Trump is mixed race!
Trump Revives Racist ‘Pocahontas’ Slur Against Warren, Donald Jr. Responds: ‘Savage!’
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Trump is mixed race!
reagansghost
eternal
Rupukes are still relying on mud slinging for political gain.........something they've been doing since Lee Atwater and now an anchor around their turkey necks
of course the billys don't even know who ole Lee, or graduate HS either
of course the billys don't even know who ole Lee, or graduate HS either
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Is anything Trump says not racist lol?
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Vasquezrocks
Verified User
Pocahontas is a racist for hijacking the heritage of American Indians. Her DNA shows that she is the whitest white racist in America., and that she has no claim to American Indian heritage. Claiming American Indian heritage with 1/1000% of the dna gives her less claim to the corresponding heritage than using spray on tan lotion.
evince
Truthmatters
she has Indian DNA asshole
without that DNA she would have never existed
SCIENCE
so she is of Indian heritage asshole
evince
Truthmatters
sorry
Democratic party members don't do the naked pictures for money like you republicans do
evince
Truthmatters
some of the parts where he is lying about what he believes
Vasquezrocks
Verified User
evince
Truthmatters
Vasquezrocks
Verified User
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
neither is Melania but she pretended for money and took chick on chick naked pics for CASH
1/1000% dna of a race is not enough to excuse a white person from wearing blackface or brownface. 1/1000% DNA of a race does not entitle a person to the corresponding heritage . Pocahontas is as much a racist for appropriating American Indian heritage with 1/1000% DNA as she would be for wearing blackface with 1/1000% black DNA.
Pocahontas is a racist for appropriating American Indian heritage, which means that everybody in her party is now automatically racist, which means you're are a racist too.
DNA is NOT the same thing as heritage. 1/1000% dna of a race is not enough to excuse a white person from wearing blackface or brownface. 1/1000% DNA of a race does not entitle a person to the corresponding heritage . Pocahontas is as much a racist for appropriating American Indian heritage with 1/1000% DNA as she would be for wearing blackface with 1/1000% black DNA.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.native-languages.org/iaq17.htm
Setting the Record Straight About Native Peoples: Kidnapping
Q: Did American Indians really steal people's children, or was that just something white people made up to scare their kids?
A: No, unlike many tales of Indian savagery, this one has a real basis in fact. It was common practice throughout the Americas to capture and adopt people from enemy tribes (particularly children, teenagers, and women). In a few tribes this was a traumatic kidnapping, sometimes involving a violent hazing ritual prior to adoption. In other tribes it was a mere formality, with eligible young women going out to a rendezvous point at night to be "carried off" by a neighboring tribe so they could find husbands there. In most tribes, intertribal kidnapping fell somewhere in between those two extremes--a well-established convention of war that simultaneously encouraged exogamy (new blood in the tribe) and ensured the safety of women and children on both sides. Most Indians tried to avoid being captured, but few captives tried to escape and there were few rescue attempts by their kinsmen, who could reasonably expect them to be well-treated and well-cared for. Mistreating someone once he or she had been adopted into a tribe was considered evil (many Indian legends and folktales revolve around some villain who abuses an adoptee and is punished for this misdeed). Adoptees usually also had full social mobility, and often wound up in leadership positions or married to an important person in their new tribe.
So was this a barbaric custom? Well, the Europeans were certainly horrified by it (particularly the English, who tended to consider a white woman being married to a nonwhite man offensive). On the other hand, the Indians were equally horrified to find that the Europeans routinely killed women and children while raiding Indian villages, and that when they did take captives, they were frequently treated as slaves. Each side definitely came away with the impression that the other was dishonorable at war and couldn't really be trusted. When both sides are in mutual understanding about it, the adoption of prisoners-of-war is a reasonable system that preserves life as well as ransoming them back does (and much better than taking no prisoners). When only one side assumed it was the standard, though, the end result was a lot of dead Indian civilians who had incorrectly assumed their safety would be guaranteed and a lot of grieving English families who had no way of maintaining contact with their loved ones or even knowing if they were still alive.
Setting the Record Straight About Native Peoples: Kidnapping
Q: Did American Indians really steal people's children, or was that just something white people made up to scare their kids?
A: No, unlike many tales of Indian savagery, this one has a real basis in fact. It was common practice throughout the Americas to capture and adopt people from enemy tribes (particularly children, teenagers, and women). In a few tribes this was a traumatic kidnapping, sometimes involving a violent hazing ritual prior to adoption. In other tribes it was a mere formality, with eligible young women going out to a rendezvous point at night to be "carried off" by a neighboring tribe so they could find husbands there. In most tribes, intertribal kidnapping fell somewhere in between those two extremes--a well-established convention of war that simultaneously encouraged exogamy (new blood in the tribe) and ensured the safety of women and children on both sides. Most Indians tried to avoid being captured, but few captives tried to escape and there were few rescue attempts by their kinsmen, who could reasonably expect them to be well-treated and well-cared for. Mistreating someone once he or she had been adopted into a tribe was considered evil (many Indian legends and folktales revolve around some villain who abuses an adoptee and is punished for this misdeed). Adoptees usually also had full social mobility, and often wound up in leadership positions or married to an important person in their new tribe.
So was this a barbaric custom? Well, the Europeans were certainly horrified by it (particularly the English, who tended to consider a white woman being married to a nonwhite man offensive). On the other hand, the Indians were equally horrified to find that the Europeans routinely killed women and children while raiding Indian villages, and that when they did take captives, they were frequently treated as slaves. Each side definitely came away with the impression that the other was dishonorable at war and couldn't really be trusted. When both sides are in mutual understanding about it, the adoption of prisoners-of-war is a reasonable system that preserves life as well as ransoming them back does (and much better than taking no prisoners). When only one side assumed it was the standard, though, the end result was a lot of dead Indian civilians who had incorrectly assumed their safety would be guaranteed and a lot of grieving English families who had no way of maintaining contact with their loved ones or even knowing if they were still alive.