The children of Mulattos are not Black.-gctid259060

[SankofaMAAT]

@cuitocunavale I enjoy many of your post and you probably mean well but this post is very ignorant.

Sent from my XT1585 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[SankofaMAAT]

What do these representations of Tutankhamen mean to ya'll?

Is one black and the other not black? From my studies it suggest before Maafa we understood in mass that it's the blackness within that counts not without. By this viewpoint point grandcestor Malcolm X is blacker than anyone on this forum as his actions show regardless of color. This creates division our enemies reading this post would surely be pleased with. The mere fact someone responded to this post as justification for not calling themselves black is enough evidence of this division. Should darkness be promoted? absolutely but only to the extent it will lead to the restoration of our freedom and MA"AT. This idea of separating us more based on complexion most certainly does not help anyone but our enemies. Suggesting grandcestor Malcolm X is anything less than black=Afrakan is extremely disrespectful and you should be ashamed. Nothing posted here is revolutionary, or MA'ATic it's just pure ignorance.

You mention "Bio D", from a biological/scientific  standpoint your post is ignorant on many levels. Please study genotype, phenotype, and the epigenetic link between the two before disrepecting your grandcestor. There is no understanding of biology and genetics here. I can provide some sources of study if you or whomever wishes.

Further aligning the present science with our ancestors wisdom (spiritual-science): it is the brain (in part neuromelain/internal blackness) that sees, touches, hears, taste, and smells not the ears eyes etc. In short if you have a crakkas brain and put it in a black body the crakka won't be able to hear, move, taste, and think like us/ they wont be black. In other words if you have the blackest body on the planet but are indoctrinated with a Eureurasian mind ya not gonna promote liberation and MA'AT/ will not be  black=Afrakan.

Black=Afrakan Afrakan=black, it's that simple, if anyone doesn't recognize yourself when ya see yourself then go study or go to sleep. If you don't want to be Black=Afrakan then why are you here?

Show your grandcestors more respect, and study more before spreading such ignorance.  To anyone reading please don't use this or any other excuse to not call yourself or someone Black=Afrakan, it's doing nothing but digging our graves for genocide.

[cuitocuanavale]

SankofaMA'AT;259290 wrote: @cuitocunavale I enjoy many of your post and you probably mean well but this post is very ignorant.

Sent from my XT1585 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

I am not and have never identified as a Blue Black Supremacist. I do however recognize the utility of the ideology and philosophy in this current world that we live in. I hope this distinction makes sense.

[cuitocuanavale]

I am not and have never identified as a Blue Black Supremacist. I do however recognize the utility of the ideology and philosophy in this current world that we live in. I hope this distinction makes sense.

[Motingwa Motingwa]

Black Roots Science states that it takes seven generations of 'mulattoes' descendants deliberately and only breeding with whites to remove the black gene. This means that even blacks who marry whites are black, whether they think they are or not!

On the issue of colorism, I thought colorism was light skin preferance (or the reverse). An anti-colorist would then be against any measuring by skin tone criteria..

[SankofaMAAT]

 


Repost-
Which one is black?
Before maafa we didn't seemed to be so confused and understood that it's the melanin inside that counts not the outside. By that count Malcolm X is blacker than anyone here, as his actions and sacrfices show.

Sent from my XT1585 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[SankofaMAAT]

"Malcolm X isn't black" is a very disrespectful utterance regardless of context. Our enemies would cheer the entertainment of such division
Surley if our enemies know how to group us together so can we.

Afrakan=black black=Afrakan it's that simple.

Sent from my XT1585 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[SankofaMAAT]

Biologically speaking please study a bit about genotype, phenotype, and Epigenetics before spreading divisive ignorance and disrespecting a grandcestor. We came in many shades before the amu existed.

Sent from my XT1585 using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app

[cuitocuanavale]

In the context of this discussion, Malcolm X was not black according to the Blue Black Supremacist paradigm because one of his parents was a mulatto(half cracker) and because he had a significant amount of white blood running through his veins to not be considered Black by Blue Black Supremacists.

I would like to reiterate that I personally am not a Blue Black Supremacist and do not agree with Blue Black Supremacists on many topics. However I understand why they feel the way they do.

In the Garveyite context, Malcolm X was a Black Man because if his identification and his actions to back that up. I personally agree with the Garveyite position more but I do recognize that many especially Blue Black Supremacists reject all Mulattos and the descendants of Mulattos even if they happen to be Black.

[Nana]

Please give us a reference to this so called blue black supremacy doctrine. Your post is the first time I've heard of this.  And thus although you deny ascribing to said philosophy, you nevertheless are promoting it.

A quick web search found your post here as the the only hit on blue black supremacy

[Motingwa Motingwa]

Lion-O;259456 wrote: Black Roots Science states that it takes seven generations of 'mulattoes' descendants deliberately and only breeding with whites to remove the black gene. This means that even blacks who marry whites are black, whether they think they are or not!

On the issue of colorism, I thought colorism was light skin preferance (or the reverse). An anti-colorist would then be against any measuring by skin tone criteria..

It is also stated that one shouldn't question love, but once person is conscious that they are weakening the gene-pool, interracial relations IS a sin!

I wanted to read more about 'colorism' and eugenics, so I can say something with regards to something that has already been said. But this post burns me up (I think I can put it under my 'pet peeves'), because it is demeaning to some. I myself for a long time considered my self on the blackest end of the scale in terms of physical appearance. I have even been (and made aware) that I was darkest member of a group (one incident stands out from my childhood). Pictures like the ones in this thread remind me otherwise.

Dr Frances Cress Welsing herself broke it down when she described how even children of mixed couples are not considered white when they go to white institutions. I say if you are not white, you must be black. Someone else in this thread speaks of men leaving their mixed babies with the whites. I think the opposite is true, that it's the whites who hold resentment to their dark children if that is possible...

Another thing is that @cuitocanavale, you say you can see where blue black supremacy wiould be useful, but you haven't given examples or points to support that.

I only replied to this thread because I am always irked by this sentiment, and I seem to be coming across it a lot lately. Perhaps I even thought the title would dissappear off my dash!

[Mandume]

"I say if you are not white, you must be black"
   
   ^^
   That is complete & utter nonsense. If you don't understand the concept of being EXCLUSIVE, then you shouldn't be talking about empowerment of ACTUAL Kmtyw people at all.