How was I meant to react to the next sentence when that sentence read that you had "no idea worth squat about how that same topic is seen in black homes."
Bad enough that you "doubt that there truly, honestly exists a white father or brother who rejoices at the thought of his daughter/sister travelling the path into racial integration" but to suggest that such a male doesn't exist is beyond belief. And why limit this bigotry to the male of the species?
You weren't particularly meant to react one way or another; at best, I might be forgiven for expecting you to consider that it might not be a unidirectional emotion. Have you much understanding or first-hand experience about how blacks view interracial affairs? I haven't, which is why I thought it interesting, at least as interesting as the white perspective might be. I would be the last to base opinion on a couple of close-friend examples, should there be any. Those
could be the least likely to reveal their soul to a white friend - if they value keeping that connection alive. There may be further interesting lessons to learn about interracial relations and love from the late Dr Mugabe and also from the equally late General Amin and his driving of the Asians out if his Africa. And they are just the first obvious ones: think Rwanda if you like the taste of brotherly love.
Also, and I think importantly, I wrote that
I had that doubt; not for a moment is that tantamount to declaring that you will definitively not find one example of opposite thinking to mine in this wide, overpopulated world.
Whether this is male or female specific is kind of irrelevant, unless you expect a writer to furnish a complete list of all the options for every single thing that he mentions. Would you say that if you like a Jaguar you are also obliged to say, just for clarity, that you also like Mustangs, Corvettes and BMWs - assuming, always, that you do?
It's interesting that raising a question you don't like is bigotry. Why not, instead, come up with an argument as to why you believe interracial marriage is some kind of desirable silver bullet? And of course, why it is bound to lead to a happy, relatively stress-free life for your child or sibling? Which is what I image any close relative would desire above all else.
You know, this knee-jerk reaction is the kind of thing that gets the US Democratic people their bad rep. It shows an immediate desire to cling to some ethical position that has been promoted as the "correct" one, all else being the games of Lucifer himself. It has shown itself throughout all the other political debates or arguments that LuLa has managed to host in the CC. Not surprisingly, the Republican camp fares no better: it, too, simply repeats mantras, but different ones. It's why I no longer have faith in a single British party: the middle-ground of politics has vanished, to be replaced by extremism on both sides of the spectrum. It can only lead to more death and eventual defeat at the hand of an external power such as Islam or China. And before knickers are wetted not through desire but through outrage, I hasten to add that I am fairly confident that not all Mohammedans are bent on conquest and the death of the white Satans which is not to deny, either, that many are absolutely of that belief and wish.
As some know, I am a daily viewer of the French English-language tv station france24.com because they touch on aspects of international news that the Beeb and Sky News are mostly both too parochial or too strung out on the single big issue of the day to visit. The debates are usually quite well balanced, with speakers with several differing viewpoints and political leanings. I watched yesterday, and was truly disappointed by what I saw. The debate was about the US riots of now, and the point was made by the host that looting and destroying cars etc, had little to do with the killing of that black chap by a policeman who, it turns out, has a record of improper behaviour. That could not be accepted by a single one of the three other speakers: to two men and a female, they adopted the misleading line that you can't equate a looting with a life (which equation was not being made, and exactly the very same tactic that Kay Burley also faced in her recent news slot), and that it's only big companies, anyway, that get hit (clearly, neither are they readers of LuLa nor camera fans, those three). A demonstration, if you like, that capitalism is evil, that you can rob from it any time you like, and that that's okay. Go steal a Rolex, the motherfucker can always buy another. You get the photo.