There has been a lot of discussion about this commercial. The people that are opposed to have been labeled racists. This is why I'm opposed to it, it is a promotion and attempted effort to validate interracial marriage. In genetics black is dominate. So .I put propose this question to every race on the planet , do you have a problem with your race completely disappearing from the face of the planet after hundreds of years of intermarrying with blacks. BE HONEST !!
It is simply a commercial. I highly doubt General Mills is trying to send out a subliminal message. There have been commercials with all black, all white, all latino, all asian, etc.... it was only a matter of time before a mixed race couple was cast.
How about the rest of it .By your screen name I assume your white, Do you have a problem with your race disappearing?!
I'm assuming you are talking about the U.S., so what can you do about it other than ask people to have more children? Are you suggesting some sort of eugenics?
I am what is called 'white.' So are my kids. But I give not a whoop what color my descendants some ways down the road are. Why should I? I consider it infinitely more important that my children, and their descendants, be people of peace. People of peace don't pick fights, especially hateful, deadly fights, with other people, over silly ideas that don't matter, like racial identity. What can come of that but unnecessary suffering and misery?
So you would implement a ban on interracial couples in commercials? What about separate bathrooms or water fountains?
[ No, because you seem to oppose interracial marriage. I think interracial marriage is a good thing. White people and Black people have to share this country, so we better start figuring out a way to get along, and I think that's a good start. Once we are together on Thanksgiving, spend Christmas together, go to church together, and raise children together, we might begin to make some progress. Anyway, if you feel the white race is threatened, it's not because of interracial marriage. It's because white women have decided they no longer want to be mothers. That's why white birthrates are on the decline, not because of the relatively few interracial marriages. There is such a thing as natural selection you know, and if a race decides it doesn't want to reproduce, it's done for.
How can a race decide anything? A race is a category. A category is not a person. Categories are things created by people. Only people can decide things.
No, lots and lots of individuals make decisions. You can look at ldeas they share, and other common influences, but noting is really done 'collectively.' In the case of reproducing or not reproducing, when birth control is freely available at women's option, it happens that many of them put off having kids, that's all. The result is fewer kids.
What. No, that isn't a question. It's a statement. As in, "What you're saying is incomprehensible, but I don't want put a question mark after the word because the answer will probably disgust me." I'm part African, French, Irish, Native America, Arabic, and possibly British, by the way. I'm completely comfortable being a conglomeration of nearly everybody.
No, they are not. "Races" are not hives of insects. They are arbitrary delineations based on observable, characteristics. They are comprised of individuals. Individuals make decisions. Arbitrary classifications do not.
Don, in genetics, black is NOT dominant. Skin pigmentation phenotypes are polygenic, meaning that a number of independently inherited genes (4 to 6) determine how dark or light a person is. Furthermore each expresses what is known as 'incomplete dominance'. If black were dominant, genetics would have it that 3 out of every four progeny of a "white x black" mating would be black and the fourth would be white. But that's not the case. What we typically see in "white x black" mating are intermediate phenotypes where the children's skin pigment is on a tone scale, somewhere between both parents.
Wow! Cheerios are interesting as hell and it sounds like they are striving to make their image more politically correct an racially inclusive.
If your right, I guess things have changed since I took biology in college in 1969 because we learned in an interracial coupling the offspring would be predominately the color of the darker parent but, even if that child was light skinned the child could produce a progeny that was as dark as their dark skinned parent and that held true for all future descendants.
'Dominance' in Incomplete Dominance is somewhat of a mis-nomer since recessive alleles affect the phenotype equally to dominant alleles. The diagram below illustrates how incomplete dominance works using a single gene example. Again, skin pigmentation is polygenic with each of the multiple alleles having an additive or deleterious effect, so the potential number of outcomes grows exponentially with the number of alleles and the zygosity of those alleles involved. http://www.biologycorner.com/resources/snapdragon.gif
The media, entertainment, and advertising companies have long been trying to normalize other types of sexual relationships that are not normal. It will not be too long before we see them trying to normalize cross-dressing and sex change operations on TV too.