny”; real estate!

        And are you trying to tell me that the only reason Black people are no longer slaves is because they believed in the “social construct” of RACE?

        WOW, that’s absurd. If not for the fact that Blacks as well as Whites believed that races existed, there would have been no enslavement of Africans in the U.S..

        The whole institution of American enslavement was predicated upon the false belief in the existence of races, and that the, so called, “Negroid” race was inferior.

        Slavery was justified by a host of pseudo-sciences, and mis-interpretations of Biblical Scripture by those who stood to benefit from the enslavement of another people, who were believed to be inferior due to their “race”.

        Your stance serves to propagate these delusions and serves as a hindrance for real progress. You’re continuing the work of the White slave master.

        He doesn’t have to soil his hands anymore, for he has mis-informed “blacks” to do his dirty work for him.

        As for rape, gender is less a factor than aberrant behavior. Men are raped too; sometimes by other men. Women rape women! Your analogy here only shows a narrow-minded doggedness.

        My ancestors fought for freedom and equality, tis true. They fought for the right to be treated like a member of the human race, not a sub-division of such. That’s what we need to fight for.

        And about those rich White people in coffee shops, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the dissolution of race would also abolish “White Privilege” afterall, it is called WHITE privilege and not “everybody” priveledge.

        As a matter of fact, the use of the word “white” in the term “White Priveledg” is as a modifier indicating that the priveledge belongs to Whites only. If there wasn’t a concept such as “race”, White priveledge could not exist.

        Your logic is blatantly flawed. Whites benefit from the existence of race more than anyone else in this country. That’s why they fight so hard to preserve it and you want to help them?

        Trump ran and won the presidency on the concept of the existence of races. As a logical argument, yours, more readily, supports the “racist” point of view.

        So called “racist” Whites, want you to pigeonhole yourself; to lock yourself within the corral of “race” which they constructed for you “in 1441”, and you gleefully accommodate them.

        Is that what an activist does? If so, leave me out of it!

        But we don’t have to continue the debate. Nature has a say,and I’m betting on her.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. Sigh lol

        I’m not going to dignify this with much of a response. When I referenced natives in the Dakotas I am talking about the pipeline (current event). You probably haven’t heard about it. If you did, you would simply prescribe what? Acknowledging that race isn’t real!?

        You are right, I didn’t say anything profound. I wasn’t trying to lol!

        It is sad that America is now at the point where discussing racism is now seen as racist. Please read Racism Without Racists by Bonilla Silva. And notice that my work has all scholarly references … while yours was simply excerpts from a few authors on non credentialed sites. There’s levels to this.

        If you have never seen a rich white man discuss racism in this way … you have not been reading. Period. Listen to Guiliani. Listen to Bush. Listen to Clinton. I mean … this is too easy. This is honestly a layup for me.

        No, my statement was that blacks are no longer slaves because they did NOT simply believe race was a social construct. You are now purposely misreading my arguments to suit your point lol. But you can have that.

        It is easy to sit behind a computer screen and toss around armchair theories but when does the rubber meet the road? For you, this has been an exercise in intellectual masturbation that never actually comes to fruition at the level of lived experience. The only leaders you reference died years 50 years ago. You keep citing the same stale lines about them. I will remind you that Kwame Ture died in 1998. Feel free to study modern movements instead of dismissing every thing.

        Your statement that women rape other women … completely pointless … as this does not address male supremacy lol

        When you say Nature has a say, you are basically saying you will do nothing in the face of injustice. Unless you are interested in concrete actions, your words are meaningless. None of your message even bothers to address the need for active struggle. Nature wont solve anything lol … this is passive.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. For someone who was not going to dignify my comments with much of a response, you sure got long-winded.

        I’ve heard about the pipeline and that is exactly what I was referring to. The pipeline crosses “real estate” that the Native Americans consider sacred.

        The government uses a concept called “right of way” to wrest land needed for it’s purposes from it’s “rightful owners”, thus my reference to “Manifest Destiny”, I thought you’d be intelligent enough to get the reference. I guess I was wrong.

        Anyway, the issue in ND is about that sacred land, and not race. Everything is not about race young one, but you’ll learn that one day.

        I too have written properly formatted papers with “scholarly” references, but that is not needed to debunk your simplistic views.

        If this is your “lay up”, your jumper must really suck!

        I “misread” your arguments, as you “mis-write” them.

        Don’t just name names of men who purportedly talk about racism being non-existent, quote them my “scholarly” brother.

        I never mentioned Kwame, but if you don’t mind, name the current, prominent activists who are on the level with those of old. I’ll be waiting.

        The point of my statement about women raping women was to try to give you an explanation, that you could understand, as to why gender-a physical trait-had no more bearing upon rape than “race”-another physical trait-has upon the incidence of “racism”. Again, obviously I didn’t make it simple enough.

        When I say “Nature” I mean that force which governs our lives and is beyond anyone’s control.

        When I say Nature, I mean a force that continues despite, or in spite of whether one is passive or not.

        But when I say “for all I know”, you could just as well be an armchair activist, with “armchair theories” of your own, that’s exactly what I mean.

        You certainly don’t give a doggone about starting arguments with faulty premises.

        You go Brother Darryl

        I tire of this

        Liked by 2 people

      7. “the issue in ND is about that sacred land and not race” …okay, no. It is not one or the other lol. It is both. And you said I am simplistic!?!??!?!!? Race and capitalism intersect. If this were not about race, why is it that when they tried routing it through a white community and they citizens there petitioned against it, they simply acknowledged their wishes?! The entire history of oppression against natives has been about race AND capitalism.

        And Ron, no one has to prove anything to you. Think what you want about whether or not I am “really” an activist. But just remember that a few weeks ago you were asking me all types of questions about my organization, and telling me how you heard about us on the news, and saying you wanted me to send you flyers, even to the point of me emailing you one directly. But yeah, I am not in the streets – I just happen to have an original draft of the flyer on my hard drive. You need not stretch the truth so much to make your point… and I am certainly not going to go about sending you photos of me at rallies and such, lol. That would be petty and you wouldn’t be convinced anyway.

        You are certainly trapped in the past romanticizing Martin and Malcolm every single message I get from you. It is appalling. You said it yourself: tactics have to change. So why is it that you are still putting the same old activists on a pedestal?

        And Ron – you are really arrogant about your ignorance – as you have not given ANY scholarly references for anything you have said. I referenced at least 3 of my blogs that have scholarly citations in them. I am not doing the work twice for you. I wrote 15 pages about interracial sexual relationships with all scholarly references. Did you look that up? Nope. All of these arguments are shorthanded because I do not need to go into depth. I referenced Bonilla-Silva without quotations because I wrote AN ENTIRE BLOG DEDICATED TO HIS WORK! I told you to check it out for a reason. I am not going to do the work twice for you because you are too lazy to read. Everything you have said this evening, I have already countered in a piece of my own WITH references. I just sent you a link to a piece about the ontology of race, with scholarly citations. You can Google me and a scholarly article of mine, published in September about the medicalization of racism on a well-known outlet, which got over 220 likes on Facebook in 2 days — can be found. I am in a newer car in a different lane.

        But good day to you my dude. Feel free to respond if it will make you feel better, but know I wont bother reading it. Other thangs to do than to be involved in these pissing contests about the meanings of words as opposed to ACTIONS. Only the privileged few have the time to sit around and debate stuff like “logic, premises” (I honestly think you are just throwing words out there!) and not concrete actions. You need to start showing up to community meetings and doing something. Stop wasting your time policing comments sections on WordPress and worry about your actual community. There are homeless people that need shelter, women that need help, people of color that need help. Your academic ideas help no one but YOURSELF. Your self righteous diatribes are all about making sure Ron feels superior at the expense of not actually doing anything. I would rather be in the streets helping people and maybe being incorrect than talking trash from a distance and doing absolutely nothing like a coward.

        Like

      8. Native Americans don’t consider themselves a “race”, So why do YOU?

        Most Native names for themselves simply mean, “The people”. It’s people like you who label them, so you can have a cause to fight for.

        I only mention the old activists because it appears that is what you aspire to be!

        But you’re just a “Rebel Without a Cause”.

        You’re a paper activist. A blog activist.

        I feigned interest in your flyer to see what it was about, not impressed.

        Like most novice debaters, you think quoting scholarly sources gives you validity.

        I, on the otherhand, AM the “scholarly source”.

        Why would I quote thinkers who are no greater thinkers than I?

        Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts or ideas?

        The greatest minds derived their greatness from original thoughts and ideas. Do you doubt this?

        Get out of the “pseudo- activist” box my brother. There’s a infinite universe of thought. Open your mind.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. P.S. – your argument is ontological .. meaning it is concerned with the being of race. Yes, race is a hoax and a social creation. I have written much about the ontology and social construction of race and, quite creatively, discussed how we can move about it through revolutionary struggle. For every argument you have made tonight, I already have a piece written. Here is just one that addresses the ontology of race as a construction, and what is meant by “black” in my writings, in some instances.

        https://zoneofnonbeing.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/anti-blackness-and-the-wisdom-of-dreamless-sleep/

        Like

  2. Darryl, Darryl, Darryl, I know what ontological means. I too, am the result of a university education and have had several courses in philosophy and psychology.

    As a matter of fact, from what I’ve learned about deductive reasoning, if you begin an argument with a faulty premise, the rest of your argument is invalid.

    Your beginning premise asks us to assume that you are correct in asserting that there are only 3 states of consciousness, in fact there are many states of consciousness, including: coma, drug induced and hypnotic. There are also multiple levels of consciousness within each state.

    Your invalid argument based on a faulty premise, does not bear reading.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. My goodness Ron, looks like Darryl left sparring with me, and started the fight over here with you!! It looks like he was just warming up with me, pre-fight, fight so to speak. I don’t feel so bad and taking it personally. That young man sure likes to fight, sorry, I mean debate. I guess he didn’t know he was up against the heavyweight champion of the world. I take my boxing gloves off to you!

    Darryl – I see what you mean about being macho and not backing down and having to have the last word. At least you’re man enough to admit it – takes guts to admit mistakes. My hat off to you! :)) Looking forward to Round 2. I’m going to adopt Ron’s tactics – don’t show any fear! :)))

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Awww you know you love a good debate 🙂

      Y’all this dude and his friends sit around and debate each other for FUN!!!
      Seriously, it’s how they get their kicks!!!
      LOL!!!
      I admire Darryl’s heart and I admire your wisdom!

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I have to BRING out the Jamaican Lady G! this calls for a bit of patois. Only patois gets to the parts, other languages do not! hahahaha

        Darryl is jus a bwoy to Missa Ran. Im no know say Missa Ran fry bigga fish dan ‘im! (Darryl is just a boy to Ron. He doesn’t know that Ron has fried bigger fish than him)!!! Happy to translate further if more translation is required. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        True dat re Darryl’s heart and Ron’s wisdom!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I couldn’t bear it if you died learning Jamaican patois. Only learn it if you can manage to do so while staying alive – I would miss you so! Gal, you no see say a joke me a joke? Wha do you? Goo way! (Girl, don’t you know that I am joking? What’s wrong with you? Go away!) ROTFLMAO!!!!
        I thought you were supposed to be teaching me Amerk-can? I ain’t had no lessons lately! Girl you slackin’ doh! :)))))

        Liked by 2 people

      3. You sure ain’t keepin’ up yo end of the bargain honey? Wassup? You busy or supp’n? The popcorn got to ya? hahahhaha
        I’m not too bad my love, how are you? btw so I know where we are at when you’re active on WP, what time is over there in Georgia? It is almost 3pm in London. It just helps to know, because when I get up I notice there’s lots of comments from you, so I figure my night is your day time – correct? xx

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Der go da Lady! She stole is purdy!
        Gul y’all done burnt up half tha day cross that water. LOL!!!
        Actually, it’s 9:58am. I am usually most active during the late morning-afternoon hours but ‘cos dat depend on what else I gotta do.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. forgive my ignorance: she stole is Purdy!? I understand the rest. Well of course you can’t be foolin’ around on WP when you you gots 2 kids to look after, a husban’ and the work ain’t gonna do itself babychile ….
        Thanks for the time difference info – so you just gettin’ up while I’ve got to think what to cook for ma suppa, y’all! Sho aint gonna be no popcorn!! haha. You sure everything is ok with you, I get a little subdued vibe coming through the airwaves? Now tell me to min’ ma own business chile ….

        Liked by 2 people

      6. LOL!!! I knew ‘purdy’ meant ‘pretty’. It was the ‘stole’ that threw me. I couldn’t make sense of it stealing pretty, but I guess that’s the American way huh? Glad you are happy and well Lady G. There’s always a special place in my heart for you … don’t want you fretting over anything, especially Trump an’ all! 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      7. Dammit! I done know you weren’t yo usual self girl. Minute I didna see no yasses on yo blog, I thought to maself, supp’n wrong wid Lady G an’ I gotta get to the bottom of this. An’ sho nuff, you comes right out an says you gats a cole two days later. They don’t call me Mystic Marie for nothin’! hahahahha. Hope you feel better soon my love. Colds can make you feel rotten. It’s coming up to the weekend, so make sure you get plenty of rest and relaxation. I want to see some more yaaaaasssessss soon! LOL

        Liked by 2 people

  4. I enjoyed reading both brotha Daryl and brotha Ron’s comments. I did not like hearing 2 kings almost tear each other’s heads off. The enemy is still OUT there and the enemy wants to see this. Spirited and passionate debate I’m all for. I learn so much from the both of you guys. Maybe because both y’all are intellectual smarter than me, I dunno but can’t we agree to disagree on this one gentlemen?? On a lighter note, I dunked a basketball today!!!😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Just one more thing Mr T! dunking the ball was a master stroke! You, my son, have the makings of a diplomat!!!! You may not know how to debate like Darryl and Ron, but you sho knows how to put out that fire. We needs mo firemen like you! LOL

      Liked by 1 person

  5. May I say something regarding this debate? So sad that at times this disintegrated into a slanging match and less like a debate. Words like “pissing” – are they really required to show anger and disgust because someone does not agree with you? I think not! A little more respect is required here Darryl. Both Darryl and Ron made good points, much of it far in excess of my knowledge base so I learned quite a lot of factual stuff. The personal opinions too added flavour to the debate, but like Tareau I was shocked at the level of rudeness coming from one particular party, especially as it was completely unnecessary. Once you allow yourself to get angry, any argument that you pose simply gets diluted and reduced and the reader loses interest because they no longer see a fine debate, but someone trying to get the better of the other. Point scoring is not needed to show you are well-read and educated. However politeness and common courtesy to older more experienced people shows wisdom and integrity, which was somewhat lacking – naming no names!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Forgive my lateness to this conversation Ron, and also forgive me for not having read all of the comments in their entirety lol

    Here’s my $.02. Race is a social construction made to benefit white people a long time ago. This is one concept I actually teach. There’s a video that might interest you and others called Race: The Power of an Illusion. There are three one-hour parts. Anywho, what I’ve struggled with is what it sounds like this conversation struggles with. Even though race is made up, the effects of race are not. Can we begin to only see one human race, while functioning, fighting (take your pick) within the racist and institutionalized system? And if so, then how?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. We can start with ourselves. We can begin by refusing to be pigeonholed into a category established by our “oppressors”. Why play the game by their rules? As a matter of fact, why play the game at all? I think we think too small.

      We have one set of “mostly African” people who want to be “African American”, another set calling themselves “Black”, Another set wants to be called “Negro”(never mind that negro and black mean the same thing…a “color”–which itself is only a different wavelength of light)

      We divide ourselves, no one needs to divide us.

      My hypothesis, which is just that, an hypothesis–not a theory. It doesn’t address “the day-to-day struggle, some people face. It’s not intended to. The U.S. census states that by 2050, this country will be mostly non-White.

      I hypothesize that at some point in time, “race”, as we know it, won’t exist, not even as the “social construct” most people agree that it is.

      But I’m sure we’ll find another way to divide ourselves. Humans are innately tribal. I don’t know if that will ever change, but maybe the tribes can live symbiotically.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for bringing it back to the point. Yes. Pretty soon “race” will not exist. I agree that even when that day comes, we’ll find another hierarchy of separation. I’m thinking it’ll finally be social class. At that point, the real division will be explicitly exposed. Because currently, many of us don’t see that the poverty we live in looks the same, no matter one’s “race.”

        Liked by 1 person

  7. What about mid/later Roman Empire, maybe people in the future US would look like Italians. They had a lot of migration from Asia minor, North Africa, Gaul and Germanic tribes. For instance, Septimus Severus was from North Africa and he was of mixed ancestry.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I as a 60 year old white guy whose ancestors are from Norway, Scotland, Ireland and England agree with you. I am just a ‘white mutt’ who could care less what skin tone a person is. I just wish that all other people didn’t give a darn either so that all this racist stupidity could come to and end.—I am going to reblog this one for you.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s