"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:aopvcu$53c$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> In article <3db06aa4.2668184 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net>
JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) writes:
> <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> <>In article <3dadd703.3158921 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net>
JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) writes:
> <><Gray Shockley <gray at compcomm.com> wrote:
> <><>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:22:44 -0500, Jd wrote
> <><>(in message <3dad812a.6250945 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net>):
> <><>> If whites are not a superior race then why do negros keep getting
> <><>> lighter and lighter as a result of cross-breeding?
> <><>They don't.
> <><>The progeny of a mating between two different groups of sexually
> <><>individuals will generally exhibit characteristics of each mate. As
> <><>number of progeny increase, there will be - under "normal" mating -
> <><>characteristics from each mate's genetic heritage in different
> <><I've seen negroids from Africa and they are as black as black gets
> <><in humans. Meanwhile, American negroes are getting whiter and
> <><whiter. While traits such as hair texture and facial features do
> <><not seem to change much, skin color does and very noticably if you
> <><compare them with real Africans. These are simply observations I've
> <><made and I'm speculating that where gene(s) responsible for skin
> <><color are concerned, the genes of white folks are dominant.
> <><Also, over in Africa, our negroes would not be able to call
> <><themselves African-Americans without being ridiculed. I know a guy
> <><who goes over there frequently and he's told me that "off color type
> <><mixed folks" over there are in a lower class than real Africans. In
> <><fact, real Africans are puzzeled as to why American negroes call
> <><themselves African-Americans since they 1) aren't from Africa and 2)
> <><their parents aren't from Africa.
> <>I'm sure much of what you say here is true, most of it in fact. However
> <>the question was: if breeding with Caucs does in fact make the offspring
> <>African-Americans lighter than they were: H o w d o e s t h i s
> <>m a k e w h i t e s "s u p e r i o r"?
> <>-- cary
>>>> <I'm attempting to use your own argument against you i.e.
> <"evolution". Do you not see how this notion of dominant genes
> <fits hand in glove with ToE?
>> Why in the world do you equate recesiveness with inferiority?
> Are folks with brown eyes superior to those with blue eyes?
> Are dark-haired children superior to blond children? Are
> people with achondroplasia -- dwarves -- superior to people of normal
> stature and build?
>> All three of these involve dominant genes.
>>> <On the other hand if as the framers of the Declaration of
> <Independence wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
> <all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> <with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
> <and the pursuit of Happiness" is true and there is a "Creator", what
> <difference would genes make? How could you possibly suggest (as you
> <did in another post) that the white Christians who founded this
> <country were racists when in fact, evolutionists are bear more
> <responsibilty for the notion that other races sprang from mud?
>> Actually, we "evolutionists" realize we all "sprang from mud",
> in your phrase. We're a single species. But you won't get
> John to agree. Who's the racist here?
The "racist" here is the FOOL who "thinks" that niggers and Whites are
"equal", or that our Christian Founding Forefathers were referring to nigger
slaves when they wrote "all men" (read: for you "liberals", slaves were NOT
considered to be "men"), or who "thinks" that being a nigger confers special
privileges because of "skin color" but that being White and asking for the
same "privileges" is "racism".
THAT's "Who's the racist here", cary.
> <It just may be that Christians everywhere have been blessed by God
> <Himself with wonderful abilities which include common sense and
> <rational thinking, and that the enemies of God have not.
>> I don't think that would be too difficult to test scientifically.
>>> -- cary
Take a trip around the world, cary. Get off your duff, shut off the TV, and
take a look around your own back yard. The evidence is so ponderous that
you don't need even the meanest scientific test to figure it all out.
This is not to put down Muslim or Shinto or even Buddhist societies, but
EVERYWHERE Christians have gone on this planet, they have vastly improved
it. We can even make the claim that it was CHRISTIANS who improved the
Shinto Japan, because had Japan been conquered by any other country besides
a Christian country, they would have been slaves and dogs. The formerly
Buddhist Korea, which is now 75% Christians, made a remarkable step into
technological industries, which is something that ONLY Christianity could
The only reason the 900 million dumb niggers of Africa haven't benefitted
from Christianity is because they're too STUPID to appreciate the difference
between paganism and Christianity. Even so, it was CHRISTIANS who attempted
to improve their lives, and who did, in many, many ways. And what did they
get in return for the effort: KICKED off their own farms, MURDERED by their
beneficiaries, EXILED from their own birthplaces?
Turnabout's fair play. The niggers MUST go back to Africa, and the Whites
of Africa must be encouraged to migrate here, so that we can isolate the
races the way GOD intended.