Lisa Bonet & Biracial Women-Black Genetics(Part 4 of 4)

ca. 1988 --- Lisa Bonet --- Image by © Lance Staedler/CORBIS OUTLINE

The first time I saw actress Lisa Bonet was on The Cosby Show.  The main stars on the show were Bill Cosby and Phylicia Rashad.  The other daughters were played by actresses Tempestt Bledsoe,Keisha  Knight Pulliam and Sabrina Le Beauf. But Lisa was clearly the most popular daughter. Lisa  played Denise  Huxtable.The show came on back in 1984.  I remember a lot of black boys in my neighborhood had a crush on her.  I wont lie,I thought she was pretty too.  I remember a classmate telling me that she was biracial and had a Jewish mother.  I did think it was a bit strange that she looked biracial but had two black parents.   I remember on the Cosby Show there were all different shades of black people.  I also remember she did a spinoff show called A Different World.

jasmine-guy

I remember that the character Dwayne Wayne,played by Kadeem Hardison had a huge crush on Denise Huxtable.  Eventually Lisa Bonet left the show to start a film career.  After she left Dwayne fell in love with Whitley Gilbert played by Jasmine Guy(pictured above).  The thing I noticed about these women is they are both biracial.  Why is the mixed woman the object of affection so often? I didn’t think about it much as a child.  But I started to think about it more as I got older. This is something that has been going on for quite some time.  I’ve covered this subject before and it needs repeating.  It’s not really about just Lisa Bonet. She’s just one of the first examples I remember where the mixed woman gets all the attention.  I’ve seen this pattern over thirty years.  And it’s steadily increasing.  But it’s mostly about the fact that Hollywood still uses biracial women has the standard for beautiful black women.  And also we as black people have a problem liking any group of people that look “less black”. This is a learned behavior. I’ve seen it in film,music and television. It’s really nothing new. I’ve seen it throughout my whole childhood.   You may find some of these women attractive.  But the issue is not their attractiveness. The issue is the over abundance of mixed women being in the forefront representing black beauty. There’s so many I could never list them all.  But here’s just a small sample of  some of the more popular ones.  And even some biracial women you may not be that familiar with.

sade

Long before Mariah Carey or Alicia Keys….Sade was the biracial songbird that took the music world by storm.  She was  a huge star in the 80’s.  I admit I like her music.  She really has a lovely voice.  I remember guys in my neighborhood would always say she was so beautiful. Her being biracial probably didn’t hurt too much either. They said she was wife material.  It’s funny because rarely did I hear them say that about Anita Baker,Patti LaBelle or Jody Watley very much.

rae-dawn-chong

In the 80’s biracial actress Rae Dawn Chong was the “black” actress in many Hollywood films.  Although she was mostly paired with white men.

jennifer-beals

Actress Jennifer Beals became a huge star when starred in the film Flashdance(1983).  She played an exotic dancer in the film.  Her mother is white and father is a black man.

vanity

In the action film Action Jackson(1988) the late pop singer Vanity played the love interest to Carl Weathers.  The biracial singer whose real name was Denise Matthews also dated pop/rock  icon Prince.

karyn-parsons

On the sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air(1990-1996)  biracial actress Karyn Parsons played Hilary Banks.  She played the cousin of Will Smith.

MSDJUFE EC012

In the interracial drama Jungle Fever(1991) biracial actress Lonette McKee played the wife of Wesley Snipes.  He cheated on his biracial wife for an Italian woman.  I guess his wife wasn’t white enough for him.

mo-money

In the film Mo Money(1992)  Damon Wayans starred with biracial actress Stacey Dash.

halle-berry

In Boomerang(1992) Eddie Murphy was paired with biracial actress Halle Berry.  Robin Givens was also in the film but Halle was the women every guy wanted. Of course Halle was the go-to mulatto throughout the nineties. And even won an Oscar award in the process.  She became the “pretty black woman” in Hollywood.

mariah-carey

Sade ruled the 80’s but in the 90’s Mariah Carey became the mulatto singer the media feel in love with.  I remember on music channels they would say she was a beautiful black woman. Mariah used to always insist that she was biracial though. Lately she has been getting more in touch with her black side.  Maybe it was because she married black actor/rapper Nick Cannon.  They have since divorced after having two children.

sister-sister

The sitcom Sister Sister(1994-1999) was a big hit among teenage girls.  It starred biracial sisters Tia and Tamera Mowry.

mya

R&B pop singer/dancer Mya was biracial as well.  She first came on the scene back in 1998. She did a little acting in a few films.  Some thought she would be the next Janet Jackson.  I haven’t heard much from her lately.  Not sure what she’s been up to.

kristen-wilson

In the 90’s biracial actress Kristen Wilson was paired with black actors like Eddie Murphy and Damon Wayans.

Gloria Reuben....

Biracial actress Gloria Reuben was on the hit drama ER(1994-2009)  Her character always had troubling finding love.

Michael Michele.....

I also remember actress Michael Michele(above) was  on the drama ER the same time as Gloria Reuben.  She was a nice addition since there wasn’t much “color” on that show.  Of course she’s biracial as well.

carmen-ejogo

What’s the Worst That could Happen(2001) Starred Martin Lawrence and biracial actress Carmen Ejogo.  She usually plays a black woman or a racially ambiguous role.

This is a great video(above) by Youtuber Chrissie.  She perfectly explains the double standard when it comes to biracial beauty.  There’s  a lot of dishonesty when people talk about colorism and the advantage of being biracial.

kandyse-mcclure

Biracial actress Kandyse McClure is from South Africa.  She has starred in films like Children of the Corn and Broken Kingdom.  She’s most known for the sci-fi television show Battlestar Galactica(2004-2009).

Amerie...

R&B singer Amerie debuted in 2002. There was a lot of buzz about her in the beginning.  Her “exotic looks” come from her black father and Korean mother.  Her only hit single was “One Thing”.  Some thought she would dethrone Beyoncé as the next big thing.  Didn’t quite happen though.

Cassie

R&B/pop singer Cassie Ventura(knows as Cassie) on the scene in 2006.  Her father is Filipino and mother is  black/Mexican.  She has done some acting as well.  She obviously wants to be a bigger star. Although she is most known for dating music producer Puff Daddy. She has been his on/off again side piece for the last few years.

In the black drama ATL(2006) biracial actress Lauren London was the love interest to rapper/actor T.I. This film was supposed to make London the role model for all the  biracial ghetto hood chicks.  I guess she’s living up to it.  She already has two children by two gangster rappers.  One with Lil Wayne and Nipsey Hussle.

paula-patton

In the film Idlewild(2006) biracial actress Paula Patton played the love interest to rapper/actor Andre Benjamin.  Over the years she has starred alongside Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise. At one point she was dubbed the “next Halle Berry”.

thandie-newton

In the comedy film Norbit(2007) biracial actress Thandie Newton was paired with Eddie Murphy.  Norbit was a horrible film.  A total waste of film!

Leona Lewis....

I remember when pop singer Leona Lewis dropped her debut cd Spirit in 2007. The British born singer has a black father and white mother.  She made a big splash in her debut.  She has the light skin,light eyes and long hair….and could actually sing. It’s no wonder music critics called her the “new Mariah”.

noemie-lenoir

In the comedy action film Rush Hour 3(2007) mixed-raced actress Noemie Lenoir was the love interest for Chris Tucker.

jordin-sparks

Singer Jordin Sparks won the show American Idol back in 2007.  The biracial singer was seventeen at the time.  I think that show is rigged anyway…I’m just saying.  She has become quite a big star over the last several years.

tracee-ellis-ross

Biracial actress Tracee Ellis Ross stars on the silly sitcom show Black-ish(2014-).  She plays the wife of Anthony Anderson.  Her mother is music icon Diana Ross.  Her father is a Jewish businessman.

CULT

On the Fox show Gotham(2014-)  biracial actress Jessica Lucas plays Tabitha Galavan. She is not only a vicious villain buy also plays a lesbian.  You know Hollywood always has to throw in that sexual confusion.

Sage Steele....

There are even more biracial women in news media as well.  This picture(above) is ESPN sports reporter Sage Steele with her white husband.  Steele is most known for being a white racist apologist. She never misses an opportunity to insult black people and the black struggle. Does that make her a mulatto coon?

Soledad OBrien....

This is biracial news anchor Soledad O’Brien.  She’s a news anchor on CNN. Just like Sage Steele she also married a white man. Look at those children. You can see the African features are just about gone!  Kiss those black genes goodbye!  But I guess that’s purpose of marrying white anyway.

Melissa Harris Perry...

This picture(above) is of biracial news anchor Melissa Harris-Perry.  She is pictured with her mother and father.  She is an author and political commentator. She had her own show for four years(2012-2016) on MSNBC. Unlike Sage Steele and Soledad O’Brien she decided to marry a black man.

Kylie Bunbury...

On the Fox show Pitch(2016-) biracial actress Kylie Bunbury plays Ginny Baker.  It’s a show about the first woman to play major league baseball.  So…they couldn’t find a woman that was just black??  Nope!  They have to cast the biracial woman as the center of attention.

Kara Royster....

This picture was very interesting to me.  I found it very eye opening.  This is part of the cast of the Disney show K.C. Undercover(2015-present). From left to right the actresses are Zendaya Coleman,Jasmine Guy,Kara Royster and Tammy Townsend. The first three women all have white mothers.  Townsend has a white father and a black mother.  That’s right..all of these women are biracial. How is that possible that ALL of them are biracial? They casted all biracial women.  Could this be an accident? I’ll let you decide.

BTS Miss Mulatto "No More Talking" photos by Thaddaeus McAdams for SoSoDef

This young lady is rapper Miss Mulatto.  That’s not a misprint,you read it right.  Her actual rape name is Miss Mulatto.  Her real name is Alyssa Stephens.  The 18- year old rapper is most known for being on the reality show The Rap Game.  I just find it interesting that she is capitalizing off of the popularity of being racially ambiguous. And using that as a way of being seen as unique in the rap world.

Tinashe...

Then we have pop singer Tinashe. She is biracial as well with a black father and white mother. She’s an okay dancer but not the best singer.  But you don’t have to be able to sing in the music industry anymore.  You just have to have the right “look”.  Maybe Tinashe will be the next Zendaya. Or the next Jordin Sparks? On the next Mya?  Who knows! I ‘m starting to get them all mixed up.

cynthia-robinson

Biracial actress Cynthia Addai-Robinson is getting a lot of roles lately.  She has appeared in films like Colombiana and The Accountant.  And shows like Texas Rising,Arrow and Shooter.

jamie-lee-kirchner

Actress Jamie Lee Kirchner(pictured above) was born in Germany.  She has a black mother and white father. She has been in shows like  CSI,Dollhouse and Bull.  Although she has brown skin she is still biracial.  Some people get fooled by this. Not all biracial women have really light skin and light colored eyes.  Some of a bit more melanin but they don’t always have African-textured hair.  Many of them have lanky hair with a bit of a curl to it. This is just a small sample of biracial actresses and singers.  I could’ve listed a lot more.

black-women

But the main point is that many of these white Hollywood casting agents don’t think that deep brown skinned and dark chocolate-colored(not biracial) women are good enough. They don’t have the “exotic look” they’re looking for. They don’t want African(Original)looking women with black features representing the black race.  And they purposely promote biracial women in films and music as the standard.  Otherwise why do they keep doing this?  People say “well black people  come in many different shades”.  Okay then why do the biracial women get so much of the attention.  We all know why. The truth is white people(other races and some blacks) believe that  mixed race women are more  attractive than black women.  They don’t think that black women that are 85% black or more should be the standard.  But this colorism madness needs to STOP!  There are plenty of darker skinned actresses and singers that don’t get the shine they deserve.  I want all my sisters to get the limelight.  She can have  full lips,thick thighs,african textured hair and dark skin.  This is not about bashing biracial woman. Like I have said before,I have biracial people in my family.  I have cousins that have married whites and Mexicans(Hispanic whites). I But I don’t consider them black..they are mixed.  This one-drop rule has gotten out of control. I don’t have any hatred towards them. I have nothing against them. But it’s time to stop putting black beauty on the back burner. Black/African women have their own unique beauty that should be celebrated. I just don’t think it’s “fair” to give them most of the shine while black women are an afterthought. Lisa Bonet is a pretty woman.  But a black woman shouldn’t have to look like Lisa to get some credit for her beauty.

2017 Women’s March: Black Female Perspective

trump2

Following Trump’s inauguration a series of Women’s Marches occurred throughout North America. The protests erupted to preserve the female liberties seemingly threatened by a “conservative” president who boasted of sexually assaulting women. As a female, I empathize and even support the initiatives that foment this March. However, although a woman, I know that I am inevitably black first. Thus, I can’t help but feel that by supporting the women’s march is to support the very means of my oppression.

On my a tri-weekly journey to a previous job, I recall seeing a number of protestors outside of Planned Parenthood at the wee hours of the morning seeking to shame female patrons. One protestor stood out from the others—an elderly white man surely north of seventy-five. He stood hunched over, holding an oaktag with a message written in ballpoint pen. I did not bother to read the poster, but judging by the stoic expression on his face, he was there to cast the stones of white male privilege onto the female body. Standing at the intersectionality of race and gender, the black woman knows this gaze all to well. While the literal gaze casts itself onto the black female body countless places throughout North America, the figurative gaze consumes black femininity in its entirety. The women’s march solely speaks to the “woman” component of this gaze, eliminating the most defining characteristic of black female identity.

Reproductive rights in general proves controversial to  the black female trajectory. A quick glance at history reveals that the black female endured sheer deprivation in terms of reproductive rights—her body used as means for mayoral economic franchisement. White women too encompassed an existence that also regarded them as property, however their fair skin warranted privileges denied to the black female body. These exclusive liberties afforded to white women illustrate the concept of “woman” as a privilege solely applicable to non-male whites. Consider the phrasing “black” woman. The label “Black woman” illustrates that black female intersectionality separates black females from the term’s initial meaning. For any “woman” of another marginalized faction, their race or ethnicity always precedes the term woman—proving their genitals deem them female but their race and ethnicity is first and foremost. Femininity is also a privilege extended exclusively to non-male whites. This exclusivity persists as the black female body only earns femininity when adopting western aesthetics and behavior.

Given the exclusivity of the term “woman,” I find it quite disturbing that white women ( and other oppressed groups) call on the black women for support in their times of distress, yet alienate the black female body when their children, brothers and fathers lay slain on the streets or untagged in the morgue. How many white women “said her name” after Sandra Bland was murdered? How many white women were overtly outraged after the Trayvon Martin verdict was rendered?

trump1

To take a trip down memory lane, how many white female feminists supported Tawana Brawley in her 1988 trial? If autonomy over the female body is right every woman deserves- why was their no feminist congregation when this young, black girl was sexually assaulted by a number of white men? The answer is simple.  Issues that engage both blackness and femininity become “black” issues instantaneously. This fact reveals that feminism is simply not built to encompass intersectional identities and thereby is not equipped to extinguish black female disenfranchisement.

It seems that former President Barack Obama’s victory disgruntled feminists, who supported this victory as long as it was a symbol of the feminist victory to follow.  It seems feminists felt that history would repeat itself. Namely, black male voting privilege preceded white female voting liberties.  Thus, feminists deemed Clinton’s victory inevitable following Obama’s 2008 victory. Dr. Angela Davis expressed a similar sentiment in the following excerpt from her book Women, Race and Class,

“The representative women of the nation have done their uttermost for the last thirty years to secure freedom for the negro; and as long as he was lowest in the scale of being, we were willing to press his claims, but now, as the celestial gate to civil rights is sIowly moving on its hinges, it becomes a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see ‘Sambo’ walk into the kingdom first.” (Davis 70)

Now that it seems that the black collective has something that the white female collective does not, the bells of white privilege right loudly under the veil of feminism.

Feminism functions to afford white women the same liberties as white men. The main component of these liberties is racism—deeming black female participation in any feminist activity injurious. Thus, to participate in a woman’s march as a black woman is to   march along to the stagnant beat of white supremacy. For the black woman is a queen, but to the western world she will never truly be  a woman.

Article written by C.C. Saunders

Tales of Buffoonery:Episode 22(Simone Biles)

simone-biles

The Olympics in Brazil this past summer was a huge success for gymnast Simone Biles. Biles was the Olympic individual all-around,vault and floor gold medalist.  I’m sure she was in inspiration to many young black girls around the world.  But she said something this past summer that I found a bit disturbing.  Something that should go in the buffoonery category.  When she was asked who she would like to play her in a biopic about her life…she said biracial actress Zendaya Coleman. Why?  She looks nothing like Zendaya.

zendaya

Why would a dark skinned girl want a biracial woman to play her?  This makes no sense to me.  But the crazy part is you have black girls who actually agree with her.  This smells like self hatred(anti-blackness) to me.  This is the type of colorism no one wants to address.  And shows the problem of wanting biracial woman to represent black beauty. This shows me the type of mentality that Biles must have. She must have a very poor self image to want a woman that looks nothing like her to be in her biopic.  If she was truly proud of her appearance and self image she would’ve said actresses like Keke Palmer or Imani Hakim. This is a bad reflection on Biles for saying this.

simone1

And if that wasn’t bad enough,this past summer she announced that her celeb crush was actor Zac Efron. Zac Efron???  Are you serious Simone?  Efron  even flew down to Rio to meet her during the Olympics.  Isn’t that sweet?  This girl is so lost. I realize that she’s only nineteen years old.  She’s  still a young woman. Hopefully as she gets older she will become wiser and realize the error of her ways.  Until then,she’s in the buffoonery category.

 

Lupita Nyong’o vs Alicia Keys: Black Beauty Standard

Nyongo..

What is beauty? Many say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore anyone can come up with their own definition of beauty.  I can agree with that to a certain extent. We all have our own personal like and dislikes.  But in a male dominated society the beauty of a woman is very important.  There are many good looking men in the world but it only carries you so far as a man.  But for women their beauty can open many doors for them.  A man is usually judged by his financial status.  It’s ultimately about what is his income and can he be a provider.  There are many women who have college degrees and make a lot of money nowadays.  But for the most part women are still judged by their beauty.  Their beauty is seen as social capital.  Not only is our society dominated by men…but also dominated by Europeans.  This makes things doubly hard for black/African women.  The woman in the picture above is actress Lupita Nyong’o.  Over the last few years she has taken Hollywood by storm. Lupita is an African woman.  She was born in Mexico and raised in Kenya.  She has been praised for her acting ability most notably the film 12 Years a Slave.  Which he won an Academy award for.  But she has also been praised for her beauty.  When I first saw her in an interview back in 2013 I thought she was a stunning beauty.  She had a beautiful smile,full lips and smooth dark chocolate skin. She has a very asymmetrical face. Her beauty seems almost otherworldly.  I was somewhat surprised that the media was giving her so much praise.  The white media rarely gives praise to a black woman with her skin tone and features. I haven’t seen this since maybe Lauryn Hill. Lauryn was a close second by the way.  I almost picked her for this post. But it was praise that was well deserved.  Although I find her gorgeous there are far more light skinned/biracial women that get more praise in the media.

Alicia..

Which brings me to singer/actress Alicia Keys.  Many black men I’ve talked to say that Alicia Keys is a beautiful woman. She’s not a bad looking woman at all.  But I’ve heard people say that she is a great representation of a beautiful black woman. This is a serious problem in the black community.  The problem is that Alicia Keys is biracial/mixed. She has a  white mother. The issue is really not about Alicia Keys.  I’m just using her as an example.  It’s more about what she represents. And I’ve heard other people say that actresses like Paula Patton,Halle Berry,Stacey Dash,Zendaya Coleman,Zoe Kravitz,Tracee Ellis Ross,Thandie Newton and Carmen Ejogo ..described as beautiful black women.  Even though they are all biracial women. This is the problem with the black beauty standard. And this is what needs to change. We have to be honest about this.

This video by Youtuber Chrissie explains the problem of biracial women getting so much shine.  Many of them get offended and upset when this reality is pointed out.  The reality is that a women like Alicia Keys should not be the representative of black beauty.  Every race and ethnic group has it’s own standard.  Whites have a standard and Asians have their standard.  When a woman is part Chinese and part African,the Chinese  do not accept that woman as their standard of beauty.  They will say she’s mixed race and in most cases most Asians don’t accept them as Asian at all.  So why is it so different with black people? Why do black people so willingly accept biracial women as OUR standard of beauty?

LN2..

As far as an African standard of beauty I would choose Lupita. Some of you may disagree with me.  I know there are thousands of African woman I could choose from.  I have featured many of them here on my blog.  But Lupita is an easy choice considering she is in the spotlight at the moment.  I think the one-drop rule has brainwashed millions of black people.  We think anything that is lighter skinned and light eyes is a better representation of blackness.  A watered down version is better than what we really look like.  There are millions of dark skinned and brown skinned black women who never make it big in the acting or modeling world.  And the few that do are not seen as “classic beauties”.  They are always seen as the “exotic other”.  Much the same way many whites in Hollywood look at Lupita.  But I really don’t care what racist whites think.  I’m more concerned about what we think and how we feel about each other.  We can no longer let the pseudoscience of the one drop rule over us anymore. We should be able to create our own standard of beauty.  We should not let another group of people dictate to us what should be considered attractive.

LupitaN..

It’s okay if people disagree with me.  But who would you choose?  Name three women you think would be a good representation of black beauty. They can be actresses,models,singers etc.  What is African beauty? What should black beauty look like? What women would represent it the best?

Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not African

Drake

This post is written by blogger Lumumba  Afrika.  He makes a very strong argument about why the “one drop rule” is outdated.  This is a belief that is catching on as many black people realize that they are not benefitting from this belief.  A belief that was started by white people during slavery.  We have accepted their pseudoscience as though it is the gospel truth.  Is the one drip rule outdated?  Is this pseudoscience? Do you think it’s a form of colorism? The video is by YouTube/blogger Bhekizitha. Read the post and watch the video and let me know your thoughts.

It took me a year to finally accept this conclusion. I had an argument with a YouTuber concerning this issue in reference to a video he posted entitled “Just because you got black in you.” He proceeded to say that racially mixed people (i.e. people with parents from two distinctly different racial groups with one being Black/Afrikan) are not Afrikan and I predictably had an emotional argument referencing the systematic rape that occurred to Afrikans perpetrated by whites (Europeans) in the USA which resulted in the wider spectrum of skin colour seen in the Afrikan population in the US today. However, after failing to convince him and unsubscribing from his channel, I had several months to listen to interviews and read a lot of material, historical, biological, sociological, and political. I eventually reached the conclusion that indeed he is correct. Hybridized people are not Afrikan and should not be accepted as such.

Before you throw around the term “racist”, let me define the term as per my understanding, The terms “racism” and “racist” are actually misnomers. The phenomena should more accurately be termed “ethnocentric economic protectionism for the purposes of seeking, securing and wielding wealth and power”. Understandably, with this more accurate term, it is more convenient for the “racists” to use the former terminology because it deftly conceals the true nature of the phenomenon and makes confused, naive, and unsuspecting people believe that “anyone can be racist” because they treat someone of another race or more appropriately termed “geno-cultural group” (Baruti, 2006), rudely or make disparaging comments about them. Moreover, the more academically accepted terms “white supremacists” and “white supremacy” are actually not a correct terms either, although from a eurocentric point of view these terms do surreptitiously stimulate the “utamaroho” (Ani, 1994), of Europeans and people classified as white, these terms are nevertheless used to describe the phenomenon in critical race theory and other fields of study. The appropriate terms are actually either “white world domination by terror” (Kambon, 2006) or “white hegemony”. This is an ideology that holds that whites are better, smarter, and more capable producers and managers of wealth than non-white people, and specifically those categorized as black. Hence it justifies by any means necessary the total destruction of any successful model of development independent of whites or without white people leading, organizing and directing it. The logic of this racial hierarchical model proceeds downward with each racial group being more adept at this activity than the lower caste. This ideology informs the system of “white supremacy” that is presently masquerading as globalism. Therefore, it is impossible for a non-white victim (and especially Afrikans) of this system to be a racist, practice racism, be a white supremacist, white hegemonist, or participate in white ethnocentric economic protectionism or “white world domination by terror” in any way that ultimately benefits his or her existence within his or her geno-cultural group and the group as a whole entity as such.

So back to why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Firstly, I would like to posit the view that mulattoes are genome terminator entities, meaning that they can’t reproduce themselves like their respective parents can if they had have mated with one of their own geno-cultural group. A mulatto must mate with another mulatto to reproduce themselves or else their offspring reverts back towards whichever geno-cultural group they have chosen to mate with or they create another hybridised offspring should they decide to mate with another hybridised person or someone from a geno-cultural group which is not one of their parents. Hence their genome pattern cannot maintain structural integrity and they terminate. This is actually the strongest argument for why mulattoes are not Afrikan. Every other geno-cultural group on the planet knows this including the hybridised groups such as the Arabs. The Hispanic/Latinos are another matter which I will address later. I won’t discuss the Indians of South Asia (see the talk by Dr. Velu Annamalai – “Dali: The Black Untouchables of India” on YouTube) but one could reasonably compare my discussion below of the Hispanic/Latinos with that of the Indians, although it is not entirely the same. Other geno-cultural groups never accept a hybrid as one of them. This DOES NOT mean that they treat the hybrid unkindly or should do so in all cases, nor does it mean that the hybrid cannot participate in economic or educational opportunities. However, at the level of strategic power in which the lives and destiny of the geno-cultural group are at stake, hybrids have no place, no relevant voice in matters such as these as they are not part of the geno-cultural group’s GENETIC survival. This is an error that Afrikan people have made. They have assumed that because of “racist” practices of other geno-cultural groups to cast off their hybrids among us, even when they have been created but not fully accepted among the ranks of others, and furthermore the other groups made rules about why they have done so, (i.e. the one drop rule), we have felt an obligation to accept them which has resulted in a non-exclusive preachment befalling the Afrikan geno-cultural group. This failure to address who is Afrikan and who is not has left us vulnerable to infiltration, not only by hybrids, but by non-Afrikans under the false claim that they are too Afrikan because they were either born on the Afrikan continent, they have some distant ancestor who participated in or was raped into producing a hybrid, or they cling to an as yet unproven theory of the “out of Afrika hypothesis” of human origin founded with the propagation of Darwin’s THEORY of evolution. This has left Afrikan people without a codified set of standards, rules and regulations about who is an Afrikan and has exposed us to confused mulattoes seeking a constituency and other unscrupulous interlopers seeking to dominate us.

Ebony Mag

It was part of racist practices of our enemies to create a one-drop rule. White men did it so they wouldn’t have to legally and formally acknowledge the offspring they had as a result of raping Afrikan women and mulattoes. In fact, I would submit that non-Afrikans who pursue sexual relations with Afrikan people are practicing ethnocentric economic protectionism by way of furthering the social hegemonic aspect of this system, albeit it in a vulgar, perverted, and insidiously biologically destructive way. These people know full well that at present Afrikan people are the least respected geno-cultural group on the planet, so they are seeking to fulfill a need to feel superior to someone through a sexual encounter (which is one of the most vulnerable situations, psychologically and spiritually, a victim of this assault can engage in) which is done most likely due to a sense of inferiority in the non-Afrikan’s own geno-cultural group, or the perpetrators are inherently lustful and perverted and seek to satisfy carnal sexual fetishes at the expense of the non-geno-cultural other, in this case the Afrikan.

The Afrikan geno-cultural group is under no obligation through this behaviour to “accept” mulatto offspring as part of our geno-cultural group anymore than other geno-cultures. It is due to our relative powerlessness and refusal to strictly define who is an Afrikan that has lead to this confusion. Afrikans as part of our liberation and industrial renaissance of Afrikan civilisation, must codify and institutionalise a valid definition of who is an Afrikan. I would suggest reading Chinweizu’s discussion of the “mirror test” for some insight into this matter (Chinweizu, 2006).

Latina Mag

Now concerning the so-called Hispanics or Latinos. The term Hispanic simply means a person who speaks Spanish. It is not a racial classification. Therefore, since Spain is in Europe, Hispanics are primarily European white people. The victims of the conquistadors, who were forced to speak the language are largely the remnants of the indigenous nations which were extant in the Americas prior to invasion from Europe. There has been massive hybridization due to the forced rape practiced by the Europeans and the voluntary rape that results from having been conquered wherein both women and men seek to relate in an intimate way with the geno-cultural group that represents power and control in the imposed society. Latino is a Spanish word that means Latin. Latin is another now defunct language that was spoken in Europe. So the two terms to refer to this group are European languages in origin which have nothing to do with the heritage culture of the preponderance of people in the Americas that these terms indicate. Latin or Latino is used because that was the language of the political theological institution (the Catholic Church) used to repress the minds and cultural rituals of the victims of the colonial enterprise in order to make a more docile population able to be exploited efficiently.  Detractors or rebels of the theological doctrine were tortured or killed, so this created a fervent adherence to the religion closely intertwined with one’s own survival which we still see presently. Today in this population, since those people who speak Spanish in the Americas are from various origins (i.e. Afrika, Europe, and indigenous American nations), it cannot be said that these people are a distinct race. In fact the archetypical “Latino” or “Hispanic” is actually a hybridised person who is conditioned in a false consciousness to identify with the colonial culture that was cultivated by European settler-conquerors. Within this group there are still enclaves that have retained their indigenous language and cultural practices, but for racist reasons they are labeled as “Latino/Hispanic” to again stimulate the utamaroho of the European descendants and immigrants that are interspersed in this population, so that they feel a sense of comfort knowing that the language still reflects their own worldview and identity. The majority of the hybrids in this population are victims, and some have reproduced to the degree that they can be considered a distinct geno-cultural group or race, but they have not as yet organized themselves in such a manner mainly because they are still prisoners of the European colonial social construct. Additionally, given the imperial reliance on their economic activity as a source for raw materials, cheap labor, and consumption markets, they are victimized economically and therefore cannot undertake the necessary steps to develop themselves in this way. Moreover, they still have confused Afrikans (who are decedents of enslaved Afrikans and are still repressed by both the hybrids, and Europeans) suffering from a false consciousness within their midst, as well as Europeans that are desperately trying to maintain their colonial relationship and keep enact their white hegemonist system of exploitation. Therefore, the people known as “Hispanic/Latinos” contain people on the spectrum of hybridised individuals, culturally mis-oriented Afrikans, indigenous nationals, and criminal Europeans attempting to persist in the maintenance of the monstrosity they have created.

Saudi National Guard Recruitment and Training Operations

On the other hand the Arabs have been able to organize themselves into a geno-cultural group. This was largely done 1400 years ago through the development of their own political theological institution known as Islam which is simply Arab Christianity (Popp, 2010). Even though there are hybrids contained in the Arab population, they are either historical hybrids produced in antiquity when these white groups invaded Kemet (Egypt) and created offspring with Afrikan women, or they are offspring of the degenerate Arabs that have kidnapped Afrikan women in the present era and used them for their perverted pleasure as sex slaves. The hybrids they create are used to oppress Afrikans in Afrika and promote the expansion of Arab nationalism (i.e. Islam), even though these hybrids are repressed and discriminated as not really being Arabs themselves. It is a psychological phenomenon that is a result of both hybridization and power relationships being enforced by the Arabs on their Black Afrikan victims which compels the hybrids’ fealty to the white Arab dominators. The hybrids see the true Afrikans as powerless so even though they are mistreated by their fathers’ geno-cultural group, they feel the power that is available and the superior social and economic position they have as Arab identified hybrids, gives them the motivation to mistreat the Afrikans in a brutal way for their fathers’ people. So since these two groups, the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, are organised for white power and whites have used sexual predatory practices to attack their victims and consolidate their control, it does not mean that the hybrids are white, nor does it mean that their non-white status is a basis of solidarity with Afrikans. This is a MAJOR historical point that Afrikans have missed, refuse to accept, or have been deliberately mis-educated from knowing. The multiplicity of these factors has brought about the MASSIVE confusion about this matter. The subject is so sensitive that to even broach the topic with many Afrikans will result in emotional outbursts and vicious name-calling instead of calm deliberation and effective implementation of the proper provisions that would protect Afrikans from being used as the world’s sexual toilet and dumping ground.

Lastly, and this is a radical position, I don’t think that Afrikans and Europeans, or for that matter other geno-cultural groups, are the same “species”. Now before you levy a charge of “Eugenics”, I am arguing that the criteria and hence the definition of “THE human species” is incorrect and specifically culturally derived from European culturally structured thought (Ani, 1994) to serve political purposes and a quest for power. One of the main criterion for Europeans arguing that now (after several previous theories about the sub-human status of Afrikans and other races) humans are one species and there is “no such thing as race” is that different geno-cultural groups or these “non-existent races” can breed with one another, hence if two biological entities can procreate together it supports the likelihood that they are part of the same species, whereas if two biological entities cannot breed, for example a cat and a bird, then they are two different species. This notion is absolutely absurd. I think far too much emphasis has been placed on the breeding criterion and fact that whites and blacks for instance can have hybrid children and therefore, there is no difference other than skin colour between us and subsequently, we should then “not see colour” and accept all as human. This directive notwithstanding, in the Afrikan worldview and traditional Afrikan societies, Afrikans never posited the idea that people were “born human”. Human beings had to be developed through education and socialisation, and upon successful completion of this process, then the status of human was imparted upon an individual within the Afrikan socio-cultural context. (Baruti, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009) It was not simply bestowed because one was born of a homo sapiens male and female. This is a distinct difference that exposes the cultural nature of Europeans’ scientific classification and purposes. Basically, I am arguing that Afrikans, Europeans, Asians, Amerindians, and other hybridised people constitute different species of the human “family”. The word “family” in this sense is of a biological grouping, not the emotionally laden image of mom and hugs from your grandmother that the colloquial use of the term “family” generates. I am not arguing for some “shiny happy people” view of humans on earth or that we should all start holding hands and be blind to the different interests of these geno-cultural groups and their different destinies. It is quite obvious that the Amerindian nation of North America had a decidedly different destiny than say the “Sinic” East Asians, so I purport that this fact is still present today, although hidden under universalist and globalist rhetoric. The main point is that if two species or types of humans from two separate and distant geno-cultural groups procreate, it stands to logic that the offspring is neither one or the other geno-cultural group, and thereby constitutes a new geno-cultural entity that must proceed to either develop a cohesive group with other hybrids, or must “disappear” back into one or the other parent’s geno-cultural group. Azania and its “coloured” population is a stark example of this phenomenon, as are the Arabs and Hispanic/Latinos, although to a lesser degree, that I mentioned before. Nevertheless, I will not take time now to argue whether or not the Afrikan parentage of humanity is valid, but suffice it to say that the present definitive difference in geno-cultures will remain until one or more are exterminated by another (which I am not advocating, but is nonetheless a possibility). So, under these conditions, for Afrikans to help promote and accelerate this process by claiming that all hybrids with one Afrikan parent are Afrikan and are not either a separate geno-cultural group, or are not Afrikan and are part of the other parent’s geno-cultural group, (because hopefully at some point we will have the consciousness and power of definition to codify and implement this idea into reality) is a recipe for extinction and assisted genocide.

Article written by Lumumba Afrika