Somebody Done Told You Wrong: Black Celebrities Who Say They’re Not African American
Options
Comments
-
lol, sarcasm -
This stupid ? still thinks black only = negroid
Didn't yo ? say Ethiopians were black? Didn't you say Melanesians, and New Guinean's were also black, why are they not clustering with the true negroid cluster, you dumb niggerstock jiggboo. -
The Luo are Nilotic which is in the "True Negrod" genetic cluster, now explain why the San who y'all cherry picked as y'all light skin Africans, and Ethiopians are not in the true negroid cluster. Don't y'all Jamaicans worship Ethiopians? But why they not genetically similar to y'all? -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
Actually i was not the one who said that you stupid ? . I also don't give supremacy to genetic clustering in deciding race. Now get back in the bed and wait for your white masters to come home. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
Actually i was not the one who said that you stupid ? . I also don't give supremacy to genetic clustering in deciding race. Now get back in the bed and wait for your white masters to come home.
I sure will, I will wait right for my white man, as he's busy right now creating the master plan to eliminate yo broke uneducated ass! Of course you wanna ignore DNA, it destroys your notion of one drop ruling everyone. Silly nignog. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
The Luo are Nilotic which is in the "True Negrod" genetic cluster, now explain why the San who y'all cherry picked as y'all light skin Africans, and Ethiopians are not in the true negroid cluster. Don't y'all Jamaicans worship Ethiopians? But why they not genetically similar to y'all?
There are light skinned african besides the SAN you stupid white loving ? dumpster go audition for ghetto gaggers you stupid trolling ? everything you have said proves that you are unworthy of having a ? , -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
Actually i was not the one who said that you stupid ? . I also don't give supremacy to genetic clustering in deciding race. Now get back in the bed and wait for your white masters to come home.
I sure will, I will wait right for my white man, as he's busy right now creating the master plan to eliminate yo broke uneducated ass! Of course you wanna ignore DNA, it destroys your notion of one drop ruling everyone. Silly nignog.
I don't ignore dna but it's not the ultimate factor in deciding race. Race is primarily a social construct. I am actually highly educated so much so that 75% of the time i have to dumb down my correspondence with people on this forum -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
The Luo are Nilotic which is in the "True Negrod" genetic cluster, now explain why the San who y'all cherry picked as y'all light skin Africans, and Ethiopians are not in the true negroid cluster. Don't y'all Jamaicans worship Ethiopians? But why they not genetically similar to y'all?
There are light skinned african besides the SAN you stupid white loving ? dumpster go audition for ghetto gaggers you stupid trolling ? everything you have said proves that you are unworthy of having a ? ,
How about you audition on Blackzilla, black men love for white women to call them ? over there, or how about you audition on thugzilla since black men like yourself loving giving up the ? to white men who visit the hood. Now remained broke and depressed, as its obvious your ass can't deal with the facts. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
Actually i was not the one who said that you stupid ? . I also don't give supremacy to genetic clustering in deciding race. Now get back in the bed and wait for your white masters to come home.
I sure will, I will wait right for my white man, as he's busy right now creating the master plan to eliminate yo broke uneducated ass! Of course you wanna ignore DNA, it destroys your notion of one drop ruling everyone. Silly nignog.
I don't ignore dna but it's not the ultimate factor in deciding race. Race is primarily a social construct. I am actually highly educated so much so that 75% of the time i have to dumb down my correspondence with people on this forum
If such didn't exist such would not cline and cluster, and the bone morphology community would not be in a majority agreement that race exist. You a dumb niggerstock plantation minded white man in black skin. Lie, you are a phony problack ? who likes the white man DNA, even though he hates yours. As I said before, according to y'all everyone is black. -
A phenotype a true Negroid does not make the poster says, implying, among other things, that her gripe with the women she believes straight black men lapdog goes deeper than anything that cannot be determined by the layman's naked eye. The hand was already shown. No lab tools needed.
If every female praised for beauty on the IC looked like Alek Wek-- and no one was going full Pepe LePew for Kiira Korpi type ? features--it would not matter if the Alek Wek types shared 100% ancestry with the true Negroids group bubble below or not.
None of the other ? she has said is necessary to make this claim: subconsciously, non-black features are put on a pedastal while black features are disparaged by many black men. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
Actually i was not the one who said that you stupid ? . I also don't give supremacy to genetic clustering in deciding race. Now get back in the bed and wait for your white masters to come home.
I sure will, I will wait right for my white man, as he's busy right now creating the master plan to eliminate yo broke uneducated ass! Of course you wanna ignore DNA, it destroys your notion of one drop ruling everyone. Silly nignog.
I don't ignore dna but it's not the ultimate factor in deciding race. Race is primarily a social construct. I am actually highly educated so much so that 75% of the time i have to dumb down my correspondence with people on this forum
If such didn't exist such would not cline and cluster, and the bone morphology community would not be in a majority agreement that race exist. You a dumb niggerstock plantation minded white man in black skin. Lie, you are a phony problack ? who likes the white man DNA, even though he hates yours. As I said before, according to y'all everyone is black.
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
" Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)" http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/summary/v082/82.3.strauss.html -
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
Lie, you accept his offsprings as being apart of your race." Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)"
Debunked this in another thread, already. -
I hope y'all see how pointless it is to box humans into racial boundaries. I mean, what's the point? What's the end game to drawing such strict racial lines? Love your fellow human and hate injustice done to others regardless of "race".
-
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
Lie, you accept his offsprings as being apart of your race." Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)"
Debunked this in another thread, already.
By who???? certainly not you. I have given scientifically peer reviewed proof that all your ? claims about "bones" being the determining factor in the biological reality of race is nonsense.
"The second article, Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race does not have a provocative title, but is perhaps an even more incredible piece. The authors begin with sex identification, showing how sex is reliably estimated from a few craniometric variables, and how a prior identification of a roughly 1:1 sex ratio is unimportant for making the call.
Things change when it comes to racial identification. Here, they take a set of bones from “Mr. Johnson” and compare them to a world database: “The results from these analyses fairly unambiguously estimate Mr. Johnson’s origin as an Easter Islander” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:81). However, since Mr. Johnson’s bones were found in Iowa, plugging in the Iowa probabilities allows Mr. Johnson to be reliably predicted as white. Forensic anthropologists base their estimates on the known prior composition of the population. If the same bones from Mr. Johnson had been found in Hawaii, they would have estimated “Easter Islander” or if found in Gary, Indiana, they would have estimated “American Black”:
Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for “American White” at 0.6976. The identification of “Easter Islander,” which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that “Mr. Johnson” was an “Easter Islander” is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an “American White” was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for “American Black” with “American White” having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20934/abstract -
I hope y'all see how pointless it is to box humans into racial boundaries. I mean, what's the point? What's the end game to drawing such strict racial lines? Love your fellow human and hate injustice done to others regardless of "race".
we don't live in a fantasy world, while race has no serious biological validity socially it exist. It is through this social CONSTRUCT that the laws of survival of the strongest, most adaptable, or smart now operate. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
Lie, you accept his offsprings as being apart of your race." Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)"
Debunked this in another thread, already.
Stupid ? , the numbers of mixed race people produced from white male and black female parings is very small. So it's not always his offspring you dumb ? . -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
Lie, you accept his offsprings as being apart of your race." Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)"
Debunked this in another thread, already.
By who???? certainly not you. I have given scientifically peer reviewed proof that all your ? claims about "bones" being the determining factor in the biological reality of race is nonsense.
"The second article, Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race does not have a provocative title, but is perhaps an even more incredible piece. The authors begin with sex identification, showing how sex is reliably estimated from a few craniometric variables, and how a prior identification of a roughly 1:1 sex ratio is unimportant for making the call.
Things change when it comes to racial identification. Here, they take a set of bones from “Mr. Johnson” and compare them to a world database: “The results from these analyses fairly unambiguously estimate Mr. Johnson’s origin as an Easter Islander” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:81). However, since Mr. Johnson’s bones were found in Iowa, plugging in the Iowa probabilities allows Mr. Johnson to be reliably predicted as white. Forensic anthropologists base their estimates on the known prior composition of the population. If the same bones from Mr. Johnson had been found in Hawaii, they would have estimated “Easter Islander” or if found in Gary, Indiana, they would have estimated “American Black”:
Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for “American White” at 0.6976. The identification of “Easter Islander,” which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that “Mr. Johnson” was an “Easter Islander” is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an “American White” was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for “American Black” with “American White” having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20934/abstract
You haven't given ? you flat nose ? ! Thats the same paper that has been debunked in another thread, you nappy headed loose ? ? uneducated ? .
-
Stupid ? , the numbers of mixed race people produced from white male and black female parings is very small. So it's not always his offspring you dumb ? .
And what that got to do with anything, ape? ? don't even believe that ? you are talking about monkey.
-
I hope y'all see how pointless it is to box humans into racial boundaries. I mean, what's the point? What's the end game to drawing such strict racial lines? Love your fellow human and hate injustice done to others regardless of "race".
we don't live in a fantasy world, while race has no serious biological validity socially it exist. It is through this social CONSTRUCT that the laws of survival of the strongest, most adaptable, or smart now operate.
Race has nothing to do with strength or intelligence though, so... -
I hope y'all see how pointless it is to box humans into racial boundaries. I mean, what's the point? What's the end game to drawing such strict racial lines? Love your fellow human and hate injustice done to others regardless of "race".
we don't live in a fantasy world, while race has no serious biological validity socially it exist. It is through this social CONSTRUCT that the laws of survival of the strongest, most adaptable, or smart now operate.
Race has nothing to do with strength or intelligence though, so...
You are totally missing the point people ARE STILL fighting and will always fight, it could be nation, tribes, clans one major form of human grouping is race. People group up AND THERE are subgroups of a larger whole, we are all born into a group, there can only be one dominant group IN any society so you either side with your group and fight for it's interest or be a slave to the wishes of other groups.
The groups, no matter that race who are strong smart etc etc etc will out compete the others and will rule
That is the law of human nature AND THE LAW of capitalism.
The peacefully fairy world you want to exist will never be mixed boy it's me vs you and you are either with me or against me -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
LOL @ the consensus of a fictional "bone morphology community" being the definitive word on race. The white man is a natural ? and he gets no love from me.
Lie, you accept his offsprings as being apart of your race." Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326)"
Debunked this in another thread, already.
By who???? certainly not you. I have given scientifically peer reviewed proof that all your ? claims about "bones" being the determining factor in the biological reality of race is nonsense.
"The second article, Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race does not have a provocative title, but is perhaps an even more incredible piece. The authors begin with sex identification, showing how sex is reliably estimated from a few craniometric variables, and how a prior identification of a roughly 1:1 sex ratio is unimportant for making the call.
Things change when it comes to racial identification. Here, they take a set of bones from “Mr. Johnson” and compare them to a world database: “The results from these analyses fairly unambiguously estimate Mr. Johnson’s origin as an Easter Islander” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:81). However, since Mr. Johnson’s bones were found in Iowa, plugging in the Iowa probabilities allows Mr. Johnson to be reliably predicted as white. Forensic anthropologists base their estimates on the known prior composition of the population. If the same bones from Mr. Johnson had been found in Hawaii, they would have estimated “Easter Islander” or if found in Gary, Indiana, they would have estimated “American Black”:
Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for “American White” at 0.6976. The identification of “Easter Islander,” which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that “Mr. Johnson” was an “Easter Islander” is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an “American White” was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for “American Black” with “American White” having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20934/abstract
You haven't given ? you flat nose ? ! Thats the same paper that has been debunked in another thread, you nappy headed loose ? ? uneducated ? .
DEBUNKED BY WHO ???? you ? living abortion commercial. what scientist published a scientifically peer reviewed paper that debunked it. -
DrJohnHenrikClarke wrote: »
funky ? you wish black men had a inferior nose like the butt pluging white men you love so much that way we could not smell the festering gap you call a ? . You ? tragic mullatoe common high yellow ? -
I hope y'all see how pointless it is to box humans into racial boundaries. I mean, what's the point? What's the end game to drawing such strict racial lines? Love your fellow human and hate injustice done to others regardless of "race".
we don't live in a fantasy world, while race has no serious biological validity socially it exist. It is through this social CONSTRUCT that the laws of survival of the strongest, most adaptable, or smart now operate.
Race has nothing to do with strength or intelligence though, so...
You are totally missing the point people ARE STILL fighting and will always fight, it could be nation, tribes, clans one major form of human grouping is race. People group up AND THERE are subgroups of a larger whole, we are all born into a group, there can only be one dominant group IN any society so you either side with your group and fight for it's interest or be a slave to the wishes of other groups.
The groups, no matter that race who are strong smart etc etc etc will out compete the others and will rule
That is the law of human nature AND THE LAW of capitalism.
The peacefully fairy world you want to exist will never be mixed boy it's me vs you and you are either with me or against me
You better hope you on the winning side then. -
And by the way @zombie, it's mixed man, not boy, boy.
-
