NATION

PASSWORD

Blood quantum

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

In this scenario, are you black?

Yes, full black.
0
No votes
No, not black at all.
6
27%
Half black.
0
No votes
Quarter black.
10
45%
Something else I'll explain.
6
27%
 
Total votes : 22

User avatar
Call to power
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6908
Founded: Apr 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Call to power » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:07 pm

Sumamba Buwhan wrote:Other: It depends on my cock size and skin color.


omg I'm Indian :blink:
The Parkus Empire wrote:Theoretically, why would anyone put anytime into anything but tobacco, intoxicants and sex?

Vareiln wrote:My god, CtP is right...
Not that you haven't been right before, but... Aw, hell, you get what I meant.

Tubbsalot wrote:replace my opinions with CtP's.


User avatar
Vault 10
Minister
 
Posts: 2471
Founded: Sep 15, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Vault 10 » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:08 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Vault 10 wrote:At the point when you're at least half not black.
Any less, you can technically claim Blackhood, but only if you adhere to the Black ideals and lifestyle.

What is are the black ideals and lifestyle?

It's pretty hard to explain. Not sucking up to the man. Maintaining a distance. Viewing the life in color.
Look, it's just like porn really. "I can't define it, but I can tell it when I see it".


Fartsniffage wrote:I'm hoping that wasn't just a setup so you can go on about watermelon and fried chicken.

JFYI, I'm quite far from #FFFFFF myself.
And I like beef, wine and whiskey, not watermelon and kfc.
However, my daily dram is the Black Label.
There is a line most people say they will never cross. It is usually something they have done long ago when they thought no one was watching.




User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:08 pm

Hydesland wrote:If I look black, I will call myself black. If I look white, I will call myself white. If I look mixed, I will call myself mixed.

What is mixed? Look at these pictures. Who is black? Who is mixed?

1) Image
2) Image
3) Image
4) Image


If you don't know their actual parentage, how are you deciding?
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Hydesland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15120
Founded: Nov 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Hydesland » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:11 pm

Neesika wrote:
Hydesland wrote:If I look black, I will call myself black. If I look white, I will call myself white. If I look mixed, I will call myself mixed.

What is mixed? Look at these pictures. Who is black? Who is mixed?

1) Image
2) Image
3) Image
4) Image


If you don't know their actual parentage, how are you deciding?


1, 2, and 3 I would call black. 4 I would describe as white in that pic. I decide based on skin complexion.

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:13 pm

German Nightmare wrote:
Neesika wrote:
German Nightmare wrote:
(Then again, why is it important? All this racial fractioning serves nothing)

It does if you're trying to create a definition of membership in order to parcel out resources.

I'm sorry, what does that mean? "Parcel out resources"?

I'm making a comparison here (not explicitly laid out, on purpose) to legislated blood quantum rules in regards to aboriginal peoples. Defining someone as 'Indian' or 'not Indian' is important, because it defines who is entitled to certain resources and who is not. I'm wondering how this sort of concept really works.

If your status as 'black' or 'white' or 'greek' or 'asian' or whatever was linked to some share in a certain limited pool of resources, there would probably be a need to strictly define who has membership and who does not, right? I'm wondering if blood quantum is the best way to go about this.
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Sumamba Buwhan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Jan 12, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Sumamba Buwhan » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:16 pm

This is a job for:

Image
L
G
T
B
S
A
R
M
Y
**Proud Sponsor Of The Militant Gay Agenda**

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41248
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:16 pm

Neesika wrote:I'm making a comparison here (not explicitly laid out, on purpose) to legislated blood quantum rules in regards to aboriginal peoples. Defining someone as 'Indian' or 'not Indian' is important, because it defines who is entitled to certain resources and who is not. I'm wondering how this sort of concept really works.

If your status as 'black' or 'white' or 'greek' or 'asian' or whatever was linked to some share in a certain limited pool of resources, there would probably be a need to strictly define who has membership and who does not, right? I'm wondering if blood quantum is the best way to go about this.


We could just stop parcelling out resources based on race. Solves the whole problem quite quickly.

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:17 pm

Hydesland wrote:
Neesika wrote:
Hydesland wrote:If I look black, I will call myself black. If I look white, I will call myself white. If I look mixed, I will call myself mixed.

What is mixed? Look at these pictures. Who is black? Who is mixed?

1) Image
2) Image
3) Image
4) Image


If you don't know their actual parentage, how are you deciding?


1, 2, and 3 I would call black. 4 I would describe as white in that pic. I decide based on skin complexion.

And yet #4 has a fully black father. She just happens to be light skinned.

Is skin complexion really a good way to evaluate whether someone is black or not? #1 is of West Indian, creole, and portuguese jewish ancestry. If someone has a parent that is a quarter black, but the other parent is of some other (not black) dark-skinned ancestry, would it be fair to call that person 'black'?
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:19 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:We could just stop parcelling out resources based on race. Solves the whole problem quite quickly.

Do you think that aboriginal people are allotted certain resources because of our race, or is it something else?
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Hydesland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15120
Founded: Nov 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Hydesland » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:19 pm

Neesika wrote:Is skin complexion really a good way to evaluate whether someone is black or not?


It is if you define a black person as someone who has black skin.

User avatar
Fassitude
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1403
Founded: Oct 11, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Fassitude » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:20 pm

Neesika wrote:Say your mother's father is black, but her mother is white. Is YOUR mother black? Or white? Or do you think the average person sees her and understands that she is half and half? Say your father is white. Are you half black? Quarter black? At what point are you not black?

I never cease to be amazed at the sort of jabberwocky people choose to think and care about... but you? This is so unexpectedly inane.

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:21 pm

Image

Let's make this easier.
The two on the left are black.
The third on the right is white.
The last on the right is mixed race.
Simples. :)

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41248
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:21 pm

Neesika wrote:Do you think that aboriginal people are allotted certain resources because of our race, or is it something else?


Of course it's because of your race. If you were Indian then they wouldn't be allotted to you.

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:22 pm

Hydesland wrote:
It is if you define a black person as someone who has black skin.

So if your brother is dark skinned, he is black, but you are not if your complexion is lighter? Does that really make sense?
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:23 pm

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Image

Let's make this easier.
The two on the left are black.
The third on the right is white.
The last on the right is mixed race.
Simples. :)

Buh?

All three darker skinned persons here look hispanic, to me.

No, actually the woman looks black, the man and the darker child look hispanic.
Last edited by Neesika on Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:23 pm

Fassitude wrote:
Neesika wrote:Say your mother's father is black, but her mother is white. Is YOUR mother black? Or white? Or do you think the average person sees her and understands that she is half and half? Say your father is white. Are you half black? Quarter black? At what point are you not black?

I never cease to be amazed at the sort of jabberwocky people choose to think and care about... but you? This is so unexpectedly inane.


People care about things you don't. I'm surprised you just don't move on.

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:24 pm

Neesika wrote:
EvilDarkMagicians wrote:Image

Let's make this easier.
The two on the left are black.
The third on the right is white.
The last on the right is mixed race.
Simples. :)

Buh?

All three darker skinned persons here look hispanic, to me.

No, actually the woman looks black, the man and the darker child look hispanic.

Hispanic?

User avatar
Hydesland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15120
Founded: Nov 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Hydesland » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:26 pm

Neesika wrote:So if your brother is dark skinned, he is black, but you are not if your complexion is lighter? Does that really make sense?


It might not make sense that my brother is somehow black where as I am white. But linguistically it would make sense to call someone with black skin black, and call someone with white skin white.

I don't think 'black' is a race, I think it's just a descriptive term.

User avatar
Sumamba Buwhan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Jan 12, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Sumamba Buwhan » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:29 pm

OH there is one more way to determine if someone is black but you have to catch them in the act:

Image
L
G
T
B
S
A
R
M
Y
**Proud Sponsor Of The Militant Gay Agenda**

User avatar
Fassitude
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1403
Founded: Oct 11, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Fassitude » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:31 pm

EvilDarkMagicians wrote:People care about things you don't. I'm surprised you just don't move on.

How habitually insipid of you to think I don't. That does not prevent me from commenting, especially not as the OP and I go back (hi Sin, long time and all that!). So, perhaps you should move on and not bother us with such pointless comments? But then, you'd not have much to post... which you should ponder.
Last edited by Fassitude on Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lord-General Drache
Minister
 
Posts: 2150
Founded: May 10, 2004
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Lord-General Drache » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Mikertaz Kein wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:At the point the phrase "What up my nigger?" gets you a hospital stay rather than a knuckle bump.


Your first mistake is to use 'nigger' rather than 'nigga'. If you have African in you(:P), then you can say the terms restricted to use by that minority.

Please Note: 'My uncles cousins friends sisters brother is black so its okay...' is not a valid argument. You must be DIRECTLY of African ascendancy or of African Blood to use the term.


The racism inherent to the phrase is still there when a black person says it, with added delicious hypocrisy.

As to the poll: You're whatever culture you choose to be part of most.
Life is mine to give and take; death is my bailiwick. I freely go where angels dare not tread, and have danced blades with the demons that lurk in your darkest nightmares.
RIP Colodia: 4/13/2011.

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Fassitude wrote:
Neesika wrote:Say your mother's father is black, but her mother is white. Is YOUR mother black? Or white? Or do you think the average person sees her and understands that she is half and half? Say your father is white. Are you half black? Quarter black? At what point are you not black?

I never cease to be amazed at the sort of jabberwocky people choose to think and care about... but you? This is so unexpectedly inane.

It's anything but inane.

That link is confusing, but here it is, broken down:

Full status Indians are referred to as 6(1) Indians. A child of a marriage between a status 6(1) person and a non-status person would qualify for 6(2) (half) status. A 6(2) status person who marries a non-status person will have children with no status. A 6(2) person can marry a 6(1) or a 6(2) person and have a child with 6(1) status.

We say we don't have blood quantum in Canada, yet our rules are far more strict than what exists in the US.

My question is an attempt to tease out the way in which we slot people into certain 'statuses'.

(I'm being sneaky)
Last edited by Neesika on Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Neesika
Minister
 
Posts: 2569
Founded: Aug 26, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Neesika » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:37 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Neesika wrote:Do you think that aboriginal people are allotted certain resources because of our race, or is it something else?


Of course it's because of your race. If you were Indian then they wouldn't be allotted to you.

We would not be entitled the land and resources we are entitled to were we not the original inhabitants of these lands. Our entitlement has been legislatively linked to our blood quantum. Is blood all that makes us Indian?
"Look, Ann Coulter explained it one time. Jesus came to perfect the Jews so they could become Christians and be saved. If they stay Jews, they are rejecting God and the opportunity to eat bacon dipped in mayo and served on the tits of a woman who doesn't complain at restaruants." - RepentNowOrPayLater

User avatar
Fassitude
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1403
Founded: Oct 11, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Fassitude » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:39 pm

Neesika wrote:It's anything but inane.

Uhm... the link actually makes it even more inane. It's so... racist/ethnist.
(I'm being sneaky)

What is that saying... sneaky like a bull in a china shop? Like a queen in a Republican politician's office?

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41248
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:44 pm

Neesika wrote:We would not be entitled the land and resources we are entitled to were we not the original inhabitants of these lands. Our entitlement has been legislatively linked to our blood quantum. Is blood all that makes us Indian?


Wrong choice of nation on my part. I'm British so when I say Indian I'm actually talking about residents of India.

I'm unsure why being of the original people of a nation should entitle one to anything. We don't go looking for Celts to grant them preferential coal mining rights.

If a nation does decide to go down such a route then I'm unsure there is any better route than blood, if a person has diluted blood then I figure it's a good indicator that they come from a family fully integrated into the rest of Canadian society and would be less likely to require the entitlements.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benuty, Bovad, Renovated Germany, Shazbotdom, The Pirateariat

Advertisement

Remove ads