Does she look 100% caucasian to you?
-
Merenwen99 — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 11:38 AM)
Well . . . if I saw her on the street, I doubt I would assume that she was anything but white . . . I wouldn't think about it. However, all of Michael's children are darker than your average white kid, and their mother was white. Mixed race children often appear in unexpected ways.
To be honest, I believe all of his children are biologically his because of two reasons. The first is that he says they are and I have no reason not to believe him. The second is the fact that we know that Prince and Paris have the same mother and Blanket was born of a different mother. Prince and Paris are obviously related; they could almost be twins. But look at Blanket. Blanket and Prince look very much alike. -
actionmanrandell — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 01:16 AM)
i agree with the there his kids part i dont agree that they look white.
but what i dont get is why people say blanket and prince
blankets name is infact prince michael the 2nd
but prince michael the 1st was infact born not prince michael but Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.
so why dont people just call him michael or jr -
furienna — 14 years ago(January 29, 2012 04:53 PM)
what i dont get is why people say blanket and prince
blankets name is infact prince michael the 2nd
but prince michael the 1st was infact born not prince michael but Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.
so why dont people just call him michael or jr
Michael called the boy "Blanket", and now there's nothing to do about it.
I have no idea why he gave both sons the same name. It doesn't make any sense.
Intelligence and purity. -
furienna — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 03:59 PM)
What do you mean by "Jackson blood"?
There are many mixed children, who look like Michael's children. Until the opposite is proven, I believe they're his biological kids.
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden! -
Pisces_Sweetie_007 — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 06:46 AM)
Me too. Even if he's not the biological father, Michael is still their father in their eyes. He's raised them and took care of them up until his death; it shouldn't matter whether or not the kids are blood related to him or not.
-
actionmanrandell — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 01:18 AM)
if hes not there father then one of his brothers is the father because they infact look like michael
if you do side by side pics of michael when he was younger and black. with both michael jr and blanket they look alot like he did back then
you also take some of paris's younger pics and she looks like michael did when he was younger you also take pics of his grandmother you can see that his children are infact of jackson blood and therfor since he has said he is the father and none of his brothers have come out and said that they are he must actually be there father -
saahlhok — 13 years ago(June 12, 2012 01:17 AM)
There's no need to insult people. if they haven't been exposed to biracial people, they may have a hard time wrapping their mind around it. Sight is our first line of defense after-all, some see it some don't/won't.
For example Lenny Kravitz, Bob Marley & even the president's Euro ancestry isn't apparent/obvious, wherein Jesse Williams/Grey's Anatomy it's very clear, so when it comes to biracial people, ya never know! ;^)
She heavily favors her mum & her Aunt Rebbie to me and Joe has green or blue eyes.
We aren't just the sum of two parts/parents, we all go waaay back.
My daughter for example looks more like my dad than either of her parents.
Some say she looks like me, I look like my mums sis..see what I'm getting at,eye of the beholder. -
daisey192001 — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 09:42 AM)
The only way to say she has any Jackson blood in her is to assume that Michael Jackson had some caucasian ancestry on both his mom and his dad side, that could have skipped a few generations and went to Paris.
I know there have been some post about prince michael I possibly having vitiligo, because of what parts of his body looks like in certain pictures, and it would be a weird coincidence for Prince to have that condition (if its true) and for Michael not to be the father. Of course if Michael really is the father, then you would have to wonder if the other two would have Vitiligo if he was their father as well. But maybe not, if Michaels siblings did not show signs of it.
I keep reading in the magazines about one reason why he did not want his children carrying his blood is because he didn't want them taking after his father. However, how can he be so sure they would, and has long as they were not arround his father or as long as Michael did not treat them that way, it should not have been a problem. The other reason why was because of them 111cpossibling getting Lupus and/or Vitiligo.
The only other explination if Michael's sperm was not used is if one of his siblings sperm was used instead. -
furienna — 16 years ago(July 14, 2009 01:36 PM)
I wonder if there's any African American, who doesn't have white ancestry. It was very common, especially in the days of slavery, that black women had children with white men. The question is only how far back this white ancestry is for a particular individual. I don't know how far back it is in Michael's case, but his father has unusually pale eyes for being a black man (basically the same eye color, that Paris has). And his mother's father's family were described as "mulattos" in a census, which must have meant, that their white ancestry was noticable and/or well-known. So it can't be that far back, which makes it very possible, that Michael could have white-looking children with a white woman.
People act like Michael is a pure African with no white ancestry at all, but that's just wrong, since the African Americans aren't pure Africans. And it's not that uncommon, that a black parent have children, who look just like Michael's kids. I have even read about a black couple (yes, they were both black), who had a son, who was white with red hair. And like you said, it also seems like the white genes can skip a few generations. I think people are too quick to judge here, since they consider Michael to be "weird", and that's not cool at all. Until you take a DNA test on these children, give him the benefit of doubt.
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden! -
daisey192001 — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 01:26 AM)
Yeah, you have to start at "ground zero" when the admixture started. Atcually if you think about it, a lot of North Africans and middle easterners almost have that mixed look to them, with out having the admixture. Ex: Hoda Kotb (Egyptian decent american newsanchor on nbc). Maybe our ancestors were like that until they moved to other parts of the world and then developed or had off spring that developed features that were suitable for that environment. Think about Egypt for instance, there was one tribe that was more Arabic, and had some caucasoid features, while another one was nubian and had more negroid feaures, If these tribes had not intermingled then that wold have been race separation so to speak. sorry got off into a tagent
Why do so many people assume that if a black person has white ancestory in them (most likely from one of their ancestors being a slave and mating with a mostly white European person), that its the white male slave owner and one of his female slaves or an1c84other female slave? As if a white female wasn't procreating with a black male slave. Also, why does "history" make it seem as if all sex between a black slave and a white male was not consensual. Yes maybe symbolically speaking one would think somebody would not want to offer their body consenually for sex to their master, unless their was some underlying sexual tension and love between the two (or maybe certain sexual positions were more conducive with a black woman then for a white woman, or the slave owner knew they weren't "paying" for the sex with slave as we all know marriage is like legal prostitution (class had a debate about that once). Not sure what history books are correct, but I learned the reason why a lot of white men tried to procreate with the black slave women is because they were hoping to make their off spring and subsequent off springs lighter to the point where they could pass as a white person (like they do with the cast system in Australia, or they use to). However, you have to keep in mind that because you get with somebody and have a child, you cann't expect your child to have children with somebody like you do. What I find odd, is the issue about the reason why dark africans were used was because they could with stand certain elements. Well, if that was the case then why procreate with them to make them (well not them, but their ancsestors) lighther. Maybe, if they knew the slave trade would end, and if the slaves were smart enough not to procreate (because if slavery was never abolished) then their children might become slaves), then they could control who would be slave or not. I would wonder if a child was born to a slave motherm but a slave owner father, wha their status would be. Are they considered to be slave and if they are would they be viewed differently then somebody who was born to two slave parents.
Ex: if Barack Obama married a blonde haired blue eyed german, scottish, woman his children would more likely be "25 negroid black", instead he married a woman who considers herself blakc and theirfore because his children are more likely 75% they are going to look more black than white.
Now, I will tell you what is really weird. I live in the South East, I know this 26 year old Kenyan girl who has baby by a 40 year old American white man. Um yeah talk about a blast from the past. Bless her heart, I wonder if she really understands about what happened along time ago. Who knows, maybe she does, but just doesn't let it affect her.
Now the thing is with Michael's children. They look white (little if none-african negroid back ground in them in some pictures. However, in other the pictures the boys look more latino, or have northern arabic ancestory. Its not just the skin tone, but they tend to posses more causoid features then negroid features, and you would think they would possess more of the later because negroid jeans are usaully stronger than caucasoid ones unless their enough underylying recessive from grandparents or ancestors father back to come through. -
furienna — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 02:40 AM)
Why do so many people assume that if a black person has white ancestory in them (most likely from one of their ancestors being a slave and mating with a mostly white European person), that its the white male slave owner and one of his female slaves or another female slave? As if a white female wasn't procreating with a black male slave.
Because it was far more acceptable for a white man to have sex with a black woman than for a white woman to have sex with a black man. The more modern American slavery was very similar to the slavery in ancient Greece and ancient Rome in that way. Sex between a free man and a female slave was fully acceptable. As a matter of fact, a slave almost had no right to say no, if her owner or even a foreman wanted to have sex with her. But sex between a free woman and a male slave was totally unacceptable, often even punishable by the law. It doesn't sound fair, but I think it all comes down to the fact, that women traditionally have had less sexual freedom than men.
Also, why does "history" make it seem as if all sex between a black slave and a white male was not consensual. Yes maybe symbolically speaking one would think somebody would not want to offer their body consenually for sex to their master, unless their was some underlying sexual tension and love between the two (or maybe certain sexual positions were more conducive with a black woman then for a white woman, or the slave owner knew they weren't "paying" for the sex with slave as we all know marriage is like legal prostitution (class had a debate about that once).
Of course, not all sex between a white man and a slave wasn't a rape. I didn't say that either. I believe Thomas Jefferson, for example, had a loving, almost marriage-like, relationship with a black woman, one of his slaves, and there were probably many such couples. But we can't deny either, that slaves could be raped, or that a slave basically had no right to say no, if a white man (her owner or even an "overseer") wanted to have sex with hb68er.
Now the thing is with Michael's children. They look white (little if none-african negroid back ground in them in some pictures. However, in other the pictures the boys look more latino, or have northern arabic ancestory. Its not just the skin tone, but they tend to posses more causoid features then negroid features, and you would think they would possess more of the later because negroid jeans are usaully stronger than caucasoid ones unless their enough underylying recessive from grandparents or ancestors father back to come through.
But there are people, who have a black parent, but still are white enough to look mediterranean or hispanic or middle-eastern. Michael's children aren't the first or the last ones to do so.
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden! -
daisey192001 — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 10:00 AM)
What determined the acceptablity of w111cho determined what person(s) could have sex together. What made it taboo for a white woman to have sex with a black man back then? I think I might know some of the reasons, but didn't know for sure. Was it becase, black men were viewed as animals or what not, and it would be "unlady like" for a white woman to procreate with him, or because of the phallic symbol issue? Was it because of primogeneture and the black slave man not having property to pass down. Ok so a slave owner could have sex with his slaves whenever he wanted. Does this mean that it was never consenual between the two. What I find odd is that why is there info about women who are raped are less likely to have babies. Well, maybe the slave women were more seduced or it wasn't hard rape, to make sure they would still get pregnant. I also wonder if it was difficult on the wife of the slave owner for her husband to cheat on her. If abortion was better available back then, or if the ru86 drug existed and the black slave women could get their hands on it, would they use it. I've just heard it can be difficult to raise or love a child that you didn't tend on making in the first place especially when its through an act that you didn't fully consent to. Oh no I didn't say that you said all sex between a black woman and white man was not consensual its just the history books try to hint towards it. I have been to kingsley plantation and the slave owner married his slave. Maybe the slave women were more polite and submissive. Yeah, the reason why his children look mediteranean is because the tanning might be some of the "negroid coloring coming throug" but their eyes and nose looking more caucasoid makes them look more meditteranean, latino, or middle eastern.
-
furienna — 16 years ago(July 20, 2009 04:27 AM)
I think you nailed it. It was considered "unlady-like" for a white woman to have sex with a black man. Black women weren't considered as "ladies" anyway, so they had more sexual freedom than what white women had. But they were also more likely to be taken advantage of, or even raped, than what white women were. White men maybe weren't
encouraged
to have sex with black women either, but if they did it, it wasn't such a big deal anyway. Black men, however, were basically, if not absolutely, forbidden to have sex with white wo2000men, because if a white woman had sex with a black man, she became "unpure". But since men had more sexual freedom than women, a white man didn't become "unpure" in the same way, if he had sex with a black woman. You can say, that it all comes down to not only the gender roles of the time, but also to the racism of the time.
Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden! -
actionmanrandell — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 01:28 AM)
its blacks outside of africa who have caucsion ancestory if you go to africa you wont find hardly any who have caucasion ancestory.
but just because they dont doesnt mean there children will turn out black i know a girl who is as white as a paper plate yet her father is as black as a tire.
and he is her biological father.
at it is not uncommon for a child to inherret the recessive genes from one parent over the other parent ie. its entirely possible for a child to be pure white when one parent is black its also entirely possible for a black man to have a child with a mixed woman who is mixed with both black and white and that child to inheret the recessive genes that the mother inhereted from her white father ie. all there has to be is the slightest hint of caucasion ancestory in someone and they can come out completely caucsion in appearance same can be said about a childs whos parent has the slightest african american ancestory -
nikkiten1979 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 07:36 AM)
Sorry, I know this thread is crazy old, but an FYI there are A LOT of mixed people in Africa trust me, I've lived there and I'm one of those Mixed Afro-peans LOL
Many Europeans countries had colonies in Africans, and nowadays there are many Europeans and Asians living in Africa - many mix and have families and it's not as taboo as it used to be.
can't outrun your own shadow
(r.i.p Michael I love you)