All white people are racist (according to U of Delaware ) [Archive]

Ron_Tomkins

1st November 2007, 04:44 PM

The lines are hard to define when it comes to diferentiate between one thing and another. The things you use to define yourself as an inidividual that's different from the rest of the crowd are what conform your Ego. That doesn't make you an Egocentrical person, however. It's just when your whole reality is based on how different you are from the others and how much they suck and how much you OWN everything in comparison to them, or how much you think you know in comparison to the others... those are the things that inflate your Ego and make you an "Egocentrical" person.

Same thing goes for race. We have mechanisms that allow us to differentiate other human beings. This has many functions. Recognition and diferentiation are important so that you can remember each and every one of them and tell them appart. Classifications are also important and they're also connected to protection (This is what dangerous people look like so now I know who I should look out for. This is what healthy people look like so now I know who I wanna surround myself with, etc). We all posses these stereotyping mechanisms and in a way they're essential. It's when you attribute values based on appeareance that you start crossing the line between simple identification and racism. We have all done this for good or bad. It happens both ways: I've met guys who say they play an instrument and something in the way they look (not even how they behave but just their physical appeareance) gives me the impression that they must be an excellent and even intimidating performer, only to find out that it's the exact opposite.

When we have no experience with a determined group, sometimes we give the impression of being racist even though it's the exact opposite: we just have very little information, but we're not trying to stereotype. Like when you meet a guy from Korea and you ask him what part of Japan he's from. He might feel offended and even think "Oh, to you every Asian looking person is automatically from Japan". But it's not the guy's fault. He just hasn't met enough people from Japan and from Korea to be able to tell the difference.

tsg

1st November 2007, 05:36 PM

At first I was going to very much disagree, but I think you may have a point. Everyone might be racist to some degree. As a white man, I don't think I've ever described Paul Newman as a white actor. I have probably at some point described Denzel Washington as a black actor. While that doesn't mean I'm getting fitted for a robe and hood, it does signify a double standard which is probably a minimal form of racism.

I don't agree with this. If the majority of actors are white, it's silly to expect someone to specify "white" when describing a white actor. People tend to describe objects in terms that will aid in discriminating them from others. Describing Denzel Washington as "black" eliminates quite a few possibilities, while describing Paul Newman as white not so much.

To put it another way, would you describe Denzel Washington as having two arms? Probably not. If another person you were describing only had one arm, wouldn't you mention that? Does that make you an "armist"?

frankvan

1st November 2007, 06:20 PM

"All white people are racist" is one of those generalizations that, unfortunately, is true far too often. I do think it has become less true during my lifetime than it used to be, and I think it is especially rare among skeptics - for obvious reasons. It just doesn't pass the 'sniff' test.

Jeff Corey

1st November 2007, 06:25 PM

Back to the OP. When I arrived at the the U of D it was a racist institution with black people at the separate (but equal) Delaware State except for the footsballs players, Newark was segregated in housing and blacks were refused in restaurants. For a kid from Connecticut , it was a freaking wakeup call, like, "What the F?"
So we did sit ins and stuff, but the night that tore ole dixie down was after the Blue Hens won the Lambert Cup, the whole football team integrated the biggest restaurant in town.

tracer

1st November 2007, 07:05 PM

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B0000BZK1R001006/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_006/104-0851706-3204705

Gregoire

1st November 2007, 07:12 PM

All white people are racist.... as are all blacks, asians, latins, etc. Everyone is racist to some degree. If you are able to look at someone of another race and you are aware of the differences between yourself and them then you are racist. What matters is how much of a racist you are.

I think your point is well taken. The word "racist" is used in a variety of ways through out society and can change even within the same sentence. I personally have seen people begin with the broad definition which you cite and then quickly use the word to imply the aforementioned "racist" is someone who would be found at a KKK meeting.

(This shows how really imprecise language can be, a fact cold readers are always ready to exploit.)

Then you have those on the far left who state that it is "impossible" for an "oppressed minority" to be racist, which brings up still another definition of the word.

As far as extremism goes, certainly one can find plenty of that on certain college campuses. If you doubt that, recall what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard when he mentioned that innate differences between males and females was just one of the many possible explanations to explain the dearth of female professors in science and engineering. He lost his job over this.

As far as the other side of the question, I met plenty of College Republicans when I was in school who took things way over the top.

As to who is telling the truth in this particular case, I have no personal knowledge about the University of Delaware or FIRE. I could see either side being way out of line. So as a person who relies on evidence, I cannot say until I know more.

Showmeproof

1st November 2007, 08:00 PM

LOL

Stout

1st November 2007, 08:18 PM

My first reaction upon reading the story in the OP on an American right wing news site yesterday morning was HOLY CRAP !!! the PC tyranny of the mid 1990's has returned with a vengeance.

I'm a little hesitant to swallow what I'm reading re the universities response(s) though. My inner skeptic is shouting "this is damage control" seeing how it's in response to FIRE's allegations, but I do have to admit neither ever hearing of FIRE before, or knowing anything about Delaware .

I don't mind extremism so much when it comes from college/university students. I figure they'll grow out of it, like I did.

TonyL

1st November 2007, 08:41 PM

Xaivius - Three Links that may help:

The FIRE article that seems to have started it all:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thefirecache/8555.html

And the University response:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/oct/reslife103107.html

and their letter to FIRE:

http://www.udel.edu/PR/response/

I hope that helps.

.

Yeah, they had this kind of thing at my University 15 years ago. There were "focus sessions" about various topics. I unintentionally undermined the entire discussion section about racism. The facilitator asked some question about what things that our race/ancestors did that we feel guilty about. I was the first one in the circle so they started with me. I gave them a puzzled look and said, "Um, nothing. Why should I feel guilty about things I didn't do?". Everyone else after me gave pretty much the same answer and the whole meeting pretty much went nowhere from there. If these are anything like the ones we had, it's not indoctrination, it's just well intentioned discussion sessions that happen to be written and designed by ham fisted idiots.

fuelair

2nd November 2007, 08:00 AM

Yeah, they had this kind of thing at my University 15 years ago. There were "focus sessions" about various topics. I unintentionally undermined the entire discussion section about racism. The facilitator asked some question about what things that our race/ancestors did that we feel guilty about. I was the first one in the circle so they started with me. I gave them a puzzled look and said, "Um, nothing. Why should I feel guilty about things I didn't do?". Everyone else after me gave pretty much the same answer and the whole meeting pretty much went nowhere from there. If these are anything like the ones we had, it's not indoctrination, it's just well intentioned discussion sessions that happen to be written and designed by ham fisted idiots.
Always my answer!!!

thatguywhojuggles

2nd November 2007, 08:16 AM

Go for it. However, by using the ridiculous definition that you stand by, how can we then move forward in discussing the issue? I notice when someone is shorter or taller than me... does that make me "heightist"? Is it ageism that I know my parents are older than me, and my nephew is younger?

When I hear someone say they are not racist it sounds arrogant, like they are somehow pure and better than others. By your definition I am not a racist. But I'd rather say we are all racist, just some are less (or more) racist than others. That way no one person can be put on the "I'm not a racist" pedestal on the simple grounds that they claim to not be a racist.

ETA - I don't see how my definition of racism hinders the discussion of the issue. If nothing else it simply states that we don't live in a black and white world (no pun intended) :) and no one should be free of scrutiny because they claim to "not be a racist."

tsg

2nd November 2007, 08:30 AM

When I hear someone say they are not racist it sounds arrogant, like they are somehow pure and better than others. By your definition I am not a racist. But I'd rather say we are all racist, just some are less (or more) racist than others. That way no one person can be put on the "I'm not a racist" pedestal on the simple grounds that they claim to not be a racist.

The problem with that is it can be used to validate racism. If we are all racist, who is anyone to complain about the racism of others?

Not being racist is not a virtue, it's a minimum of acceptable behavior. And, to paraphrase Chris Rock, taking credit for things you ought to be doing anyway is just dumb. "I treat all races equally." "Dammit, you're supposed to. What do you want, a cookie?"

We don't need to redefine the term into meaningless to prevent that from happening.

Tsukasa Buddha

2nd November 2007, 08:31 AM

Stout

2nd November 2007, 09:15 AM

Achán hiNidráne

2nd November 2007, 10:18 AM

If you are able to look at someone of another race and you are aware of the differences between yourself and them then you are racist.

Ummmm... no. Racism is a system of belief (note the "ism" part of the word). Everyone with a brain can notice factors like skin, eye, hair color or eye shape, but I also notice that the daytime sky looks different in than the night sky. I notice that my Brittany looks different than a German Shepherd. As long as we have functioning eyes and a brain we're going to notice differences.

Racism only comes into play when you believe that your particular arbitrary set of differences makes your group superior and all others inferior.

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 07:36 AM

Without a link, who can say?

What I can say is that it is possible to say some very rational and intelligent things about race, that could be dishonestly paraphrased as "all white people are racist" by someone with an anti-intellectual agenda.

LOL!

Yeah..that MUST be it!

I love this kind of thinking.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 07:37 AM

Ummmm... no. Racism is a system of belief (note the "ism" part of the word). Everyone with a brain can notice factors like skin, eye, hair color or eye shape, but I also notice that the daytime sky looks different in than the night sky. I notice that my Brittany looks different than a German Shepherd. As long as we have functioning eyes and a brain we're going to notice differences.

Racism only comes into play when you believe that your particular arbitrary set of differences makes your group superior and all others inferior.

Hmmm....so I believe that people trained and experienced in what I do, as a group, are better at what I do than people not trained and experienced in what I do...

I'm a racist?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 07:40 AM

More on this issue than you might care to read (http://s3.amazonaws.com/thefirecache/752.html)

So..it looks like this program is over, which is music to my ears at least because I'm getting sick of this radical definition of racism being applied to me as a white guy and stereotyping me as racist by default.

Couple that with topics like stealth racism (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=29272) and I find myself wondering whether I should just give up and become a racist since I appear to me automatically condemned to that fate anyway.

On the upside though, issues like this give me even less fear of the whole NWO thing as my speculation has the feared dystopia coming from the extreme political left rather than the religious right.

Not wishing to keep you up nights but...

The extreme left controls:
1. Our 'news' and entertainment media,
2. Our K-12 public schools,
3. Our colleges and universities,
4. Most government agencies where such distinctions matter: EPA, FDA, Interior Dept (Forrestry, Wildlife, etc.),
5. Most medium to large cities,
6. Most state governments,
7. Congress and the Senate and beg. in Jan of '09, the White House.

Be afraid...be very afraid.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 07:42 AM

Tch, what a propaganda story.

Look, I know what these programs involve. They aren't brainwashing. They are just presenting information and challenging the students to use critical thinking when it comes to their attitudes about race, sex, etc.

They don't fail you if you don't become a feminist afterwards.

And everyone is prejudiced. White people have the power to put that prejudice into action to become racist.

Critical thinking, defined (US college/univ version): being critical of traditional American values and traditions, and being critical of conservatives and their values.

No, actually, what they are doing is giving whole, useless Ethnic Studies depts at universities something to do that makes them feel like they are of some utility. It's also telling young white, heterosexual men that they are the bane of existence and should be ashamed of what they are.

Tokie

Jeff Corey

3rd November 2007, 08:07 AM

Critical thinking, defined (US college/univ version): being critical of traditional American values and traditions, and being critical of conservatives and their values...
Not in my course, Critical Thinking. The primary text is Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So and this definition is more accurate http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/crit2.html

baron

3rd November 2007, 08:43 AM

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 08:50 AM

The problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly, most people are ignorant as to what racism really is. Amazingly enough, describing one person as black and another as white isn't racism.

Secondly, there is so much hysteria surrounding the issue that it's rarely possible to have a sensible conversation about it. A person is either racist (i.e. bad) or non-racist (i.e. good). The concept of degrees of racism, let alone an acceptable threshhold of racism, cannot be brought up without a reflexive and outraged backlash. Common sense doesn't play a part.

Re the initial premise (non-existent link not withstanding) I'd say that from my experience, most people are racist to some degree (although try getting them to admit it). I am too, up to a point, although whether I deserve the label is another matter entirely.

Does that mean I burn the houses of black people or beat up Asians when I feel inclined? No, it means that I will occasionally make judgements based on generalisations or group statistics arising from ethnicity.

So when I say I'd rather have an Asian person or Japanese person as a neighbour instead of a white person, as I believe they are generally quieter and more polite, I'm being racist. But I don't care because that's what I think.

I would on no account go into business with a Nigerian, whereas I would have few if any biases against people from other countries. According to definition that's racist again.

Given a choice between walking home down two dark London alleys, one with a black gang at the end, one with a white gang, I'd choose the one with the white gang. Racist? Like it means anything.

And yet I defy anybody I interact with on a daily basis to call me racist on the basis of what they've experienced. On a social level I would never treat anybody detrimentally, or even consider doing so, based on their ethnicity. Anybody who does is ignorant at the very least.

So would I be considered racist? Who knows. Probably. And yet I don't give a stuff because the media-induced hysterics of the general populace that surround this issue mean as much to me as silly generic labels.

Sounds like you're in England, and I'd guess "racism" means something different from what it does here in the USofA.

Here, for example, if you are opposed to the virtual invasion of illegal aliens we are experiencing, that defines you as a racist.

However, if you extort money out of companies by threatening to go to the media and tell them that XYZ company is "racist," that makes you one of our most revered fighters for racial equality.

If you are a scientist interested in looking at the very real physical differences between those whose genetic heritage is mostly African, and those whose heritage is mostly European, you are a racist UNLESS, you are looking for some way to prove that those coming from Africa are somehow BETTER than those from Europe.

If you are a college prof who wants to teach Western Civ., but are less than enthusiastic about teaching that black Africans built the pyramids in Egypt, you are a racist.

And it gets even sillier when they want to call you a "sexist."

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd November 2007, 08:52 AM

Not in my course, Critical Thinking. The primary text is Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So and this definition is more accurate http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/crit2.html

Well, that's good.

Schools are different here, I guess.

I'd have to sit in on a few of your classes, of course, to see whether the stated curriculum is actually followed, or whether it's just a Bash Bush (and white, hetero Christian maleness) class.

Tokie

baron

3rd November 2007, 08:54 AM

Sounds like you're in England, and I'd guess "racism" means something different from what it does here in the USofA.

Here, for example, if you are opposed to the virtual invasion of illegal aliens we are experiencing, that defines you as a racist.

Yep, England, but you underestimate the similarities...

From today's paper (sorry to link to the Daily Mail but it's appropriate) #

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=491470&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=463&in_check=N

Jeff Corey

3rd November 2007, 09:01 AM

Well, that's good.

Schools are different here, I guess.

I'd have to sit in on a few of your classes, of course, to see whether the stated curriculum is actually followed, or whether it's just a Bash Bush (and white, hetero Christian maleness) class.

Tokie
Where is "here"? SoCal? Both my kids attended college there and never experienced what you describe.
As to attending my class, I'm afraid you'd have to pay to audit it. It's a private university.

Gregoire

3rd November 2007, 09:06 AM

Tch, what a propaganda story.

Look, I know what these programs involve. They aren't brainwashing. They are just presenting information and challenging the students to use critical thinking when it comes to their attitudes about race, sex, etc.

They don't fail you if you don't become a feminist afterwards.

And everyone is prejudiced. White people have the power to put that prejudice into action to become racist.

I don't quite agree. In my opinion.....

We are all human individuals before anything else. But we all come with the evolutionary baggage of the distrust of "others" who are different. All of us have choice whether to put this distrust of others into action to become racist.

But we also have the ability to use critical thinking skills to realize we are all human beings before anything else; hence tendencies of racism (or sexism etc.) (or even blind distrust of others simply because they are different) are irrational.:)

Gregoire

3rd November 2007, 09:14 AM

Not wishing to keep you up nights but...

The extreme left controls:
1. Our 'news' and entertainment media,
2. Our K-12 public schools,
3. Our colleges and universities,
4. Most government agencies where such distinctions matter: EPA, FDA, Interior Dept (Forrestry, Wildlife, etc.),
5. Most medium to large cities,
6. Most state governments,
7. Congress and the Senate and beg. in Jan of '09, the White House.

Be afraid...be very afraid.

Tokie

I agree that there are a lot of liberals within the organizations you cite. But really, how many are really "far left"? I mean that is not what I would call Hillary, for example.

pgwenthold

3rd November 2007, 10:37 AM

I agree that there are a lot of liberals within the organizations you cite. But really, how many are really "far left"? I mean that is not what I would call Hillary, for example.

Remember who are talking to. When viewed from the right of Rush Limbaugh (where Tokingcon is), the center looks awfully far to the left.

JoeEllison

3rd November 2007, 10:47 AM

Remember who are talking to. When viewed from the right of Rush Limbaugh (where Tokingcon is), the center looks awfully far to the left.
Yeah, which is the only reason that he's just wrong, and not also a liar. There's no "extreme left" in charge of ANYTHING in America. The center is so far to the left of where the right-wing has gone, that everything is to the extreme left of them, including a big chunk of Republican voters.

Tsukasa Buddha

3rd November 2007, 01:08 PM

Critical thinking, defined (US college/univ version): being critical of traditional American values and traditions, and being critical of conservatives and their values.

No, actually, what they are doing is giving whole, useless Ethnic Studies depts at universities something to do that makes them feel like they are of some utility. It's also telling young white, heterosexual men that they are the bane of existence and should be ashamed of what they are.

Tokie

Well, examining traditions is part of critical thinking.

And Ethnic Studies isn't useless. It is studying history and literature buried by cultural bias.

And no, they don't tell white heterosexual males to be ashamed of what they are. My course labeled such feelings of anger or guilt as one of the stages people go through in identity development.

fuelair

3rd November 2007, 03:43 PM

The problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly, most people are ignorant as to what racism really is. Amazingly enough, describing one person as black and another as white isn't racism.

Secondly, there is so much hysteria surrounding the issue that it's rarely possible to have a sensible conversation about it. A person is either racist (i.e. bad) or non-racist (i.e. good). The concept of degrees of racism, let alone an acceptable threshhold of racism, cannot be brought up without a reflexive and outraged backlash. Common sense doesn't play a part.

Re the initial premise (non-existent link not withstanding) I'd say that from my experience, most people are racist to some degree (although try getting them to admit it). I am too, up to a point, although whether I deserve the label is another matter entirely.

Does that mean I burn the houses of black people or beat up Asians when I feel inclined? No, it means that I will occasionally make judgements based on generalisations or group statistics arising from ethnicity.

So when I say I'd rather have an Asian person or Japanese person as a neighbour instead of a white person, as I believe they are generally quieter and more polite, I'm being racist. But I don't care because that's what I think.

I would on no account go into business with a Nigerian, whereas I would have few if any biases against people from other countries. According to definition that's racist again.

Given a choice between walking home down two dark London alleys, one with a black gang at the end, one with a white gang, I'd choose the one with the white gang. Racist? Like it means anything.

And yet I defy anybody I interact with on a daily basis to call me racist on the basis of what they've experienced. On a social level I would never treat anybody detrimentally, or even consider doing so, based on their ethnicity. Anybody who does is ignorant at the very least.

So would I be considered racist? Who knows. Probably. And yet I don't give a stuff because the media-induced hysterics of the general populace that surround this issue mean as much to me as silly generic labels.

I prefer the walking down alley choice in Florida - because I can be well armed so I really don't care - and I can fire if I have reasonable fear for my life.

Achán hiNidráne

3rd November 2007, 04:04 PM

Hmmm....so I believe that people trained and experienced in what I do, as a group, are better at what I do than people not trained and experienced in what I do...

I'm a racist?

Tokie

I said "arbitrary," meaning randomly and by chance. No one controls what skin color or ethnicity they are born into. Training and education are not arbitrary, and even then, preferring someone with a higher level of credentials is far, far different than believing that someone of a different skin color is somehow sub-human.

Not having read enough of your posts, I'm not in a position to call you a racist, but I can say that you're reading comprehension needs some work.

bpesta22

3rd November 2007, 04:15 PM

could someone here define race biologically so we can then address more accurately whether the white race is racist?

Tsukasa Buddha

3rd November 2007, 04:17 PM

could someone here define race biologically so we can then address more accurately whether the white race is racist?

Race is a social construct. We can define race in those terms to distinguish "whites".

Achán hiNidráne

3rd November 2007, 04:19 PM

Critical thinking, defined (US college/univ version): being critical of traditional American values and traditions, and being critical of conservatives and their values.

Oh please, spare me the "oppressed-white-male-Christian-conservative" bull.

You appear to make up a significant portion of this country's population. You've got most of the money. You have the White House. You have the Republican Party. You have a several major newspapers, a whole freaking cable tv news network and most of talk radio. You have several diploma-mills (Regency, Bob Jones, Liberty, etc.). Compare to every other minority group in American history, you're sitting damn pretty.

Criticism of your dumb ideas is NOT oppression, and allowing people whom the "white-male-Christian-conservative" has stepped on (e.g. non-whites, women, gays/lesbians/bisexuals, non-Christian/non-theists) over the years to gain the same rights and privileges you have isn't "oppression" either.

Ironic, is it? The last decade your side whined and screamed about "victimology" and "political correctness." Now it seems you've co-opted the ideas for your own purposes. Sad really.

bpesta22

3rd November 2007, 04:24 PM

Race is a social construct. We can define race in those terms to distinguish "whites".

What about mixed race people? Are they racist? Just seeing if we can define terms before attributing something to one race or another.

What if you can't really tell whether joe is white or black because of mixed parents. If you knew that joe self-reported himself as white, would that make him racist? What if he self reported as black?

Tsukasa Buddha

3rd November 2007, 04:41 PM

What about mixed race people? Are they racist? Just seeing if we can define terms before attributing something to one race or another.

What if you can't really tell whether joe is white or black because of mixed parents. If you knew that joe self-reported himself as white, would that make him racist? What if he self reported as black?

I could consider myself purple, it wouldn't matter. It is about what society views you as.

fuelair

3rd November 2007, 08:14 PM

Just as a side-note, my (and my wife's) primary physician is black - he likely saved my life
but we were with him long before that. My urologist is Hispanic, he did the surgery that probably saved my life. I am white and I am not racist. I would have to be an idiot to be racist - just due to that circumstance alone. (BTW, I am aware that Hispanic is locational not racial but nowadays many people don't seem to recognize that so.....)

Redtail

3rd November 2007, 09:01 PM

What about mixed race people? Are they racist? Just seeing if we can define terms before attributing something to one race or another.

No we are not because we are far too beautiful. Look at the avatar. Have you ever seen skin so light with a fro so soft? Nay. I think not.

What if you can't really tell whether joe is white or black because of mixed parents. If you knew that joe self-reported himself as white, would that make him racist? What if he self reported as black?Well, without the fro, many can't tell if I am Black or White. I tend to refer to myself as Black because growing up in a Black household in a Black neighborhood, I simply am closer to that culture. If pressed I use the term "Black and all that" because I think the only "races" I'm not are Asian and Arabic.

CplFerro

3rd November 2007, 09:07 PM

Oh please, spare me the "oppressed-white-male-Christian-conservative" bull.

You appear to make up a significant portion of this country's population...

Don't worry, Mr. Siefert, we'll be gone soon enough.

Estimated global white population 2000 A.D. = 700,000,000
Estimated global average white birth rate = 1.65
Estimated generation time = 25 years
Estimated miscegenation rate = 4%, doubling every generation from propaganda saturation, forced interaction, and changing population ratio (of course, a mandatory-race-mixing law would solve the white problem in a generation).

YEAR...............POPULATION....MISC.RATE
2000...............700,000,000....4%
2025...............527,990,400....8%
2050...............381,654,693....16%
2075...............257,884,839....32%
2100...............137,781,680....64%
2125................38,971,823....90% (maxes out based on pop. ratio)
2150..................3,062,016....90%
2175....................240,582....90%
2200......................18,902....90%

Classical culture and the best of Christianity will be flushed down the multicultural toilet along with the race most associated with them. So, as you can see, it will be a bright (but, not white) Toilet Duck future after all. Quack quack!

Cpl Ferro

bpesta22

3rd November 2007, 09:55 PM

No we are not because we are far too beautiful. Look at the avatar. Have you ever seen skin so light with a fro so soft? Nay. I think not.

Well, without the fro, many can't tell if I am Black or White. I tend to refer to myself as Black because growing up in a Black household in a Black neighborhood, I simply am closer to that culture. If pressed I use the term "Black and all that" because I think the only "races" I'm not are Asian and Arabic.

I admit I find you strangely arousing.

;)

ImaginalDisc

4th November 2007, 12:02 AM

Not wishing to keep you up nights but...

The extreme left controls:
1. Our 'news' and entertainment media,
You mean Time Warner, and Rupert Murdoch are lefties?

2. Our K-12 public schools,

Local public schools are managed differently state by state, and county by county. It's highly improbable that they're all "liberal."

3. Our colleges and universities,

Even those with outright conservative mission statements?

4. Most government agencies where such distinctions matter: EPA, FDA, Interior Dept (Forrestry, Wildlife, etc.),

How does "liberal" "matter" with regard to enforcing environmental legislation?

5. Most medium to large cities,

I'm sure that's news to the RMLO (http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/about/affiliate_organizations/elected_affiliates/RMLO_convention.html) (Republican Mayors and Local Officials.)

6. Most state governments,

That argument hinges on the laughable claim that the Democrats are liberal.

7. Congress and the Senate and beg. in Jan of '09, the White House.

One can only hope.

Wavicle

4th November 2007, 02:43 AM

When I first saw this I thought it must be a left/right/libertarian scaremongering site pushing an agenda.

After reading EVERYTHING however I was left with the impression that the charges leveled at the program were well supported.

Unless someone can show that FIRE is being libelous, what they are saying is true. The University materials really did tell RAs to ask the freshman 1-on-1 when they discovered their sexual identity. They really did make it a requirement to understand that there is marginalization and they are participating in it. The definition of racism, which states that all whites are racist and only whites are racist, really was in there.

Calling it "Idealogical Reeducation" is perhaps a bit extreme, but not entirely unfair.

Stout

4th November 2007, 07:12 AM

Wavicle..I agree. I've spent time amongst the politically correct and I can really only describe their views as "scary" I actually found myself wishing I was an ethnic minority, or gay, or some sort of dissident, something, anything....so I could actually get in on the conversations rather than feeling like I was "the enemy"

Maybe I live in some sort of paradise where issues like racism and sexism aren't a part of my daily life but come to me as media issues only. The difficulty I find is trying to attribute different levels of "importance" to articles I read.

For instance, tis the season to start hearing about the war on Christmas. Where, as a secular kinda guy, do I put this ? Personally I have no relationship to the religious aspect of the season, but I sure do like the sparkly lights and mulled wine, so when someone tries to take that away from me, in favour of some other "religious" ceremony. How should I react?

I get pissed off..usually. I can see the point about not wanting manger scenes in public spaces. But Christmas trees ?? come on.

How about the ACLU vs the Boy Scouts issue. A secular prepubescent Stout had a great time in that organization back in the 1960s, 70s. and now I find it under attack because of it's religious views.

I dunno..maybe I should file this all under cowspoo and develop an opinion that the conservatives, or religious right are trying to join in on the whole orgy of "we're ALL victims" that the politically correct so love to wallow in.

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 07:13 AM

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 07:15 AM

I dunno..maybe I should file this all under cowspoo and develop an opinion that the conservatives, or religious right are trying to join in on the whole orgy of "we're ALL victims" that the politically correct so love to wallow in.

Given that the 'War on Christmas" is a right-wing strawman, I'd say they are solidly there already.

Stout

4th November 2007, 10:10 AM

Tokenconservative

4th November 2007, 10:37 AM

What about mixed race people? Are they racist? Just seeing if we can define terms before attributing something to one race or another.

What if you can't really tell whether joe is white or black because of mixed parents. If you knew that joe self-reported himself as white, would that make him racist? What if he self reported as black?

I saw a clip of Osama Obama "dancing" on The Soup.

He looked white to me.

Hell..._I_ dance more "black" than that!

Tokie

Tokenconservative

4th November 2007, 10:40 AM

Tokenconservative

4th November 2007, 10:49 AM

Stout

4th November 2007, 10:51 AM

Damn...there was supposed to be a "to" before the far left phrase.

No dreads here, no Che tees ( murderous thug ) either, just plain ole boring nondescript lazy-ass I'm an artist so I have an excuse for dressing like a slob jeans, track pants and whatever else is laying on the floor serves as a uniform to me.

I can get behind the whole it's Bush's fault thing though. I have issues with the American federal government and Bush is as good a target as any when I feel like ranting about them.

Jeff Corey

4th November 2007, 10:59 AM

I saw a clip of Osama Obama "dancing" on The Soup.

He looked white to me.

Hell..._I_ dance more "black" than that!

Tokie

Why am I reminded of a scene from Blazing Saddles?
(Camp town ladies sing this song...)

Stout

4th November 2007, 11:01 AM

Tokie...see that's the problem, the far left is leaving me no choice but to either join them and go a marchin' in the streets..or become you.

In an effort to avoid becoming conservative, I've tried to avoid the far left, even to the point of deluding myself that they simply gave up and went away. It would have worked, were it not for this damned internet.

I've got a local issue I'm trying to discuss over on another board. Hey it was the only board I could find that addressed that issue and going in there with my skeptical non-believer attitude has so far gotten me labeled as a racist, sexist troll.

I'm beginning to think that discussion outside the approved party framework is nigh on impossible with these guys but every once in a while they display just enough of what I'd consider common sense to keep me involved in the conversation.

On the upside though, if I ever want to get into a flame war for my own sick amusement, I now have the perfect place to do it as this seems to be the norm over on that board.

CFLarsen

4th November 2007, 11:20 AM

Why am I reminded of a scene from Blazing Saddles?
(Camp town ladies sing this song...)

Baby. I'm not from Havana.

fuelair

4th November 2007, 12:07 PM

Don't worry, Mr. Siefert, we'll be gone soon enough.

Estimated global white population 2000 A.D. = 700,000,000
Estimated global average white birth rate = 1.65
Estimated generation time = 25 years
Estimated miscegenation rate = 4%, doubling every generation from propaganda saturation, forced interaction, and changing population ratio (of course, a mandatory-race-mixing law would solve the white problem in a generation).

YEAR...............POPULATION....MISC.RATE
2000...............700,000,000....4%
2025...............527,990,400....8%
2050...............381,654,693....16%
2075...............257,884,839....32%
2100...............137,781,680....64%
2125................38,971,823....90% (maxes out based on pop. ratio)
2150..................3,062,016....90%
2175....................240,582....90%
2200......................18,902....90%

Classical culture and the best of Christianity will be flushed down the multicultural toilet along with the race most associated with them. So, as you can see, it will be a bright (but, not white) Toilet Duck future after all. Quack quack!

Cpl Ferro
You certainly worry about the inconsequential here a lot.:)

Jeff Corey

4th November 2007, 12:08 PM

"Fifteen is my limit on schnitzengruben."

Redtail

4th November 2007, 01:30 PM

Baby. I'm not from Havana.

Blazing Saddles is one of my favorite movies and I have never gotten that joke.:(

Jeff Corey

4th November 2007, 04:54 PM

Blazing Saddles is one of my favorite movies and I have never gotten that joke.:(

"Superman" was a star in pre-Castro Havana sex shows.

fuelair

4th November 2007, 05:07 PM

[
Never mind - missed which joke was referred to. Mea culpa!!

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 05:20 PM

Quixotecyote. I don't agree that you did a good job in showing that this issue has been misreported over on the other thread. You did however suggest that you agree with the radical definition of racism ( ALL whites.....) and that the only way for a white guy to avoid being automatically being branded with the label of racist was to adopt am alternative political stance and actively work against the white power structure.

I'm not willing to change my political attitudes, which, today at least could probably be described as a little left of center, waaaaaayyyy over to the far left just to avoid being labeled.

The war on Christmas is a strawman ? OK.

I'm not agreeing with them, as such. There definition of racism is made redundant by the way they define prejudice. My point was that if you accept their definitions for the purposes of the program, they aren't saying anything objectionable. Given that the words they are using have strong connotations outside the program, it was a mistake to use words that could get them pilloried in the media so easily.

As for the War on Christmas, it's a Bill O'Reilly phrase. No one is trying to destroy Christmas, especially not liberals. I found no references to liberal movements to ban sparkling lights and mulled wine. The only references I found to movements against Christmas trees were members of other religions complaining; rabbis and such. And even then, I don't see how moving the symbols of Christmas to private property is a 'War on Christmas". the whole thing is just a propaganda ploy to demonize the left.

TuftedPuffin

4th November 2007, 06:35 PM

Don't worry, Mr. Siefert, we'll be gone soon enough.

Estimated global white population 2000 A.D. = 700,000,000
Estimated global average white birth rate = 1.65
Estimated generation time = 25 years
Estimated miscegenation rate = 4%, doubling every generation from propaganda saturation, forced interaction, and changing population ratio (of course, a mandatory-race-mixing law would solve the white problem in a generation).

YEAR...............POPULATION....MISC.RATE
2000...............700,000,000....4%
2025...............527,990,400....8%
2050...............381,654,693....16%
2075...............257,884,839....32%
2100...............137,781,680....64%
2125................38,971,823....90% (maxes out based on pop. ratio)
2150..................3,062,016....90%
2175....................240,582....90%
2200......................18,902....90%

Classical culture and the best of Christianity will be flushed down the multicultural toilet along with the race most associated with them. So, as you can see, it will be a bright (but, not white) Toilet Duck future after all. Quack quack!

Cpl Ferro

Shouldn't your miscegenation rate be working in the opposite direction? I would think that having kids with members of more prolific ethnic groups would increase the number of one's offspring, not lower it.

TuftedPuffin

4th November 2007, 06:37 PM

If half of the stuff being said about the University of Delaware's program is true, I would love it if my school adopted it. Not because I'd listen, but because it would give me a great opportunity to mess with people's minds....

Stout

4th November 2007, 06:52 PM

Quixotecyote....It's the definition of racism that will be remembered, but hopefully discarded, after the students leave the program. I'm just glad to see that the U of Del realised this program was way over the top and cancelled it right away. We can only speculate what actually happened at the university, as in who knew what about the program. So I need not fear a resurgence of 1990's style PCness in the near future.

I'm familiar enough with that definition of racism, and the feminist counterpart that I find it always necessary to determine just what we're going to use as a definition before the conversation can even get off the ground.

OK..war on Christmas=big load of bunk. I spent about half an hour with the google and, indeed it's more of a buy my book, write an editorial that people will talk about, class of issue. A local politician tried the no Christmas trees back in those 90s, got shouted down for it and it's basically been a non-issue since then. I'll feel free to ignore mention of it in the media this upcoming season.

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 07:01 PM

I see nothing to disagree with there :)

CplFerro

4th November 2007, 08:25 PM

Shouldn't your miscegenation rate be working in the opposite direction? I would think that having kids with members of more prolific ethnic groups would increase the number of one's offspring, not lower it.

Dear Puffin,

The race is not the lineage. A mixed-race couple produces non-white children. If this seems unclear, suppose during a given generation the entire white population race-mixes. The result would hardly be a generation of white children, rather, a generation of half-breeds. If you don't care, you don't care, but, let's not suffer illusions of mixing somehow increasing the race.

Cpl Ferro

LostAngeles

4th November 2007, 08:29 PM

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 08:30 PM

CplFerro

4th November 2007, 08:42 PM

It also produces non-black children. And non-Asian children. And non-Native-American children. And non-Middle Eastern children. And...

Dear Lost,

Indeed. The difference being, none of those races are disappearing, or being encouraged to disappear.

Cpl Ferro

CplFerro

4th November 2007, 08:53 PM

It's funny how racism has developed. During the Conquista, it was every good Spaniard's duty to mate with the natives in order to 'improve the breed'.

Dear coyote,

It's hard to have a notion of self-preservation when one thinks of one's homeland as inexhaustible. Did the Spaniards ever worry about being outnumbered in Spain by invading aliens? Probably not since the battle of Tours. Add to that that explorers and sailors tend to be rather lusty types, and it's hardly surprising they did what they did.

Cpl Ferro

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 09:04 PM

Dear coyote,

It's hard to have a notion of self-preservation when one thinks of one's homeland as inexhaustible. Did the Spaniards ever worry about being outnumbered in Spain by invading aliens? Probably not since the battle of Tours. Add to that that explorers and sailors tend to be rather lusty types, and it's hardly surprising they did what they did.

Cpl Ferro
I love your terms.

self-preservation!

invading aliens!

Such high drama :tragedy:

CplFerro

4th November 2007, 09:30 PM

I love your terms.

self-preservation!

invading aliens!

Such high drama :tragedy:

Dear coyote,

It's doubtful you love anything, or could appreciate the great dramas. You are a postmodern nihilist. If I could show the Allied soldiers of 1942 people like you, I would, and they would throw down their guns in despair at what their victory would lead to.

Cpl Ferro

quixotecoyote

4th November 2007, 11:26 PM

ImaginalDisc

5th November 2007, 07:31 AM

No we are not because we are far too beautiful. Look at the avatar. Have you ever seen skin so light with a fro so soft? Nay. I think not.

I want to steal that for the name of a hair care product:

"FroSoSoft - It leaves your hair shiny, manageable, and completely badass."

LostAngeles

5th November 2007, 09:34 AM

Dear Lost,

Indeed. The difference being, none of those races are disappearing, or being encouraged to disappear.

Cpl Ferro

Well that doesn't make any sense at all.

The folks that are, "helping the white race disappear," have to be interbreeding with some other group. Anyone with whom they interbreed have not contributed those offspring to his/her racial group. Ergo, those races are also disappearing. You also neglect the interbreeding between non-white groups as well. So while the rates may be different due to overall population size, those groups are also disappearing to interbreeding.

I'd like to know two things:

1)Where you get the idea that the white race is being, "encouraged," to disappear (I will not take Prussian Blue or anything related to same as a source.)

2)What, exactly, is wrong with races blending? Aside from being doomed to XenonII's hell.

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 09:58 AM

allow me to recap

Me: You are being overdramatic.

You: If only you knew love! Instead you desire the death of all things! Oh if only our brave soldiers knew of your depravity they would throw down arms in despair.

IOW, QED

Dramatic?

Yes, the Allied soldiers fought for race-mixing! And, abortion! And, the Military-Nintendo Complex! And, hedonic consumerism! And the post-industrial, globalised economy! And, unlimited unassimilable immigration! And, Marxist-Freudian Feminism! And, Postmodern Nihilism! And, Queer Theory taught to five year olds! And, speech-crime laws! And, militant atheism and the de-Christianisation of public life! And, Strassian fascism, mercenary oil wars, and the dismantlement of the Bill of Rights! Our brave soldiers fought so that the President can have the right to torture children in the name of the universal, eternal Terror War!

You dare accuse me of depravity--you are a fish swimming in it, and would never be able to recognise such a thing. Nothing would convince you, for you are an ahistorical serf, who values no tradition, no race, no language, no culture, no religion, no national sovereignty, nothing except his own overweening arrogance in the face of those who seek to preserve what those brave soldiers he dishonours fought for. Am I depraved? How could I not be? What's left except to be a fish like you, in this ocean of sterility?

And, of course, as usual, seeking to stop white genocide equals nihilism. Everyone knows that the white race is the cancer of human history, and the sooner we're wiped off the face of the Earth, the sooner the rest of humanity can live in multicultural bliss. All I take solace in is the knowledge that when we are gone, classical humanism will perish with us, and probably the guts of Christendom as well, and with that, you can flush global civilisation down back into the wretched cycles of tyranny it was stuck in before Europa arose.

Cpl Ferro

volatile

5th November 2007, 10:08 AM

I find it quite amusing insane that you're defending the Bill of Rights and the hegemony of the "white race" in the same post.

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 10:16 AM

I find it quite amusing insane that you're defending the Bill of Rights and the hegemony of the "white race" in the same post.

Dear volatile,

Really, why's that?

Cpl Ferro

volatile

5th November 2007, 10:33 AM

Dear volatile,

Really, why's that?

Cpl Ferro

Well, mainly because twisted, anti-rational racism is kinda antithetical to any declaration of inalienable rights, y'know?

By the way, did you ever manage to actually define what the "white race" actually was, seeing how, genetically, it doesn't actually exist?

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 10:53 AM

Well, mainly because twisted, anti-rational racism is kinda antithetical to any declaration of inalienable rights, y'know?

By the way, did you ever manage to actually define what the "white race" actually was, seeing how, genetically, it doesn't actually exist?

Dear volatile,

Race has a genetic substrate, like dog breeds, but, as with them, the essence is artistic, not scientific. I have no interest in the "race doesn't exist" nonsense--that is coming from the same kind of reductionists who will argue that the human mind "is just biomolecular activity" or that ideas are "just computed information" or somessuch. I know what I see, interact with, and have read sufficient data on temperament, IQ, crime rates, and the like to grasp that humanity comes in breeds. These breeds have artistic value, respectively they are part of us, our heritage, and our metaphors of communication, and to let any one of them disappear by falsely setting national preservation at odds with "inalienable rights" (which almost no one nowadays even knows the foundation for anyway), is high treason. Without race there is no reason for nation-states to exist, for there is no "nation" any more, just a state ruling a polyglot mass, and, indeed, that is what is being pushed for: the dissolution of all nations, and the merging of all states into a global government. But, the brainless fishies won't believe that until it actually happens, by which time they will have learned to enjoy eating those juicy worms that magically appear before them.

Cpl Ferro

volatile

5th November 2007, 11:04 AM

Race has a genetic substrate, like dog breeds, but, as with them, the essence is artistic, not scientific. I have no interest in the "race doesn't exist" nonsense--that is coming from the same kind of reductionists who will argue that the human mind "is just biomolecular activity"

It is.

or that ideas are "just computed information" or somessuch.They are. (Kinda.)

I know what I see, interact with, and have read sufficient data on temperament, IQ, crime rates, and the like to grasp that humanity comes in breeds. You're reading lies.

These breeds have artistic value,Inherently? Really? Care to elaborate on that?

respectively they are part of us, our heritage, and our metaphors of communication, and to let any one of them disappear by falsely setting national preservation at odds with "inalienable rights" (which almost no one nowadays even knows the foundation for anyway), is high treason.How does race-mixing cause our heritage to disappear? Furthermore, how do you propose to counteract such race-mixing without infringing upon the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States you so adore?

Without race there is no reason for nation-states to exist, for there is no "nation" any more, just a state ruling a polyglot mass, and, indeed, that is what is being pushed for: the dissolution of all nations, and the merging of all states into a global government. Whoa there. What?! Exactly how do you draw the conclusion that race-mixing effaces nationality? The children of mixed race parents don't ascribe a nationality to themselves? And even if it was, why is that an inherently bad thing anyway?

Your ideas are paranoid, ill-informed, conspiratorial, wacky and stupid. Sorry, but there it is.

Race doesn't exist at the biological level - it's a social construct. On top of that, "The White Race" doesn't even exist as a social construct - you conflate Nordic, Celtic, Britannic and numerous other real cultures (with real histories) into one, absurd "white race" that never even existed socially.

If an Irishman breeds with a French woman, how is that not denigrating their individual cultures, by your model? It doesn't make any sense, and it's not even internally consistent.

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 11:53 AM

Dear volatile,

As you are a reductionist, essentially believing that the universe is ruled by entropy (see chaos worship, above), discussing matters of either science or art with you is immaterial.

If you would like to escape reductionism and find out more about the actual human mind, you can investigate the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement ( http://wlym.com/tiki/tiki-index.php) and listen to some art lectures.

If you would like to know more about racial IQ rates, you can read the work of Philippe Rushton ( http://www.vdare.com/rushton/index.htm), who has spent a goodly amount of time at it and knows more about the subject than you do, but, is no doubt part of the vast white supremacist IQ-testing conspiracy, so, cum grano salis.

Race-mixing genocides the race, obviously, and there are few better ways of erasing a culture than by erasing the people who created that culture and replacing them with those of different race, language, culture, and religion. Not to mention the simple erasure of the phenotype itself.

The Constitution would have to be amended to accommodate a new understanding of race as an artistic principle of nature, along which heterosexuality and the supremacy of Christian civilisation. Once the media has been regulated and immigration reduced to a trickle, and traditional culture reinvigorated based on these new understandings, race-mixing will drop and begin to be perceived as neurotic. On media, I don’t accept that the First Amendment applies to corporate propaganda, which is what films, television programmes and advertisements are. There will be regulation, not book burning.

If Belgium (population 10 million), absorbed 20 million racial aliens, in what sense wouldn’t the Belgian nationality be irrevocably partly erased? And, if half the host population race-mixes, leaving 5 host, and 25 alien millions, whither Belgium then? I find people’s inability to conceive of this, astounding evidence of the destruction of reason.

The white race is not homogeneous; it is divided into roughly four subraces—Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Slavic, and these are in turn divided into nationalities which have mixed and migrated over the years to create a patchwork of race, subrace, ethnicity. The tolerability of all manner of mixing, on the ethnic-aesthetic level, is related to the relativity of the two groups. A tiny amount of race-mixing is not a problem. A small amount of subrace-mixing is not a problem. And a moderate amount of national mixing is not a problem. None of these things destroys the integrity of the group. An Irishman mating with a Frenchwoman is significantly different, but, hardly damages the population of either. Now, were the entire population of Ireland to move to France, then there would be a problem, and the host population would protest, which they have every right to do. It’s a matter of balance, something that today's pro-genocide extremists are insensate to.

Cpl Ferro

volatile

5th November 2007, 12:06 PM

Dear volatile,

As you are a reductionist, essentially believing that the universe is ruled by entropy (see chaos worship, above), discussing matters of either science or art with you is immaterial.

Hey, guess what CP? I teach Art History at a major British university, and am interviewing for a position teaching a course called "Art and Science" at another. You might learn something discussing art and science with me.

If you would like to escape reductionism and find out more about the actual human mind, you can investigate the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement (http://wlym.com/tiki/tiki-index.php) and listen to some art lectures.No thanks. I don't tend to enjoy the opinions on art of those inspired by conspiracy theorists and Anti-Semites. Sorry.

Try some real art theory - look at Deleuze or Heidigger.

If you would like to know more about racial IQ rates, you can read the work of Philippe Rushton (http://www.vdare.com/rushton/index.htm), who has spent a goodly amount of time at it and knows more about the subject than you do, but, is no doubt part of the vast white supremacist IQ-testing conspiracy, so, cum grano salis.No thanks. I don't enjoy science written by racist nutjobs.

Race-mixing genocides the race, obviously, and there are few better ways of erasing a culture than by erasing the people who created that culture and replacing them with those of different race, language, culture, and religion. Not to mention the simple erasure of the phenotype itself.Riiiiggghhhhttt....

So my next question is "What is 'white culture', and what has been 'lost'"? Have you ever been to a museum, art gallery, or university recently?

The white race is not homogeneous;Exactly. So why do you persist that black-white mixing is genocide, but, say, French-Irish mixing is OK?

it is divided into roughly four subraces—Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Slavic, and these are in turn divided into nationalities which have mixed and migrated over the years to create a patchwork of race, subrace, ethnicity. The tolerability of all manner of mixing, on the ethnic-aesthetic level, is related to the relativity of the two groups. A tiny amount of race-mixing is not a problem. A small amount of subrace-mixing is not a problem. And a moderate amount of national mixing is not a problem. None of these things destroys the integrity of the group. An Irishman mating with a Frenchwoman is significantly different, but, hardly damages the population of either. Why not? How is this different from a Moroccan 'mating' with a Frenchwoman? Why does French culture survive mixing with Irish people, but not with Moroccan people?

Now, were the entire population of Ireland to move to France, then there would be a problem, and the host population would protest, which they have every right to do. It’s a matter of balance, something that today's pro-genocide extremists are insensate to.
But you're not talking about entire populations moving. You're talking about mixed-race procreation at any level at all.

I'll repeat: there is no such thing as the "white race", biologically or culturally, thus to talk about its "destruction" is absurd.

Tsukasa Buddha

5th November 2007, 01:37 PM

Ah, crazy-ville.

So why is our current view of race appropriate? Why not divide people by the color of their hair, the arch of their feet, or the gap between their front teeth?

And why should the mutation of a single gene influencing the amount of melanin in the skin determine one's IQ?

And we get along here splendidly with mixed races in the government in the city. My State's two senators are one black and one white.

technoextreme

5th November 2007, 02:48 PM

Well, without the fro, many can't tell if I am Black or White. I tend to refer to myself as Black because growing up in a Black household in a Black neighborhood, I simply am closer to that culture. If pressed I use the term "Black and all that" because I think the only "races" I'm not are Asian and Arabic.
Fros are utterly useless to distinguish race. I knew someone who could grow a fro. He was Swedish.

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 03:11 PM

Dear volatile,

Oh, Heidegger, a Nazi! Yes, a fine recommendation coming from you who make the common fallacy of presuming that wrong politics means wrong facts.

If you think the WLYM know nothing about art and science, you have wasted your education and work for a degree mill. And, if the WLYM are anti-Jewish, they sure fooled me, all that talk about Moses Mendellson and Philo, it must be a cover for a stealth pogrom.

Our culture has already been effectively lost. No commoner knows what “classical humanism” is anymore, or why it possibly matters. If it’s not on television now, it doesn’t exist.

I’ve already answered your questions on race, subrace, ethnicity, and culture. Further discussion of culture will only run into dissembling from you about how all cultures are equal, there is no such thing as distinct culture, etc.. You would have made a fine fifth column member during the Moslem invasions of Europe.

If there is no such thing as white people, or race, then there can be no such thing as genocide. Even the Nazis weren’t audacious enough to deny the categorical existence of the people they killed! That’s a brilliant strategy to convince a group to commit suicide.

Cpl Ferro

JoeEllison

5th November 2007, 04:10 PM

Next, we'll hear the racist claim that America is a "white country"... oh joy.:rolleyes:

LostAngeles

5th November 2007, 05:31 PM

Cpl Ferro, could you respond to my questions, please? Again:

Well that doesn't make any sense at all.

The folks that are, "helping the white race disappear," have to be interbreeding with some other group. Anyone with whom they interbreed have not contributed those offspring to his/her racial group. Ergo, those races are also disappearing. You also neglect the interbreeding between non-white groups as well. So while the rates may be different due to overall population size, those groups are also disappearing to interbreeding.

I'd like to know two things:

1)Where you get the idea that the white race is being, "encouraged," to disappear (I will not take Prussian Blue or anything related to same as a source.)

2)What, exactly, is wrong with races blending? Aside from being doomed to XenonII's hell.

If you could address those, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

volatile

5th November 2007, 05:35 PM

Dear volatile,

Oh, Heidegger, a Nazi! Yes, a fine recommendation coming from you who make the common fallacy of presuming that wrong politics means wrong facts.

The point was that if you're going to ask a Nazi about art, you might be better off picking one who actually knew about art, and who wasn't bat-poo crazy to boot. LaRouche said Queen Elizabeth was responsible for bringing heroin into the UK for Ed's sake - why should I take him or his followers seriously on anything?

If you think the WLYM know nothing about art and science, you have wasted your education and work for a degree mill. And, if the WLYM are anti-Jewish, they sure fooled me, all that talk about Moses Mendellson and Philo, it must be a cover for a stealth pogrom.

My university department rated 5 in its last RAE. It certainly isn't a diploma mill, thanks.

And as for the WLYM's anti-Semitism - see http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html, which asserts that

"LaRouche, never one to miss a cue, soon was running articles in his newspaper New Solidarity with themes that betrayed increasingly bigoted view of Jews and Jewish institutions. By the end of 1976, LaRouche had completed his drift to the extremist-right of the political spectrum where his bigoted conspiracy theories linking international bankers, influential Jewish families, furtive KGB agents, and secret societes found fertile ground.

Soon LaRouche was expounding a view linking certain Jewish institutions and Zionist movements to a plot to destroy Western civilization and usher in a "New Dark Age." Linda Ray thinks that more recent LaRouche converts are not even aware of the group's real history, nor of the cult-like inner circle which controls the secret financial operations.

Opportunistic or not, LaRouche's erratic lurch to the right brought gains to the NCLC in membership and financial strength. Yet his right-wing theories and affiliations are still opaque to many observers who dismiss LaRouche on the basis of his cranky conspiratorial world view and general lunacy."

I hadn't heard about him until today, but I am yet to be convinced that he or his followers are anything but right-wing, conspiratorial ideologues with a pernicious and malicious agenda.

Our culture has already been effectively lost. No commoner knows what “classical humanism” is anymore, or why it possibly matters. If it’s not on television now, it doesn’t exist.

Agreed. What does this have to do with race?

I’ve already answered your questions on race, subrace, ethnicity, and culture. Further discussion of culture will only run into dissembling from you about how all cultures are equal, there is no such thing as distinct culture, etc.. You would have made a fine fifth column member during the Moslem invasions of Europe.

You didn't answer. You evaded the questions.

Why does French/Irish mixing not cause the "genocide" of the French, but French/Moroccan mixing does? Please explain.

Of course cultures are distinct. I just don't order them hierarchically as you do, nor seek to preserve them by artificial and arbitrary means.

You also failed to answer by what means this supposed "genocide" be prevented. Please elaborate your pragmatic program for the maintenance of the "white race".

If there is no such thing as white people, or race, then there can be no such thing as genocide.

Now you're getting it.

Even the Nazis weren’t audacious enough to deny the categorical existence of the people they killed!

The Jews were and are a culturally-specific group. "The White Race" has no such provenance, as you yourself admitted. How can you preserve something that doesn't exist in the first place?

I'll repeat again: there is no such thing as the white race, genetically or culturally. Your assertions are paranoid and insane. Furthermore, any pragmatic methodology for maintaining the artificial "purity" of this non-existent race would be, to put it bluntly, inhuman. It would require either legistlation or cultural shift to actively demonise mixed-race procreation, and that, my friend, is something we very sensibly left behind a hundred years ago.

You're backward, ignorant and dangerous. That you wrap your idiocy in a veneer of seemingly high-minded prose just makes it all the more disheartening. Clearly you're capabale of learning; you've just chosen not to. That, dear Corporal Ferro, is called wilful ignorance.

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 06:40 PM

Well that doesn't make any sense at all.

The folks that are, "helping the white race disappear," have to be interbreeding with some other group. Anyone with whom they interbreed have not contributed those offspring to his/her racial group. Ergo, those races are also disappearing. You also neglect the interbreeding between non-white groups as well. So while the rates may be different due to overall population size, those groups are also disappearing to interbreeding.

I'd like to know two things:

1)Where you get the idea that the white race is being, "encouraged," to disappear (I will not take Prussian Blue or anything related to same as a source.)

2)What, exactly, is wrong with races blending? Aside from being doomed to XenonII's hell.

Dear LA,

No, a surplus of the alien races is disappearing; unless you know otherwise, only whites actually have an adjusted (i.e. for mixing) suicidal birthrate.

(1) Immigration, abortion (the "population bomb" hoax), mass-media race-mixing propaganda, hedonic consumerism, are the chief contributors, abetted and welcomed by culturally Marxist Universities in the mould of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. As Susan Sontag put it, "The white race is the cancer of human history."

(2) The same thing that's wrong with blending all dogs together and erasing centuries of separate bloodlines. As I wrote, a tiny amount of race-mixing, while not wonderful, is not a problem.

Cpl Ferro

CplFerro

5th November 2007, 07:17 PM

Dear volatile,

LaRouche isn’t a Nazi. He's the leading force in exposing and attacking contemporary manifestations of Nazism, actually. And, please quote this Queen Elizabeth assertion, rather than skimming the scum of people who’ve made it their life’s mission to slander and distort genius.

On LaRouchian anti-Jewish “bigoted views” please quote something direct. No doubt, of course, that anyone who implicates any Jew or Jewish organisation in anything nefarious must be insane, evil, etc..

The problem that people encounter with themselves when encountering LaRouche, is that to understand him one must actually read things that he writes, and, even worse, work on understanding them. This is beyond the capabilities or desires of almost everyone, so they are content with material from anti-LaRouche agents.

When it comes to classical humanism, and I’ve tried in vain to explain this to the LaRouchians, this culture is mostly the product of white people, who are the ones in the paintings, as the sculptures, whose names are on the books, etc.. This makes the white race the most natural patriot for reconnecting with this culture. Wipe us out and this culture becomes increasingly alienated from the rest of the world, who are too busy agitating for their cultures to bother resurrecting classical humanism en toto.

French/Irish mixing doesn’t cause racial genocide, it causes ethnic genocide. Since ethnicities are looser affiliations than races, being less distinct from one another than from alien races, the tolerance level of this sort of genocide is higher. French/Moroccan mixing directly destroys the race, so the tolerance is lower. France can recover from either, but, more easily from Irish than from Moroccan. The present 25% non-white situation in France is an example of a bad and increasingly worse situation in this regard. Beside the cultural distortion, France could not absorb 30% non-white blood and remain French, any more than you could make me 30% Negro and have me remain white.

Any specific program must have full account of the situation, which would be a task for the government. In general outline, one part is to turn off the immigration taps. That would necessitate a world-wide infrastructure-based development plan, akin to what Franklin Roosevelt envisaged for the post-war period, in order to repair the damage the Anglo-American imperial faction has done to the Third World, and make those countries worth living in so that the people there aren’t desperate to leave and come here. Another part is to take control of the media, nationalise it, and end corporate propaganda of all kinds, including race-mixing propaganda, and put in place a culture of beauty akin to what the Schiller Institute (www.schillerinstitute.org) has in mind. The development of an appreciation of racial beauty would be part of this, and without artificial forces people should snap back to sanity fairly easily.

The Holocaust is trumpeted as “genocide” over and over. If there can be no such thing as genocide, then it must be renamed. “Systemic massacre” or the like. Somehow I’m sure you and the others will find a way to keep that word, however. [Origin: 1940–45; < Gk géno(s) race + -CIDE ]

Your insistence that white people don’t exist makes you an accessory to genocide. You hate us and want us extinguished, and everything associated with us, too, which is precisely what your philosophical and media programmers want you to think. Nothing could be more backward, ignorant, and dangerous than to follow the herd.

Cpl Ferro

LostAngeles

5th November 2007, 07:34 PM

Dear LA,

No, a surplus of the alien races is disappearing; unless you know otherwise, only whites actually have an adjusted (i.e. for mixing) suicidal birthrate.

(1) Immigration, abortion (the "population bomb" hoax), mass-media race-mixing propaganda, hedonic consumerism, are the chief contributors, abetted and welcomed by culturally Marxist Universities in the mould of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. As Susan Sontag put it, "The white race is the cancer of human history."

(2) The same thing that's wrong with blending all dogs together and erasing centuries of separate bloodlines. As I wrote, a tiny amount of race-mixing, while not wonderful, is not a problem.

Cpl Ferro

What, "alien races?" Do we have visitors from Alpha Centauri hanging around? You can't possibly mean people coming into the United States can you? When whites would be the initial, "alien race," to this continent? Come on.

As to (1), what the hell are you talking about? Could you perhaps provide some facts and not vague assertions?

Addressing point (2), I don't understand what is wrong with, "blending all dogs," together. Why is an increase in the genetic diversity of a population a bad thing?

bpesta22

5th November 2007, 08:03 PM

LostAngeles

5th November 2007, 08:14 PM

Dismissing Rushton as a racist nutjob seems incredibly ad hom. Have you read any of his work?

If anyone's interested we had a large thread on race and IQ (so as not to derail this one):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96279

I think the problem here is people are treating racism as black and white (a dichotomy) when it's likely a complex construct with many aspects (and I'd bet there's academic literature on this showing different dimensions and subsets of the construct).

I might have no problem hiring a qualified black person to work for me, but maybe I am uncomfortable with my daughter marrying a black person. Does that make me racist?

If you treat racism as all or none then the answer has to be yes, but then you lose the ability between to distinguish between the guy who ponders whether referring to denzel as black is racist vs. the guy above vs. the skinhead.

Plus, there's a distinction between beliefs and actions. What if a person were convinced that whites were smarter than blacks (racist) but because of this belief, he/she devoted large effort toward doing something about it (e.g., he championed civil rights stuff, or became a lawyer defending minorities, or a scientist trying to find a solution to the problem). Would this person be racist?

Actually, it depends.

If you're uncomfortable with your child marrying a black person because the person is black, then yes. You're a racist. You've decided that the person is inferior or not up to snuff solely on the basis of their skin color.

If you're uncomfortable with your child marrying a black person because that person is not a good person or because you don't think they'll get along very well, then you are not a racist.

Remember what King said about his dream? Where people are judged on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin? If you judge someone on the color of their skin and you aren't assessing something like, say, melanoma risks, then odds are, you're a racist.

If you don't know whether or not to refer to Denzel as, "black," then you're most likely trying too damn hard to be sensitive. If you don't know whether or not to refer to Denzel as, "hot," check your sexuality and/or your taste in men.

Ysidro

5th November 2007, 08:29 PM

This thread makes me feel bukkaked with stupid. :jaw-dropp

Why does only the "white race" matter? Why doesn't the destruction of the "black race" through interbreeding matter?

I'll tell you why. It's because to these racist Rule10-ers nothing matters but their precious "white identity." Everyone else is catogorized as non-white. Everyone else is the mythical Other.

Us against them. Most of us grew out of this awhile ago.

Tsukasa Buddha

5th November 2007, 08:57 PM

This thread makes me feel bukkaked...

You've had experience ;) ?

Roboramma

5th November 2007, 09:15 PM

Dear Puffin,

The race is not the lineage. A mixed-race couple produces non-white children. If this seems unclear, suppose during a given generation the entire white population race-mixes. The result would hardly be a generation of white children, rather, a generation of half-breeds. If you don't care, you don't care, but, let's not suffer illusions of mixing somehow increasing the race.

Cpl Ferro
Reproduction doesn't produce a blending of heredity. Genetics in granular in that you either inherit a gene from your mother or your father - they don't mix.
It sometimes looks like they mix because children inherit many genes from their father and many others from their mother - one gene from a father might lead to slightly darker skin color, one gene from a mother have an effect slightly in the opposite direction.

But the genes themselves aren't lost in the mixing. A gene for a higher production of melanin will continue to be the same gene.

So the genes themselves aren't being lost in this mixing. And if that's true then whatever is good about the "white race", if there is something particularly good about it, won't be lost by mixing.

ImaginalDisc

5th November 2007, 09:46 PM

I might have no problem hiring a qualified black person to work for me, but maybe I am uncomfortable with my daughter marrying a black person. Does that make me racist?

Yes. When the person's category matters more than who they are, that makes you a racist. QED.

Wavicle

5th November 2007, 10:29 PM

Over at the other thread on this, I think I've done a pretty good job of showing that while the program may be ineffective through excessive redefinition, what it is actually saying has been overhyped and misreported.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3120123

Well let's see...

RACISM: Racism is race prejudice plus power. (Definition, by People's Institute. I use "White Supremacy" as a synonym for racism.)

Emphasis mine. Sounds like the hype is correct so far.

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostitilites, acts of rage or discrimination.)

Again, emphasis mine. Still doesn't sound like it is overhyped.

REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as "reverse racism."

I love the use of the word "allegedly." Again, the hype seems well placed.

A NON_RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called "blaming the victim"). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent.

Great, by that definition even non-whites are guilty of perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system. Once again, doesn't seem overhyped.

AN ANTI-RACIST: (As applied to white people), an anti-racist is a person who makes a conscious choice to act to challenge some aspect of the whtie supremacy system: including her/his own white privilege, as well as some form of oppression against people of color.

There you have it. You're still racist if you're white, but you can also be simultaneously anti-racist if you're an activist on two fronts.

Near as I can tell, your only argument involved cherry picking the non-parenthesized portion of the definition of Racism and ignoring everything else. Well, that's your prerogative. But mine says this program is a load of refuse.

Radrook

5th November 2007, 10:44 PM

TuftedPuffin

5th November 2007, 10:54 PM

Dear Puffin,

The race is not the lineage. A mixed-race couple produces non-white children. If this seems unclear, suppose during a given generation the entire white population race-mixes. The result would hardly be a generation of white children, rather, a generation of half-breeds. If you don't care, you don't care, but, let's not suffer illusions of mixing somehow increasing the race.

Cpl Ferro

And half-breeds, interestingly enough, are members of both of the races of their parents. Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs, half-elves count as both humans and elves, etc., so unless you have a basis for your judgments besides your own classificational fantasies, I think I'll go with the ones supported by 30 years of playtesting, thank you very much. On a less fictional note, a mixed-race couple with parents who speak different languages produces, not mixed-language children, but bilingual children. So if the entire white population married non-whites you'd have a generation of children that were both white and whatever the other partner was.

Edit: Just read the rest of the thread, and I realized I'm way behind the curve...gonna try and come up with some snappy response before this guy starts blathering about Lord Xenu...

TuftedPuffin

5th November 2007, 11:09 PM

Oh here we go: Cpl Ferro, you believe in the need to keep culture going, to maintain aesthetic beauty and all those other things the dirty reductionists don't understand, correct? Because what you don't seem to understand here is that the greatest artists throughout history, the people whose lives meant the most, were always the ones who fought back against the surrounding culture. Artists are outsiders, and in a world without outsiders, where culture is kept static and "pure", there will be no art. You cannot understand beauty until you realize that beauty is always an expression of the individual will, never of group traditions, and that groups merely hitch themselves on to the beautiful ideas of rebels, finding solace in copying ideas that they can never themselves create. Creation is the noblest engine of culture, and in denying it it is you, good sir, who have no soul.

PBTree

5th November 2007, 11:10 PM

I struggle to understand some of this guff.

How can someone be a 'white christian, who believes blacks are taking over'? Christianity wasn't discovered/invented by anglo saxons, it started in the middle east.

Last time I looked, they weren't WHITE.

Wasn't Jesus a Nazzarine and if so, wouldn't that make him just a little bit more than swarthy. (to put it bluntly, rather brown)

Methinks the christian whites are trying to wash away the dark stains of their religion's heritage and turn it to a completely anglo saxon version. Just look at all of the crucifixs around town and you will see "Sven the blonde haired Swede" hanging on the cross.

TuftedPuffin

5th November 2007, 11:11 PM

I disagree that preference of spouse either for self or ones children constitutes racism if the choice is based simply upon ones desire that the offspring resemble the parents. For example, is it racism for a black person to prefer her grandchildren to look like her and not some Nordic individual with whom she has a hard time identifying with? Also, is it racism to find certain features or physical characteristics more attractive than others?

Take for example white women who find black features more pleasing and choose a black husband or boyfriend. Are they being racist? Isn't it merely an exercise of freedom of choice in matters of aesthetics and has nothing to do with racism? Preference doesn't necessarily constitute a murderous hatred of what isn't preferred.

In short, is a person obligated to find all races equally aesthetically pleasing in order for him or her not to be a racist? Isn't that tantamount to saying that a person MUST like all food regardless of how the food tastes or find all artwork equally pleasing regardless oif how he really feels?

I think people are often simply too quick to tag any preference as racism when it merely constitutes a personal preference and nothing more.

Kinda a summary of this question, because it's a good one: is racism like homophobia, or like being anti-gay?

LostAngeles

5th November 2007, 11:30 PM

I disagree that preference of spouse either for self or ones children constitutes racism if the choice is based simply upon ones desire that the offspring resemble the parents. For example, is it racism for a black person to prefer her grandchildren to look like her and not some Nordic individual with whom she has a hard time identifying with? Also, is it racism to find certain features or physical characteristics more attractive than others?

Take for example white women who find black features more pleasing and choose a black husband or boyfriend. Are they being racist? Isn't it merely an exercise of freedom of choice in matters of aesthetics and has nothing to do with racism? Preference doesn't necessarily constitute a murderous hatred of what isn't preferred.

In short, is a person obligated to find all races equally aesthetically pleasing in order for him or her not to be a racist? Isn't that tantamount to saying that a person MUST like all food regardless of how the food tastes or find all artwork equally pleasing regardless oif how he really feels?

I think people are often simply too quick to tag any preference as racism when it merely constitutes a personal preference and nothing more.

I'd consider that valid if I didn't look like a swarthy version of my late maternal grandmother. At her funeral I was dragged around by 70 year old white women so they could say to each other, "This is Ruthie's granddaughter. " "She looks just like her!" "I know!"

My sister looks like our paternal aunt, only lighter.

Many other mixed folks I know, like folks who aren't mixed, have features that take after one side of the family or another. And like folks who aren't mixed, look like a blend.

I believe there was an earlier post on the whole transfer of genotypes and their phenotypic expression. Perhaps you should read it.

politas

5th November 2007, 11:33 PM

I disagree that preference of spouse either for self or ones children constitutes racism if the choice is based simply upon ones desire that the offspring resemble the parents. For example, is it racism for a black person to prefer her grandchildren to look like her and not some Nordic individual with whom she has a hard time identifying with?
Yes

Also, is it racism to find certain features or physical characteristics more attractive than others?
No

It's quite simple, really. Personal preference is one thing. Externalising your personal preference to another person's choices is something entirely different.

When it comes down to it, the same factors that caused different races to look different in the first place will act to maintain the different races all by themselves. People tend to be attracted to people who look similar to themselves. Not because there's any great virtue in doing so, but simply because someone who looks similar to yourself is likely to share many similar gene lines. From a gene's perspective, affecting your biological host's choice of a mate towards those who host similar gene lines makes dilution less likely.

Statistically, we should expect that this effect should be particularly strong in individuals expressing a double-recessive gene.

And surprise! We find that is exactly the case. Blue eyed people are more likely to form relationships with and find attractive people with similar coloured eyes than those with other coloured eyes are.

Hokulele

5th November 2007, 11:50 PM

Dramatic?

Yes, the Allied soldiers fought for race-mixing! And, abortion! And, the Military-Nintendo Complex! And, hedonic consumerism! And the post-industrial, globalised economy! And, unlimited unassimilable immigration! And, Marxist-Freudian Feminism! And, Postmodern Nihilism! And, Queer Theory taught to five year olds! And, speech-crime laws! And, militant atheism and the de-Christianisation of public life! And, Strassian fascism, mercenary oil wars, and the dismantlement of the Bill of Rights! Our brave soldiers fought so that the President can have the right to torture children in the name of the universal, eternal Terror War!

You dare accuse me of depravity--you are a fish swimming in it, and would never be able to recognise such a thing. Nothing would convince you, for you are an ahistorical serf, who values no tradition, no race, no language, no culture, no religion, no national sovereignty, nothing except his own overweening arrogance in the face of those who seek to preserve what those brave soldiers he dishonours fought for. Am I depraved? How could I not be? What's left except to be a fish like you, in this ocean of sterility?

And, of course, as usual, seeking to stop white genocide equals nihilism. Everyone knows that the white race is the cancer of human history, and the sooner we're wiped off the face of the Earth, the sooner the rest of humanity can live in multicultural bliss. All I take solace in is the knowledge that when we are gone, classical humanism will perish with us, and probably the guts of Christendom as well, and with that, you can flush global civilisation down back into the wretched cycles of tyranny it was stuck in before Europa arose.

Cpl Ferro

ZOMG!! Hyperbole!!!!!!

This non-white, non-asian mutt of a person is very glad that she doesn't have to deal with this kind of nonsense outside of the Internet. And yes, I am referring to myself in the third person. Deal with it.

El_Spectre

6th November 2007, 12:07 AM

When it comes down to it, the same factors that caused different races to look different in the first place will act to maintain the different races all by themselves.

Geographical separation? Differing climate? Both of those are becoming less of an obstacle each day.

People tend to be attracted to people who look similar to themselves. Not because there's any great virtue in doing so, but simply because someone who looks similar to yourself is likely to share many similar gene lines.

This is conjecture at best. This is akin to saying the people are genetically inclined to eat the plants that grow near them.

Yes, historically people mated with those who "looked like them"... because they were the only people around! While there are certainly cultural pressures to maintain distinct "races", the amount of "mixed" offspring born over the last couple of centuries has skyrocketed. Where is the evidence for a genetic preference?

Tsukasa Buddha

6th November 2007, 01:02 AM

Well let's see...

Emphasis mine. Sounds like the hype is correct so far.

Again, emphasis mine. Still doesn't sound like it is overhyped.

I love the use of the word "allegedly." Again, the hype seems well placed.

Great, by that definition even non-whites are guilty of perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system. Once again, doesn't seem overhyped.

There you have it. You're still racist if you're white, but you can also be simultaneously anti-racist if you're an activist on two fronts.

Near as I can tell, your only argument involved cherry picking the non-parenthesized portion of the definition of Racism and ignoring everything else. Well, that's your prerogative. But mine says this program is a load of refuse.

Why? What makes its definitions invalid?

Also, it's not saying that white people are universally racist, it is using that term for white people who are privileged in a racist society and do nothing to combat it.

volatile

6th November 2007, 04:07 AM

French/Irish mixing doesn’t cause racial genocide, it causes ethnic genocide. Since ethnicities are looser affiliations than races, being less distinct from one another than from alien races, the tolerance level of this sort of genocide is higher.

Riiiigggghhhtttt..... :rolleyes:

What's your working definition of an "ethnicity" versus a "race", then?

Also, I'm mildly amused that you want to nationalise the media and instigate a directed and artifical "aesthetics campaign" to "remove propaganda".

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 05:19 AM

Dramatic? Yes.

Yes, the Allied soldiers fought for race-mixing! And, abortion! And, the Military-Nintendo Complex! And, hedonic consumerism! And the post-industrial, globalised economy! And, unlimited unassimilable immigration! And, Marxist-Freudian Feminism! And, Postmodern Nihilism! And, Queer Theory taught to five year olds! And, speech-crime laws! And, militant atheism and the de-Christianisation of public life! And, Strassian fascism, mercenary oil wars, and the dismantlement of the Bill of Rights! Our brave soldiers fought so that the President can have the right to torture children in the name of the universal, eternal Terror War! Wha...
Where did that come from?
Has anyone suggested this?

Nothing would convince you, for you are an ahistorical serf, Evidence? who values no tradition, Evidence?
no race, Possibly, in that he thinks the concept is meaningless.
no language, I find that very doubtful. Any evidence?
no culture, Again, evidence?
no religion, Again, maybe, I don't know his views on religion. But how do you know?
And what's wrong with it if it's true?
no national sovereignty, Evidence?
nothing except his own overweening arrogance in the face of those who seek to preserve what those brave soldiers he dishonours fought for. Evidence?
In what way does he dishonour those brave soldiers?

Am I depraved? How could I not be? What's left except to be a fish like you, in this ocean of sterility? Ocean of sterility? I don't even understand what you mean by that.

And, of course, as usual, seeking to stop white genocide equals nihilism. I know what you mean. I've been trying to stop the interbreeding of people with detached earlobes with people with earlobes that connect to their heads. No one seems to understand the immense historical and moral importance of preventing the Detached Earlobe Genocide!

Everyone knows that the white race is the cancer of human history, I don't. As a 'race' clearly. I don't think there is such a thing as the 'white race'. The concept just doesn't hold up, but let's pretend that it does for the sake of argument.
No one, or at the least no one on this thread, thinks that the genetic makeup of white people causes or has caused them to be a problem to the world.
Now, some might suggest that 'white people' did a lot of bad things over the past few hundred years - but you said that you don't include linage in your definition of race. As such no one has a problem with the white race, that I can see.

and the sooner we're wiped off the face of the Earth, the sooner the rest of humanity can live in multicultural bliss. Can you point to anyone saying this?
If not, do you wonder why you're accused of being dramatic?
All I take solace in is the knowledge that when we are gone, classical humanism will perish with us, and probably the guts of Christendom as well, and with that, you can flush global civilisation down back into the wretched cycles of tyranny it was stuck in before Europa arose. That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read.
First: I don't agree that the good things about our civilization are owed to christianity.
Second, why, whatever is good about our civilization, do you think it will be lost because of interbreeding?

JoeEllison

6th November 2007, 05:26 AM

politas

6th November 2007, 06:53 AM

Yes, historically people mated with those who "looked like them"... because they were the only people around! While there are certainly cultural pressures to maintain distinct "races", the amount of "mixed" offspring born over the last couple of centuries has skyrocketed. Where is the evidence for a genetic preference?
How about this (http://www.springerlink.com/content/766n130226m12n24/fulltext.html)? It shows, as I mentioned in my post, and you conveniently cut out, that blue eyed men show a greater level of preference for blue eyed women than brown eyed men show for any eye colour.

Now, I tend to think their argument as to why is complete hooey, and I think Richard Dawkins' position of the unit of natural selection being the gene holds the answer.

Are you going to deny that people do in fact tend to be attracted to people who look similar to themselves, and especially to their opposite-sex parent?

If I get genes from my father which have an any kind of impact on who I'm going to be attracted to, it's pretty obvious that they'll make me attracted to people like my mother (at least somewhat). And at the same time, I'll inherit some genes from my mother that will make me look somewhat like her, and will make any daughters I have likely to look somewhat like her.

If I had a sister, she would quite possibly get some of those same genes from my father, so there's a good chance that any sons she have will also inherit those same genes for being attracted to people like our mother. And of course, she'll also inherit some genes to make her look like our mother

So people who look a certain way will tend to carry the genes that make people attracted to themselves, and will also carry genes that make themselves (or people of the opposite sex with the same genes) attracted to people like themselves.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

6th November 2007, 06:53 AM

Further studies show that everyone is racist. Story at 6:00.

~~ Paul

politas

6th November 2007, 06:58 AM

If "white culture" is what gives us boiled beef and potatoes as cuisine, I for one would be happy to see it die out.

becomingagodo

6th November 2007, 07:36 AM

So people who look a certain way will tend to carry the genes that make people attracted to themselves, and will also carry genes that make themselves (or people of the opposite sex with the same genes) attracted to people like themselves.
This is wrong.

It has been shown in various studies that we are attracted to people with different genes then us. A study got various people to work out and sweat, they then got the sweaty t shirt and made a group of people smell them, people with different genes smelt better then people with the same genes.

Are you going to deny that people do in fact tend to be attracted to people who look similar to themselves, and especially to their opposite-sex parent?

If I get genes from my father which have an any kind of impact on who I'm going to be attracted to, it's pretty obvious that they'll make me attracted to people like my mother (at least somewhat). And at the same time, I'll inherit some genes from my mother that will make me look somewhat like her, and will make any daughters I have likely to look somewhat like her.
Maybe you fancy your mother, however I don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6745121.stm
Even then the theory of we are attracted to people who look like our parents is not that clear.

Evolutionary speaking, Humans proberly go for the most desirable characteristic, which is beauty. Well, unless I see a study where people put supermodels and a person who looks like their parent and then ask what are you most attracted too and the person picks their parent, I will be surprized. Nothing would change if we pick our partners because they look like our parents.

Mixed race babies i.e. one parent is white and the other is black, has the highest growing birth rate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430383&in_page_id=1770

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 07:48 AM

How about this (http://www.springerlink.com/content/766n130226m12n24/fulltext.html)? It shows, as I mentioned in my post, and you conveniently cut out, that blue eyed men show a greater level of preference for blue eyed women than brown eyed men show for any eye colour.

Now, I tend to think their argument as to why is complete hooey, and I think Richard Dawkins' position of the unit of natural selection being the gene holds the answer. Hmm, interesting link. But actually, their argument seems pretty strong to me. What reason do you have to reject it?
Moreover, your argument doesn't hold water. It sounds like what you're talking about is what Dawkins' (I don't know if he coined the term, I sort of think not) referred to as "Green Beards". The idea was a gene that caused it's bearer to both have a green beard, and altruistic feelings toward other green beards. Note that it's important that both of these come from the same gene.
Why is it important that they both originate from the same gene?
Let's look at it from the 'selfish gene' perspective. Say that there is one gene for green beards and another for altruism toward green bearded individuals. Actually, scratch that - the second one is for "altruism toward green bearded individuals if you know you have a green beard".
Now, say both of these show up in one individual. Now he's altruistic toward other green beards. But does this help the gene for altruism to spread? No, because being altruistic toward other green beards doesn't mean being altruistic toward those who carry the altruism gene, because carrying one doesn't imply carrying the other. It will help the gene for green beards to spread, but not the gene for altruism.

So, the gene for altruism toward other green beards isn't selected for.

On the other hand, if they are both caused by the same gene, then the gene will be selected for, because every time an individual carrying the gene helps another green beard, it is also helping itself to spread in the population.

As Dawkins points out (I think all this was in The Extended Phenotype but it's been a while since I read it), there is one situation where altruism genes coorelate with other genes well enough for the strategy to work - kinship. A gene for being nice to your kin "knows" that it's kin are also carriers of that gene, or at least are more likely to be than the rest of the population, and thus can be selected for on that basis.

The argument is the same as what you're suggesting, because genes for being attracted to blue eyed individuals don't necessarily coorelate with genes for having blue eyes. So, if a blue eyed person carries a gene that says "if you have blue eyes, be attracted to other blue eyed individuals", there's no way for it to "know" that those other blue eyed individuals also carry the gene for the attraction. In fact, they're no more likely to than the population at large.

If I get genes from my father which have an any kind of impact on who I'm going to be attracted to, it's pretty obvious that they'll make me attracted to people like my mother (at least somewhat). And at the same time, I'll inherit some genes from my mother that will make me look somewhat like her, and will make any daughters I have likely to look somewhat like her. This is an interesting point.

If I had a sister, she would quite possibly get some of those same genes from my father, so there's a good chance that any sons she have will also inherit those same genes for being attracted to people like our mother. And of course, she'll also inherit some genes to make her look like our mother True. But isn't it also possible that because of problems related to inbreeding, genes that have the opposite to this effect could spread through the population, and thus counter it?

Some things for me to think on.

So people who look a certain way will tend to carry the genes that make people attracted to themselves, and will also carry genes that make themselves (or people of the opposite sex with the same genes) attracted to people like themselves.[/quote]

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 07:51 AM

Hm. Now I'm curious if the blue-eyed attraction thing still occurs if the blue eyed person doesn' know he/she has blue eyes.

Jeff Corey

6th November 2007, 08:45 AM

Hm. Now I'm curious if the blue-eyed attraction thing still occurs if the blue eyed person doesn' know he/she has blue eyes.
You're kidding, right? How would that happen? A blind male who wasn't told his eye color and wasn't told the female's either?
A double blind study?

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 09:00 AM

You're kidding, right? How would that happen? A blind male who wasn't told his eye color and wasn't told the female's either?
A double blind study?
:D
That's funny! No, I was unclear - I mean his/her own eye-colour. Obviously for there to be an effect he/she would have to know the eye-colour of the person he/she is either attracted to or not attracted to.

I should have just done away with the he/she thing. It's horribly confusing.

CplFerro

6th November 2007, 09:36 AM

Ah, a frogpile. I have a limited tolerance for these, but, okay, then.

Dear…

LA,

Alien races as in non-whites, obviously. You're not very smart for a JREF person.

(1) Find your own facts, there are plenty of websites discussing this stuff. I can’t imagine you’re seriously interested, though, and you’ll probably just ad hom them all anyway.

(2) Who gives a damn about “genetic diversity”? Dog breeders and admirers of purebred dogs might object if the St. Bernard breed were destroyed by total mixing, or the Shih-Tzu, or the Chow Chow, …etc.

Bpesta22,

You are a racist nutjob for not condemning Rushton and his ilk for spewing their vile hatred against minorities. And, if you don’t want your daughter marrying a black, you are twice as guilty and should go to a camp to be reeducated.

Ysidro,

As I have said all along, but, you were too busy closing your eyes to notice, all races are worthy of preservation.

Roboramma,

Genes are irrelevant in and of themselves, only phenotype matters. What would anyone possibly care if their “white genes” were blended into a mongrel mass?

Radrook,

Yes, declaring your aesthetic racial marrying preference is a racist act that makes you evil and insane.

TuftedPuffin,

If you also dismiss LaRouche, your theories of art are worthless.

PBTree,

Race, religion, and culture are three different things that cohere in Europa to yield white, classical Christendom. Preserving the race has nothing to do directly with Christianity, which is a universal religion. Christ could have been black as coal for all I care; every culture paints him in their own racial image.

Hokulele,

Given that sanity is an increasingly scarce commodity, you will be dealing not with what I’m advocating, but, with the fruits of what you implicitly support. Wars, rumours of wars, breadlines, martial law, economic breakdown, and ever increasing cultural ugliness, moral relativism, and Huxleyan “concentration camps for the mind.”

Volatile,

Race is a major division of humanity: black, white, red, yellow, brown (mid-east types), there are plenty of divisions as these big plates fractalise and mix—what are the Aboriginees, for instance? Blackish after a kind, but, also somewhat their own thing.

Ethnicity is more a specific section of a race, like the English. They are rather different in makeup, face type, hair, etc. from the Irish, but, not so different as to be non-white, just different nationalities.

Roboramma, again,

JREF as a whole is, by all indications, essentially supporters of what I listed. Even if it makes nominal opposition, it refuses to accept the critical ammunition needed to take apart those things (pomo nihilism, the imperial World War, etc.). There is no advocacy of national preservation coming from here or any similar site, regarding preservation of language, culture, etc.. As with above, find your own evidence, it’s abundant. Try Pat Buchanan for a start. JREF-types will never lift a finger to stop this process, which makes World War Two a vain war.

Everyone knows that attached earlobes are a genetic deformity that can be corrected with surgery. It is not a breeding problem.

Race doesn’t exist, which means we must of course have employment quotas to ensure that a sufficient number of nonexistent-race people fill the given positions. Just like how men and women are identical, so we must have fifty-fifty splits in everything by law.

White people are the historical source of racism, the slave-masters and colonialists, and white society is arranged to accommodate the interests of white people at the expense of all others. The sooner white people are neutralised as a political and cultural force the sooner this heritage of racism will be flushed away.

We have to exterminate white people (http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-have-to-exterminate-white-people.html)

Again, there’s more, but, do your own research if you really care. Go investigate Stormfront. I doubt you do, however.

Classical Christian civilisation is inherently superior to all other forms of civilisation, but, again, to understand this you would have to read, specifically material by LaRouche and geniuses he references. Again, whites are the closest associates of this civilisation, and the fewer whites there are, the fewer people there are with a direct felt connection to the heritage of Europe. No white people, no classical civilisation. Unless you think the blacks, or the Hispanics, or the Jews, or the Orientals are going to suddenly become enamored of all those “dead white men” and rebuild the glory of Europa.

Have fun at your mosque!

Cpl Ferro

P.S.
That's enough; either you get it by now or you don't; either you research or you don't. I have no hope anyway for Western civilisation. Just sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the spectacle of World War Four! It's been fun; thanks for the debate.

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 09:54 AM

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 10:21 AM

Ah, a frogpile. I have a limited tolerance for these, but, okay, then. That's understandable. On the other hand, I feel the need to respond. If you don't have time to reply to everyone, reply to those that you feel make valid points, and if we feel that you haven't addressed something of importance, we'll likely re-post it.

(1) Find your own facts, there are plenty of websites discussing this stuff. I can’t imagine you’re seriously interested, though, and you’ll probably just ad hom them all anyway. Its your assertion. Either back it up or don't expect us to take it as anything more than that.

(2) Who gives a damn about “genetic diversity”? Dog breeders and admirers of purebred dogs might object if the St. Bernard breed were destroyed by total mixing, or the Shih-Tzu, or the Chow Chow, …etc. Anyone who doesn't want genetic diseases? The problems that are notorious from inbreeding are caused by a lack of genetic diversity. But this problem isn't likely to occur until population sizes are pretty small.
A similar issue though might have to do with disease - greater diversity in the population means a higher chance that someone has that mutation that confers resistance.

Roboramma,

Genes are irrelevant in and of themselves, only phenotype matters. What would anyone possibly care if their “white genes” were blended into a mongrel mass? Because they aren't blended. They're still there. I don't know what you think is especially valuable about white people, but again, if it's heritable it won't be lost by breeding. Are they more intelligent? The genes for intelligence won't be lost by breeding. Are they better in bed? The genes for that, again, won't be lost either.
But I'm still not really sure what you're worried about, so maybe I'm missing something.

PBTree,

Race, religion, and culture are three different things that cohere in Europa to yield white, classical Christendom. Preserving the race has nothing to do directly with Christianity, which is a universal religion. Christ could have been black as coal for all I care; every culture paints him in their own racial image. Exactly! And because being black doesn't make it difficult to accept Christianity or other things that come from "white culture" (not the quotation marks) there's no reason that those things will die out due to racial blending.
They will die out if people aren't interested in them. If Christianity fails to win converts. But a white man and a black woman who have a child can still teach their child about the importance of democracy. I don't understand why you think they can't or wouldn't.

Volatile,

Race is a major division of humanity: black, white, red, yellow, brown (mid-east types), there are plenty of divisions as these big plates fractalise and mix—what are the Aboriginees, for instance? Blackish after a kind, but, also somewhat their own thing.
If the concept of race is to have any meaning at all it has to correlate to ancestry and genetics. Aborigines and Africans separated tens of thousands of years ago. There has been some interbreeding in the last couple of hundred, but they are far more distantly removed in ancestry (and if the theory of race has any validity, genetics as well) than Africans and Europeans.
Of course, some Africans are more distantly related to other Africans than they are to Europeans.
But the point is simply this: If you lump in Aborigines as "blacks" the whole concept becomes complete garbage.
There's more of a problem with what you said above though - divisions: there are none. Try to find a geographical dividing line between two races. You won't be able to.

Ethnicity is more a specific section of a race, like the English. They are rather different in makeup, face type, hair, etc. from the Irish, but, not so different as to be non-white, just different nationalities. How different is different enough? Please be specific.

Roboramma, again,

JREF as a whole is, by all indications, essentially supporters of what I listed. Even if it makes nominal opposition, it refuses to accept the critical ammunition needed to take apart those things (pomo nihilism, the imperial World War, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying here is that some people on JREF agree with you about some of these things, but because they don't agree with you about everything they are a part of the problem regarding those first things?

There is no advocacy of national preservation coming from here or any similar site, regarding preservation of language, culture, etc.. As with above, find your own evidence, it’s abundant. Try Pat Buchanan for a start. JREF-types will never lift a finger to stop this process, which makes World War Two a vain war. So, you're unwilling to supply any evidence for the numerous assertions you made about quiotecoyote?

Everyone knows that attached earlobes are a genetic deformity that can be corrected with surgery. It is not a breeding problem. A genetic deformity? Jeez.

Race doesn’t exist, which means we must of course have employment quotas to ensure that a sufficient number of nonexistent-race people fill the given positions. Just like how men and women are identical, so we must have fifty-fifty splits in everything by law. Look, I have a problem with affirmative action as well. But if it's wrong, that doesn't mean you're right.

White people are the historical source of racism, the slave-masters and colonialists, and white society is arranged to accommodate the interests of white people at the expense of all others. The sooner white people are neutralised as a political and cultural force the sooner this heritage of racism will be flushed away. Some people have crazy views. You disagree with them. Therefore you're right.
Um...

Again, there’s more, but, do your own research if you really care. Go investigate Stormfront. I doubt you do, however. You're right - I don't care. The reason that I don't care is that you haven't convinced me that your pseudo-problem should concern me at all.

Classical Christian civilisation is inherently superior to all other forms of civilisation, but, again, to understand this you would have to read, specifically material by LaRouche and geniuses he references. Okay, I'll bite - give me a link and I'll read through it when i have the time. At the moment I see no reason to believe that this is true, but I don't think it's impossible either.

Again, whites are the closest associates of this civilisation, and the fewer whites there are, the fewer people there are with a direct felt connection to the heritage of Europe. Why should they need one? Either the ideas are valuable - and thus likely to be taken and used by other cultures - or they aren't.
A "felt-connection" isn't really necessary is it?
Moreover, someone with a "white" father to whom this is important could easily pass on the culture even if his children were a different colour.
Christianity, for instance, is a very strong force in the Philippines, in spite of the fact that the people there are not white.

No white people, no classical civilisation. Unless you think the blacks, or the Hispanics, or the Jews, or the Orientals are going to suddenly become enamored of all those “dead white men” and rebuild the glory of Europa. They don't need to. All they to do is accept the useful ideas that they passed on. The scientific method may have been developed in Europe, but it is put to use all over the world today. I don't see why that should be surprising.

Have fun at your mosque! Thanks! Have fun at your synagogue! :)

Hokulele

6th November 2007, 10:33 AM

Hokulele,

Given that sanity is an increasingly scarce commodity, you will be dealing not with what I’m advocating, but, with the fruits of what you implicitly support. Wars, rumours of wars, breadlines, martial law, economic breakdown, and ever increasing cultural ugliness, moral relativism, and Huxleyan “concentration camps for the mind.”

Too funny. I live in the only state in the USA in which there is no majority ethnicity/race/whateveryouwanttocallit. There are lots of minorities (including those of European descent), but no majority. None. People of mixed race are so common, there is a local word for it (hapa). Oddly enough, breadlines, martial law, economic breakdown, and "concentration camps for the mind" have not yet occured, and almost every tourist spends quite a bit of their vacation dollars sampling the local culture. Funny how they do not find the hula to be "cultural ugliness".

Sorry for the derail folks, back to your regularly scheduled white supremacy rant.

JoeEllison

6th November 2007, 10:36 AM

Still no sign of any evidence for that "white race" or white culture"... it must be interesting to be full of panic and child-like fear over the preservation of things that don't have any real existence.

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 10:40 AM

Too funny. I live in the only state in the USA in which there is no majority ethnicity/race/whateveryouwanttocallit. There are lots of minorities (including those of European descent), but no majority. None. People of mixed race are so common, there is a local word for it (hapa). Oddly enough, breadlines, martial law, economic breakdown, and "concentration camps for the mind" have not yet occured, and almost every tourist spends quite a bit of their vacation dollars sampling the local culture. Funny how they do not find the hula to be "cultural ugliness".
That's because you've been indoctrinated in a concentration camp of the mind. All that stuff is there right under your nose and you don't even see it!!!111
I won't give you evidence, but its out there and if you weren't a mindless sheep you'd go and find it for yourself.

Wavicle

6th November 2007, 10:55 AM

Also, it's not saying that white people are universally racist
Yes it is.

ETA: Within the scope covered by the document, which is the entire U.S..

JoeEllison

6th November 2007, 10:59 AM

Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

volatile

6th November 2007, 11:10 AM

Race is a major division of humanity: black, white, red, yellow, brown (mid-east types), there are plenty of divisions as these big plates fractalise and mix—what are the Aboriginees, for instance? Blackish after a kind, but, also somewhat their own thing.

Ethnicity is more a specific section of a race, like the English. They are rather different in makeup, face type, hair, etc. from the Irish, but, not so different as to be non-white, just different nationalities.

It's fun to make up new definitions for words that are at odds with their standard usages, right?

You just said "nationality" is a subset of "ethnicity", which is absurd to start with. You also haven't properly explained why French/Irish inter-breeding doesn't destroy French or Irish culture, but French/Moroccan inter-breeding does. Sure, you can invent a new meaning of the term "ethnicity" or even "race" that arbitrarily divides the French and Irish from the Moroccans, but it has no basis in either biological or cultural history. In essence, you're talking nonsense.

Your dividing lines are completely arbitrary, which undermines your entire point about maintenance. You can't preach for the preservation of something you just arbitrarily created 5 minutes ago. Give me a working definition of this white race. What is the white race? Who qualifies? The English are in, I guess. What about the Italians - though they're a bit swarthy looking in general. French? Germans? Scandinavians? Russians? The Icelandic peoples? All "ethnicities" within the "white race" by your reckoning, but ones with massively diverse histories, cultures, languages, religions, art practices, music traditions, culinary traditions, rituals, body practices. Explain to me how, if inter-breeding is the genocide of culture, a Swede marrying a Russian isn't undermining Swedish and Russian cultures, wildly divergent as they are. There's definitely as much different between French and Swedish culture as there is between Moroccan and French culture, so I don't get your point, at all.

Wavicle

6th November 2007, 11:18 AM

No, it isn't.

Here's the definition the proferred:

A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.

Where does the definition give exclusion to some white people?

politas

6th November 2007, 11:38 AM

This is wrong.

It has been shown in various studies that we are attracted to people with different genes then us. A study got various people to work out and sweat, they then got the sweaty t shirt and made a group of people smell them, people with different genes smelt better then people with the same genes.
And how did they measure these different genes, exactly? Did they specifically target differences in pheromone-controlling genes? Unless you have some link, this sounds like an absurd study, and is nothing but anecdote, while I provided a link to a detailed study.

So maybe you're the one that's "wrong", or perhaps the truth lies in between the two.

Maybe you fancy your mother, however I don't.Are you intentionally trying to be insulting?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6745121.stm
Even then the theory of we are attracted to people who look like our parents is not that clear.Well of course it isn't clear, we're talking about extremely complex mixtures of heredity and environment affecting the behaviour of sentient beings!

Evolutionary speaking, Humans proberly go for the most desirable characteristic, which is beauty.But what's "beauty"? Objectively, I mean? Societal conceptions of what is beautiful change all the time. At the moment, the fashion industry is driving the image of beauty towards stick figures, but even as recently as half a century ago, a much fuller figure was required for a woman to be considered beautiful.

I happen to think that sheer physical attractiveness is only rarely a primary consideration in choice of partner.

Well, unless I see a study where people put supermodels and a person who looks like their parent and then ask what are you most attracted too and the person picks their parent, I will be surprized.Supermodels? Without their make-up and airbrushing? Ick!

Mixed race babies i.e. one parent is white and the other is black, has the highest growing birth rate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430383&in_page_id=1770
Which does nothing to disprove my statements. There has been a social taboo against mixed-race marriages which is continually breaking down.

I'm not saying that "everyone wants to marry someone like their opposite-sex parent". I'm saying there is a some statistical preference for similar features, and I explained why this would be so, as well as linking to a study which demonstrated results consistent with my conjecture.

politas

6th November 2007, 12:04 PM

Hmm, interesting link. But actually, their argument seems pretty strong to me. What reason do you have to reject it?because it doesn't make sense. It implies a level of understanding about Mendelian inheritance in pre-technological civilisations that is ridiculous. Also, see this posting (http://www.geneforum.org/node/601) for more detailed concerns.

Moreover, your argument doesn't hold water. It sounds like what you're talking about is what Dawkins' (I don't know if he coined the term, I sort of think not) referred to as "Green Beards". The idea was a gene that caused it's bearer to both have a green beard, and altruistic feelings toward other green beards. Note that it's important that both of these come from the same gene.
Why is it important that they both originate from the same gene?
Let's look at it from the 'selfish gene' perspective. Say that there is one gene for green beards and another for altruism toward green bearded individuals. Actually, scratch that - the second one is for "altruism toward green bearded individuals if you know you have a green beard".
Now, say both of these show up in one individual. Now he's altruistic toward other green beards. But does this help the gene for altruism to spread? No, because being altruistic toward other green beards doesn't mean being altruistic toward those who carry the altruism gene, because carrying one doesn't imply carrying the other. It will help the gene for green beards to spread, but not the gene for altruism.

So, the gene for altruism toward other green beards isn't selected for.Except that the genes are surviving in an environment of other genes. Dawkins' example was peacocks, where he pointed out that peahens carry the genes for long and magnificent tails in males. Remember that, however it feels at times, males and females are not separate species, and gene expression is a complex interaction.

On the other hand, if they are both caused by the same gene, then the gene will be selected for, because every time an individual carrying the gene helps another green beard, it is also helping itself to spread in the population.

As Dawkins points out (I think all this was in The Extended Phenotype but it's been a while since I read it), there is one situation where altruism genes coorelate with other genes well enough for the strategy to work - kinship. A gene for being nice to your kin "knows" that it's kin are also carriers of that gene, or at least are more likely to be than the rest of the population, and thus can be selected for on that basis.Actually, he's shown with the case of the fig wasps that gene cooperation doesn't even require the genes to be in the same species.

The argument is the same as what you're suggesting, because genes for being attracted to blue eyed individuals don't necessarily coorelate with genes for having blue eyes. So, if a blue eyed person carries a gene that says "if you have blue eyes, be attracted to other blue eyed individuals", there's no way for it to "know" that those other blue eyed individuals also carry the gene for the attraction. In fact, they're no more likely to than the population at large.Actually, statistically, they are more likely to carry the gene than any non-blue eyed person. They must have had two blue eyed parents, so they have two chances to inherit the "attracted to blue eyes" gene, while other members of the population can only have one parent whose attraction to blue eyes determined their sexual selection.

True. But isn't it also possible that because of problems related to inbreeding, genes that have the opposite to this effect could spread through the population, and thus counter it?I'd say it's almost certain that there would be a countering factor to maintain genetic diversity, though it's not as easy to explain such a thing from a gene line selection point of view. Selection based on diversity would require an SJ Gould way of thinking, with populations being the unit of selection. From becomingagodo's post, it may be that smell/pheromonal attraction favours diversity, while visual attraction favours similarity. And then of course there are the environmental factors to thoroughly confuse matters.

politas

6th November 2007, 12:05 PM

Whoops

politas

6th November 2007, 12:31 PM

And again

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 12:36 PM

because it doesn't make sense. It implies a level of understanding about Mendelian inheritance in pre-technological civilisations that is ridiculous. Also, see this posting (http://www.geneforum.org/node/601) for more detailed concerns. Not at all - it only suggests that genes that tend to cause men to devote less energy to children that they knew were not theirs would spread through the population because they would then be devoting more energy to children that were there's (and thus were more likely to have the gene for devoting less energy to children that aren't their's).
In other words, no one has to understand the logic behind the mechanism - it's just selected for. Similarly, I like sex because it feels good, not because I want to leave more offspring. I care about my family because I have strong feelings toward them, not because I know that caring for them will help my genes to spread through the population.

Except that the genes are surviving in an environment of other genes. Dawkins' example was peacocks, where he pointed out that peahens carry the genes for long and magnificent tails in males. Remember that, however it feels at times, males and females are not separate species, and gene expression is a complex interaction. This is a different argument than the green beard argument, which is the one you're making.

Actually, he's shown with the case of the fig wasps that gene cooperation doesn't even require the genes to be in the same species. Of course it doesn't. But the specific type of selection that you're arguing for - recognising similarlity of features and selecting mates based on that because they're more likely to share more of your genes - doesn't work. The reason? They aren't more likely to share the gene for selecting mates based on those features. So how does this gene spread through the population? What is the selection pressure on it?
For more on green beards:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/edsumm/e060330-09.html
A problem with this explanation is the improbability of one gene encoding all three functions (altruism, tag and recognition).
You'll find that Dawkins made the same point I'm making. In fact, the criticism came to me so quickly because I remember him belabouring this exact point.

Actually, statistically, they are more likely to carry the gene than any non-blue eyed person. They must have had two blue eyed parents, so they have two chances to inherit the "attracted to blue eyes" gene, while other members of the population can only have one parent whose attraction to blue eyes determined their sexual selection. Hm.. this only works after the gene has already arisen and spread through the population.
But are you saying that after genetic drift has happened to cause this mutation to spread enough, blue eyed carriers of the gene will happen to seek out other blue eyed carriers of the gene. Note that in the beginning these will be no more prevelent than non-blue eyed carriers because the distribution will be basically random.
But as they seek out other blue eyed carriers of the gene, blue-eyed people will tend to mate with other blue eyed people more often. In the beginning this will offer no selective advantage.
However, over time there will become a corelation between having blue eyes and carrying the gene. And once this corelation has arisen, there will be a selective advantage to carriers of the gene choosing blue eyed mates.

I guess I can see that as a possibility. Will have to think more on it.

I'd say it's almost certain that there would be a countering factor to maintain genetic diversity, though it's not as easy to explain such a thing from a gene line selection point of view. Why not? Inbreding is a definite problem which most animals have strategies for avoiding.

Selection based on diversity would require an SJ Gould way of thinking, with populations being the unit of selection. From becomingagodo's post, it may be that smell/pheromonal attraction favours diversity, while visual attraction favours similarity. And then of course there are the environmental factors to thoroughly confuse matters.
Yeah, it's always an interesting and complicated topic. :)

politas

6th November 2007, 01:00 PM

Not at all - it only suggests that genes that tend to cause men to devote less energy to children that they knew were not theirs would spread through the population because they would then be devoting more energy to children that were there's (and thus were more likely to have the gene for devoting less energy to children that aren't their's).
In other words, no one has to understand the logic behind the mechanism - it's just selected for. Similarly, I like sex because it feels good, not because I want to leave more offspring. I care about my family because I have strong feelings toward them, not because I know that caring for them will help my genes to spread through the population.This just seems like a far less parsimonious explanation for the results than my one. Sexual selection by mate preference seems a far more direct pathway for selecting partners than offspring eye colour, something which can only be judged after breeding. The fact that blue eyes are a double recessive makes the effect particularly strong.

This is a different argument than the green beard argument, which is the one you're making.Actually, I think it is the argument I was making. You brought up the "Green beard" business.

Of course it doesn't. But the specific type of selection that you're arguing for - recognising similarlity of features and selecting mates based on that because they're more likely to share more of your genes - doesn't work. The reason? They aren't more likely to share the gene for selecting mates based on those features. So how does this gene spread through the population? What is the selection pressure on it? It's more that attraction to blue eyes is likely to drift towards people with blue eyes. People who are attracted to blue eyes are more likely to pass on blue eye genes to their children, due to their sexual selection.

Why not? Inbreding is a definite problem which most animals have strategies for avoiding.Didn't say it was impossible, just that it's easier to explain it using Gould's model of evolution than Dawkins'

Roboramma

6th November 2007, 01:20 PM

Hey Politas..
I reread your first post, and it looks like I may have misinterpretted you. Maybe you weren't making the greenbeard argument after all! I got that impression, but since you don't put it out there clearly, it looks like I may have been wrong.

Based on what I understand you're saying, yeah, it's possible. I still favour the explaination given in the article you linked. Probably more tomorrow - it's past 4 am here now.

LostAngeles

6th November 2007, 02:08 PM

Cpl Ferro:

You made the assertion, you're the one that needs to back it up. If you use non-standard terms, you need to let us know what you mean.

Genetic diversity gives you a larger gene pool to work with. Small gene pools are what gives us hemophilia and Tays-Sachs, to name a few. Larger gene pools give you more genetic information to work with, which produces greater diversity in the offspring, which in general, makes them hardier. The offspring of endogamous groups and purebred dogbreeds tend to have numerous genetic abnormalities.

Cpl Ferro, I can't understand your obsession with your accident of birth. What about you having less melanin in your skin makes you superior? And as far your culture goes, cultures evolve. Our culture is not the same as it was in 1970 nor as it was in 300 B.C. Just because things are assimilating in and its participants look different, doesn't mean it's dying.

Why do you care so much about one accident of birth?

Radrook

6th November 2007, 05:18 PM

I don't see how preferring offspring to look like you meets the specifics of racism as defined below:

The Merriam-Webster's Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief.[1] The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism thus: the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

In order to fit these definitions, the person preferring one partner or offspring over another is required to denigrate or categorize the other race as inferior and not just aesthetically unpleasant. So racism goes far beyond the mere preference that I describe. Now, if a person refuses to serve members of a certain group based on race--as African Americans regularly do to Hispanics in certain areas of the USA, then THAT is definitely racism since it strives to deprive the targeted person of his human rights. But mere preference based on simply mere preference doesn't go that far nor does it necessarily involve what the definition of racism is said to entail.

BTW
If racism were merely based on preference, then rejection of people of one's own race based on aesthetic criteria would be racism which is of course ridiculous. Or am we forced to find all human variety equally appealing? In that case if you prefer blondes over brunettes or Oriental over Blondes then you are a racist on both counts simply because of your preference.

Radrook

6th November 2007, 05:45 PM

Yes

No

It's quite simple, really. Personal preference is one thing. Externalising your personal preference to another person's choices is something entirely different.

When it comes down to it, the same factors that caused different races to look different in the first place will act to maintain the different races all by themselves. People tend to be attracted to people who look similar to themselves. Not because there's any great virtue in doing so, but simply because someone who looks similar to yourself is likely to share many similar gene lines. From a gene's perspective, affecting your biological host's choice of a mate towards those who host similar gene lines makes dilution less likely.

Statistically, we should expect that this effect should be particularly strong in individuals expressing a double-recessive gene.

And surprise! We find that is exactly the case. Blue eyed people are more likely to form relationships with and find attractive people with similar coloured eyes than those with other coloured eyes are.

Actually, my personal opinion is that we are all one race-the human race. But that doesn't obligate us to feel equally attracted to all the physical varieties produced by all so-called races and not to have aesthetic preferences both for ourselves or for our children. Neither does it obligate us not to make such preferences known. Not based on superiority of one so-called race over another, but simply based on aesthetic and cultural preferences and our desire to see ourselves physically reflected in our grandchildren.

There are also cultural factors which are mistaken for racism. For example, among the African Americans there is a strong dislike for intermarriage with Hispanics based on language and cultural differences-a dislike which is frequently and publicly and semi-privately expressed. Now, is that racism? Or is it merely preference based on cultural differences? If indeed it is based on preferences for the reasons I previously described it isn't racism. Not that such preferences might not lead to injustices. Sure they can. But strictly speaking, it just isn't based on race.

BTW

If a gratuitously harassed Hispanic person notices the cultural bias of the Afro-American community against him and advises his children to stay away based on that constant and clearly expressed animosity-I suppose that too can be construed as racism when it is merely self defense reaction to oppression. So you see-not all preferences are based on racism but like all human decisions can be based on a multitude of factors all of which can be considered justifiable in view of the circumstances.

PBTree

6th November 2007, 08:14 PM

I think it was mentioned earlierer in regards to those inter-racial mixes that give us half castes (horrible term I know) etc but what if you are part "dark" but don't look it or know it. Are you still black to a racist or is it a visual thing?

I have been doing the family tree for quite a few years now and some of the posters on this thread would do well to look into their own. Amazing what you find out when you do a serious look. Lots of dark blood in lots of white families but it just doesn't show.

quixotecoyote

6th November 2007, 09:02 PM

Here's the definition the proferred:

Where does the definition give exclusion to some white people?

Even restricting the discussion to that definition and ignoring all further qualifications, they are applying the word racist to a particular group. In order to be a part of that group, you must be:

White
Raised in America, a society where being white is socially privileged.

If you are white, but not raised in a society where being white is socially privileged, then you are not a racist by their definition.

Redtail

6th November 2007, 11:30 PM

Dramatic?

Yes, the Allied soldiers fought for race-mixing!

Stop right there Cpl. Just for arguement's sake. Google my screen name (THE Redtails, one of which was my "grandfather") and tell me what the "allied soldiers" fought for. Google the "Triple Nickels" and tell me what they fought for. Google the "Black Panthers" (the WW II mind variety mind you, my other "grandfather") and tell me what they fought for.

Hell I'll skip the rest and ask you what would you say to a White woman who married a Black man and moved to his home in Virginia? Oh, and the same woman marched on Bloody Sunday. Oh and she also raised a Family of 9 mixed race children, and one of those children couldn't have children of her own so she and her husband adopted a child of mixed race. Oh, and that child wound up getting a MFA, acting and teaching on the university level, and marrying a White woman who was related to Adolph Eichemann?

Bottom line is we will one day, be one race... Human. If this is by waking up or "inter-breeding" is of no matter... Sorry.

Wavicle

7th November 2007, 12:17 AM

Even restricting the discussion to that definition and ignoring all further qualifications, they are applying the word racist to a particular group. In order to be a part of that group, you must be:

White
Raised in America, a society where being white is socially privileged.

If you are white, but not raised in a society where being white is socially privileged, then you are not a racist by their definition.

I'm going to guess you didn't read my post before the one you're replying.

Yes it is.

ETA: Within the scope covered by the document, which is the entire U.S..

Since this doesn't seem to be in contention, I think it is fair to say that regardless of what FIREs ideology is, they called this one correctly.

politas

7th November 2007, 06:08 AM

Actually, my personal opinion is that we are all one race-the human race.I agree completely.

But that doesn't obligate us to feel equally attracted to all the physical varieties produced by all so-called races and not to have aesthetic preferences both for ourselves or for our children.Aesthetic preferences for how your children look is one thing (though kind of disturbing, in my mind). Externalising your aesthetic preferences onto your children is being very disrespectful of their status as human beings and their own right to have aesthetic preferences.

Neither does it obligate us not to make such preferences known. Not based on superiority of one so-called race over another, but simply based on aesthetic and cultural preferences and our desire to see ourselves physically reflected in our grandchildren. If I were a parent, I would want my children to form a relationship that suits them, not me.

There are also cultural factors which are mistaken for racism. For example, among the African Americans there is a strong dislike for intermarriage with Hispanics based on language and cultural differences-a dislike which is frequently and publicly and semi-privately expressed. Now, is that racism? Or is it merely preference based on cultural differences? If indeed it is based on preferences for the reasons I previously described it isn't racism. Not that such preferences might not lead to injustices. Sure they can. But strictly speaking, it just isn't based on race.Which makes it absurd to assign such preferences to race, rather than culture/behaviour.

Radrook

7th November 2007, 09:00 AM

I agree completely.

Aesthetic preferences for how your children look is one thing (though kind of disturbing, in my mind). Externalising your aesthetic preferences onto your children is being very disrespectful of their status as human beings and their own right to have aesthetic preferences.

Which makes it absurd to assign such preferences to race, rather than culture/behaviour.

I agree completely.

Aesthetic preferences for how your children look is one thing (though kind of disturbing, in my mind). Externalising your aesthetic preferences onto your children is being very disrespectful of their status as human beings and their own right to have aesthetic preferences.

Which makes it absurd to assign such preferences to race, rather than culture/behaviour.

If I travel to another planet and am assailed with a barrage of rocks whenever I approach a group of blue skinned aliens, is it illogical for me to avoid them? Or is it illogical to insist on getting closer in order to get brained? Which is the more logical decision: the one protective of my welfare, or the one which bravely plows ahead regardless of the clearly manifested belligerence based on my being from earth?

Just a hypothetical situation, of course, but very relevant to the real issue. Not all avoidance of certain groups is based on racism. Sometimes certain groups acquire certain reputations which can make a person wary.

For example, how wise is it for a person of Arab nationality to bracingly move into an Anglo suburban neighborhood? Is he racist because he thinks it over and decides to move elsewhere in order to avoid the possibility of having a blazing cross placed on his lawn and nooses hung from trees indicating his possible murder if he doesn't relocate immediately? I don't see racism in hi decision to avoid. I see merely an attempt to avoid danger.

As for children being allowed to plow ahead and make their own inexperienced decisions regardless of our parental obligation to warn them if we feel they are heading toward a difficult situation, to me that constitutes parental negligence and disqualifies the parent from being in a parental status. It is common among mammals to teach their young to survive. If this involves warning them that they might be heading into a veritable freight train of animosity--then a warning becomes a parental obligation.

Aesthetic preferences? Well, to be honest, all I hear is racially based aesthetic preference comments from African Americans preferring blacks over whites on national TV. The "I Love, NY" show for example has "NYs" mother say that she doesn't understand why white men are still hanging around because she thought they got rid of all the white men during the previous shows. Another woman comes on another show saying that she doesn't see what whites see in white babies since they are so ugly. A boxer, specifically Larry Holmes, calls his opponent a boy because he is white. Yet another boxer mocks his opponent saying "That's what you get for being white!". Now that's racism and yet it is ignored.

That is not the type of attitude that I am proposing. So you are reading much more into my comments that is justified by them.

BTW
I never said that the behavior of so called American whites and so called American blacks or of any other group is racially determined.

flimflam_machine

7th November 2007, 09:26 AM

Radrook, sticking to the issue of parents attempting to influence their child's choice of partner on the basis of race (because I frankly don't see how your blue-skinned alien analogy is relevant).

I don't think that it is racist not to find members of another race particularly attractive, in the same way that it is not discriminatory not to find tall/skinny/ginger/buck-toothed people attractive. That is an aesthetic judgement for you to make, and nobody can challenge you on it because it is simply your feeling of what is beautiful. However, to decry all white babies (for example) as ugly is pretty stupid because it simply ignores the vast variation in what different people find beautiful and implictly insists that your ideal of beauty is the only valid one.

It is possibly racist (and certainly stupid) to try to warn off your child from choosing a black/white/asian/whatever partner, simply because you don't like the way that race looks. You would certainly be a negligent parent if you thought the specific individual that they had chosen was dishonest, irresponsible, stupid or otherwise unsuitable and you failed to warn them. But as to the way that they look, you have absolutely no say at all (as politas said), and if you do say something you seriously risk alienating your child. That's the source of strife that I would be worried about, what specific "freight train of animosity" were you referring to?

LostAngeles

7th November 2007, 09:28 AM

If I travel to another planet and am assailed with a barrage of rocks whenever I approach a group of blue skinned aliens, is it illogical for me to avoid them? Or is it illogical to insist on getting closer in order to get brained? Which is the more logical decision: the one protective of my welfare, or the one which bravely plows ahead regardless of the clearly manifested belligerence based on my being from earth?

Just a hypothetical situation, of course, but very relevant to the real issue. Not all avoidance of certain groups is based on racism. Sometimes certain groups acquire certain reputations which can make a person wary.

For example, how wise is it for a person of Arab nationality to bracingly move into an Anglo suburban neighborhood? Is he racist because he thinks it over and decides to move elsewhere in order to avoid the possibility of having a blazing cross placed on his lawn and nooses hung from trees indicating his possible murder if he doesn't relocate immediately? I don't see racism in hi decision to avoid. I see merely an attempt to avoid danger.

As for children being allowed to plow ahead and make their own inexperienced decisions regardless of our parental obligation to warn them if we feel they are heading toward a difficult situation, to me that constitutes parental negligence and disqualifies the parent from being in a parental status. It is common among mammals to teach their young to survive. If this involves warning them that they might be heading into a veritable freight train of animosity--then a warning becomes a parental obligation.

Aesthetic preferences? Well, to be honest, all I hear is racially based aesthetic preference comments from African Americans preferring blacks over whites on national TV. The "I Love, NY" show for example has "NYs" mother say that she doesn't understand why white men are still hanging around because she thought they got rid of all the white men during the previous shows. Another woman comes on another show saying that she doesn't see what whites see in white babies since they are so ugly. A boxer, specifically Larry Holmes, calls his opponent a boy because he is white. Yet another boxer mocks his opponent saying "That's what you get for being white!". Now that's racism and yet it is ignored.

That is not the type of attitude that I am proposing. So you are reading much more into my comments that is justified by them.

BTW
I never said that the behavior of so called American whites and so called American blacks or of any other group is racially determined.

Aside from the media not always reflecting the country as a whole (and BTW, New York (aka Tiffany Pollard) is gross), why should the Arab family in your example be afraid of all white people? That is racism. You could easily turn that around as to why a white person wouldn't want to move into a black neighborhood. Because they're afraid of a person based on their skin color.

I'm not going to deny the crap that a dominant neighborhood group will give to someone who's not a member of that group (having been there, done that) but I simply can't justify extending their attitude to everyone that looks like them.

Radrook

7th November 2007, 11:45 AM

Aside from the media not always reflecting the country as a whole (and BTW, New York (aka Tiffany Pollard) is gross), why should the Arab family in your example be afraid of all white people? That is racism. You could easily turn that around as to why a white person wouldn't want to move into a black neighborhood. Because they're afraid of a person based on their skin color.

I'm not going to deny the crap that a dominant neighborhood group will give to someone who's not a member of that group (having been there, done that) but I simply can't justify extending their attitude to everyone that looks like them.

I am not recommending fear of all white people nor all black people nor any other people based on skin color. I am merely saying that all evasive action is not racism. Also, skin color has absolutely nothing to do with it. Skin color can't harm anyone. It is behavior guided by pervasive bigoted attitudes that is dangerous. Do you honestly believe that an Arab would not move into a suburban neighborhood because he dislikes white skin color? Or that naively believes ALL whites are capable of the behavior he fears?

Actually, the truth of the matter is that cross burning and noose displays in order to intimidate are perpetrated by whites in the USA and not blacks or any other group. So to move into a white neighborhood in the suburbs entails the possibility, if ever so slight, that the so-called nonwhite person will maybe have to face this display of ill-founded patriotism.
To think otherwise is to ignore that possibility and ignoring that possibility can bring about a great deal of unnecessary suffering.

Jeff Corey

7th November 2007, 05:08 PM

[QUOTE=Radrook;3131489... this display of ill-founded patriotism...[/QUOTE]
Did you mean to say "patriotism"?
I think that other words would be more apropos.

Radrook

8th November 2007, 09:43 AM

Did you mean to say "patriotism"?
I think that other words would be more apropos.

Will you please provide examples of the words you feel are more appropriate.

Clarification: I find it rather silly that personal preferences
should be immediately pounced on as racism since human behavior can have multiple motives. Such pouncing can become extremely annoying since it inevitably leads to self-justified attempts at payback. A vendetta mentality which mistakenly targets persons who aren't racist.

BTW
If we are to have anti-discriminatory standards, let us apply them to everyone equally and NOT make exceptions based on race by giving members of one group a license to get away with conduct for which a member another group would immediately be publicly condemned and very likely lose his job. Such preferential treatment only serves to encourage the privileged group to continue its self righteous harassment of those it considers deserving of having their human rights disrespected.

Mashuna

9th November 2007, 05:14 AM

Radrook

9th November 2007, 08:45 AM

Radrook, sticking to the issue of parents attempting to influence their child's choice of partner on the basis of race (because I frankly don't see how your blue-skinned alien analogy is relevant).

It's relevant when the animosity exists and has the potential of causing harm. Rural Chinese women, for example, are required to subjugate themselves to their husband's family members who might or might not be reasonable people. Is it racist for parents to tell their kids that such a custom could ruin their lives if they become involved with a rural Chinese person? If so, how is it racist? Because try as I might I just don't see how warning one's child to be careful and to try and steer away from such situations makes a parent a racist.

....However, to decry all white babies (for example) as ugly is pretty stupid because it simply ignores the vast variation in what different people find beautiful and implicitly insists that your ideal of beauty is the only valid one.

That is not my ideal or idea of beauty. I was referring to a comment made on national TV.

....what specific "freight train of animosity" were you referring to?

The freight-train animosity which certain ethnic and non-ethnic groups inculcate into their kids so that their kids feel it's their right and duty to humiliate members of other ethnic groups in subtle and not so subtle ways. This animosity creates possibilities that have nothing to do with race and everything to do with attitude.

You say focus only on the individual immediately involved. The whole problem is that when one marries, one marries into an entire family the in-laws which might or might not share the spouse's ideals. In fact, they might be vehemently against his ideals and his choice of a mate and might feel it their right and duty to make their opinions clearly and repeatedly known via both words and actions.

All because she was maybe never informed about a certain pervasive attitude among the group she chooses to admit into her life. So in reality, your recommendation seems to suggest that we ignore a clear danger for the sake of not being racist when race has nothing to do with it.

BTW
As an illustration of how ignorance can lead to disasters, an ignorant immigrant family of Mexicans moved into a predominantly non-Mexican neighborhood they naively consaidered safe.

Possibly not taking the hints that they weren't wanted there due to cultural differences, they perished when their house was set on fire. Only one survived. Of course if someone would have warned them-that person would been classified as racist-right?

Another woman was taken to a certain ethnic hospital and permitted to bleed to death in the hallway while the orderlies mopped the floor around her body due to her ethnic persuasion. That too could have been avoided via a previous warning by what you would categorized as a racist based on the warning.

LostAngeles

9th November 2007, 09:33 AM

Radrook

9th November 2007, 09:50 AM

I'd consider that valid if I didn't look like a swarthy version of my late maternal grandmother. At her funeral I was dragged around by 70 year old white women so they could say to each other, "This is Ruthie's granddaughter. " "She looks just like her!" "I know!"

My sister looks like our paternal aunt, only lighter.

Many other mixed folks I know, like folks who aren't mixed, have features that take after one side of the family or another. And like folks who aren't mixed, look like a blend.

I believe there was an earlier post on the whole transfer of genotypes and their phenotypic expression. Perhaps you should read it.

I fail to see what your point is. I am aware that there is diversity and so called racial mixing in the USA and throughout the world and that family members take after sides of families or are a blend of both. However, the laws of genetics usually favor certain racial characteristics over others which makes it more unlikely that a white person will be reflected equally in his offspring when he mates with a black, oriental person etc. Which understandably some persons, both black and white, find unacceptable while others, black, whites and orientals etc, find it extremely desirable. It's all a matter of taste. Nothing more-nothing less. In short, minding or not minding doesn't make a person necessarily a racist.
It all boils down to the reasons why.

Statistics

Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come.

http://www.geocities.com/racial_reality/americans.html?200724

ponderingturtle

9th November 2007, 09:56 AM

Dear Lost,

Indeed. The difference being, none of those races are disappearing, or being encouraged to disappear.

Cpl Ferro

Native americans have marry more outside their race than inside.

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 09:58 AM

I fail to see what your point is. I am aware that there is diversity and so called racial mixing in the USA and throughout the world and that family members take after sides of families or are a blend of both. However, the laws of genetics usually favor certain racial characteristics over others which makes it more unlikely that a white person will be reflected equally in his offspring when he mates with a black or oriental person. Which understandably some persons find unacceptable while others don't mind at all? In fact, find it extremely desirable. It's all a matter of taste. Nothing more-nothing less. In short, minding or not minding doesn't make a person necessarily a racist.
Statistics

I disagree completely. I have never met a single person who did not instantly recognize my father as being my father (I definitely have the family chin). My brother and I are rarely mistaken for what we are where we live, pretty much everyone recognizes the fact that one of our parents is white, while the other is Japanese.

Just the fact that a person doesn't think their child looks like them would be extremely racist. I know many couples of mixed race and, like all new parents, the first thing they did with their newborn was to play the "he/she has your nose!" game.

ponderingturtle

9th November 2007, 10:18 AM

If "white culture" is what gives us boiled beef and potatoes as cuisine, I for one would be happy to see it die out.

Also chocolate in solid form.

You clearly hate chocolate and will shortly be pulled limb from limb by women crazy for you taking away their chocolate.

Radrook

9th November 2007, 10:29 AM

Cites, please, Radrook.

I've been taken home to racist families. Folks who are, "dating outside their race," have that happen to. It's all a matter of how you choose to deal with it. You're telling me no one who buys a house checks out the neighborhood first? Meets some of their new neighbors?

There's a difference of, "Hey those folks are racist. You should watch out," and, "FEAR WHITEY," which seems to be what you're suggesting I do.

It's not fear it's caution. Neither is it directed at white, black, or yellow, or any other specific color. In fact, color has nothing to do with it since color isn't the cause of the problem-it's attitude perpetuated via culture among certain groups that's the problem. Unfortunately, such attitude sometimes become identifiable via race or ethnic affiliation because it tends to predominate along ethnic or racial lines. Noose hanging and cross burning aren't seen in all neighborhoods but only in certain types of neighborhoods and are perpetrated by certain people and necessitates blindness in order not to notice which
group is involved.

Think of drive-by shootings in LA and who comes immediately to mind? Anglos? Blacks?
Most people would immediately think of Chicanos. Since such is the case, it would be suicidal for a person to mindlessly ignore the possibilities which statistics indicate and plow ahead into geographical areas where certain dangerous antisocial predispositions are known to flourish.

Mention riots after a perceived social injustice and who comes to mind? Anglos? Hispanics? Jews? Or Afro-Americans? The latter comes readily to mind. Why? Well, because they are the only ones who riot after perceived social injustices. Is it racist to notice this? Or is it simply unavoidable?

Taking note of possible danger doesn't make a person a racist unless the person generalizes in such a way as to trample upon human rights of members of a group simply because they belong to that group. But, avoiding getting killed doesn't trample on the rights of anyone if it merely entails avoiding getting physically or mentally abused.

The burning of the Mexican family occurred in California.
The woman left to die in the hospital floor in the East USA.
I'll try to get links.

Radrook

9th November 2007, 10:49 AM

I disagree completely. I have never met a single person who did not instantly recognize my father as being my father (I definitely have the family chin). My brother and I are rarely mistaken for what we are where we live, pretty much everyone recognizes the fact that one of our parents is white, while the other is Japanese.

Just the fact that a person doesn't think their child looks like them would be extremely racist. I know many couples of mixed race and, like all new parents, the first thing they did with their newborn was to play the "he/she has your nose!" game.

Of course there are exceptions and I was only referring to the statistical probabilities as I clearly pointed out. As for racism. your definition doesn't meet the necessary criteria . I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and see how it is defined. Racism entails efforts to deprive others of their human rights. I fail to see where aesthetic preference meets that criteria. If it does, then explain how it does. Not that preferences can't, just that they don't necessarily entail racism as it is currently defined.

BTW

Oriental genetics usually predominate in eye shape and facial bone structure. I personally like the aesthetic combination. Others might not. Does that make them racists? I say it only makes them racist if they persecute based on this. Otherwise it simply remains a harmless preference. it all depends on what actions accompany the preference--but to deny that people have preferences or to demand that they do not or to tag those having preferences as racists is simply not cogent reasoning.

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 11:05 AM

Of course there are exceptions and I was only referring to the statistical probabilities as I clearly pointed out. As for racism. your definition doesn't meet the necessary criteria . I suggest that you go to Wikipedia and see how it is defined. Racism entails efforts to deprive others of their human rights. I fail to see where aesthetic preference meets that criteria. If it does, then explain how it does. Not that preferences can't, just that they don't necessarily entail racism as it is currently defined.

I suggest you take a look at societies where racial mixing is common such as Brazil and Hawaii. I think you will find that the statistical probabilities you are seeing are a result of a racist (yep, there it is again) mentality that looks for differences rather than similarities.

And I also disagree with your definition of racism, the very first sentence in the Wiki you directed me to states this:

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.

There is no mention of human rights, or the deprivation of such. Apparently you are using the wrong criteria in your example of personal preferences. For example, if you state that black features are less attractive than white features and therefore you would never want a black or partially black child, this is basically stating that black features are intrinsically inferior to white features. Basically, racism is a sub-category of discrimination in general.

BTW

Oriental genetics usually predominate in eye shape and facial bone structure. I personally like the aesthetic combination. Others might not. Does that make them racists? I say it only makes them racist if they persecute based on this. Otherwise it simply remains a harmless preference. it all depends on what actions accompany the preference--but to deny that people have preferences or to demand that they do not or to tag those having preferences as racists is simply not cogent reasoning.

Appreciating the aethetics of any one ethnic group is not racist. Only appreciating one aethestic and the rejection of all others (as you were implying with the statement regarding people rejecting the idea of a child who wouldn't look like them) is where the racism creeps in. And I still disagree with the notion that white characteristics (however one would define that) are necessarily drowned out by other characteristics. Smacks of a sort of reverse confirmation bias to me.

slingblade

9th November 2007, 11:19 AM

Going back to...well, to the thread title, really, I took a sociology class in college called White Identities, about three or four years ago. I've posted about it a lot in the (former) Politics and Social Issues sub, and been roundly misunderstood and castigated for it.

I realise that subforum participants are not discreet groups; still, I wonder if explaining what I learned in that class would get any better reception here in Education than it did in PS&CE?

The class was complicated, and difficult to grasp for several weeks, for many of the students. Even more difficult, I've found, is condensing that 60 hours of instruction into a comprehensible forum post. Who'da thunk it? :p And the condenser needs a certain modicum of communications skills, as well. I'd like to think I have those, but my dismal failure on the other sub indicates I must not be all that when it comes to getting ideas across.

May I give it a shot, anyway?

The premise of such instruction, such a sociological hypothesis, is not that all whites are racists. To oversimplify it to this ludicrous degree guarantees it will be misunderstood, reviled, and ignored. Which makes this simplification ironically indicative of the core of the hypothesis, as I hope to show.

The premise is that all whites, by the sole "virtue" of being identified as white, are automatically and unwittingly included in a hegemony of institutional and systemic racism which generally operates silently, covertly, and well beyond the notice of those within the system. The purpose of a White Identities course is to drag this system into the light and expose it, so that it may one day be eradicated.

Yes, yes, and probably replaced with a whole new set of prejudices, I know, I know.

When such a course is taught well, by instructors who have a sincere desire to eliminate racism if at all possible, it is very eye-opening. The course is absolutely not directed at the actions of individuals, nor does it ever attempt to paint all whites as evil, secret KKKers.

It does attempt to show a hidden phenomenon usually called "white privilege." And this term, too, usually raises hackles. It took most of us in the class a few weeks to grasp the idea, so I do not hope to accomplish it in this post. I must say, however, that once I did grasp it, I was quite dismayed. I feel I see this privilege everywhere now, and see just how insidious it is. I feel that if more people could lower their defenses, they might see it, too. It seems so obvious to me, now.

Many other concepts also had to be understood, had to form a foundation, in order to understand the main concept. To use the shorthand of the class, there's the concept of the "norm" and the "other," which I'll call N/O for short. Most of my comments concern mainly the U.S. and its history, but also touch on European history as well.

We can see evidence of N/O in the comment made earlier by Spindrift:

As a white man, I don't think I've ever described Paul Newman as a white actor. I have probably at some point described Denzel Washington as a black actor.

Exactly. Now, extrapolate that to cover a multitude of concepts and attitudes, and you have an idea of N/O, of white privilege, and systemic racism. The problem is not so much that you made a point once or twice of singling out Denzel Washington as a black actor, as it is that it has never really occurred to you to name Paul Newman's race, but let it be assumed, because his race is the norm against which all others are compared.

And you never had any intent of doing that, I know. But we all do it, and we don't even have to be white to play. And doing so keeps the notion of "norm/other" alive, and enables systemic racism.

I noticed this 40 years ago, though I had no real idea then what I was seeing. When I was a kid, I noticed that if a crime was reported, and the criminal was white, his race was never mentioned. But if he was non-white, it was mentioned, and often more than once. A white robbing a bank was just "a man." The rest always had to be identified by their races. It's a little different today; a white man is likely to be identified as white or Caucasian in a crime report.

At this point in trying to explain the intent of the course, I usually direct the reader to other sources who have already explained this social phenom better than I can. I'm not citing them as authorities, in some fallacious attempt to garner approval of the ideas. It's just that they've already done the work, and they've done it well. These are resources used in the class, by the way.

One is an article by Peggy McIntosh: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

An educator's comments, explaining white privilege vs. diversity:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_02/Int152.shtml

Another is a campus project done a few years ago in California:

http://www.canopyweb.com/racism/

A class that examines whiteness is not the horrible bugaboo it seems. Frankly, isn't it stupid to try to solve a problem by looking at only certain parts of it, but not others? What's wrong with whites examining whiteness and trying to determine how it affects society and culture?

Comments are encouraged, but please try to refrain from calling me names. :)
And do please at least glance at the articles I've linked; I found them to be extremely helpful in undertanding this topic.

flimflam_machine

9th November 2007, 11:19 AM

That is not my ideal or idea of beauty. I was referring to a comment made on national TV.It sounds like we're in agreement that the comment was stupid.

It's relevant when the animosity exists and has the potential of causing harm. Rural Chinese women, for example, are required to subjugate themselves to their husband's family members who might or might not be reasonable people. Is it racist for parents to tell their kids that such a custom could ruin their lives if they become involved with a rural Chinese person?...
...
The freight-train animosity which certain ethnic and non-ethnic groups inculcate into their kids so that their kids feel it's their right and duty to humiliate members of other ethnic groups in subtle and not so subtle ways. This animosity creates possibilities that have nothing to do with race and everything to do with attitude.The general tone of your comments doesn't suggest that you think it is "nothing to do with race", or at least nothing to do with ethnicity. I agree that certain attitudes, which you may find distasteful, may be more prevalent in certain ethnic groups (probably due to shared cultural heritage) and, fine, this might lead you to be more cautious. But assuming that not everyone of the race in question has been inculcated with those attitudes the answer is not to warn off your child on the basis of their chosen partner's race but to check that their chosen partner (and their family) don't hold those attitudes. Again it's down to the suitability of the individual, independent of their race.

Anyway, this is slightly beside the point, because I thought we were still dealing with the original post (by bpesta I think) which argued that it is not racist to try to influence the race of your child's partner simply on the basis that you don't like the way a particular race looks. I certainly find that pretty offensive, simply because the way your opinion of your child's partner's aesthetic value is of absolutely no consequence at all.

ponderingturtle

9th November 2007, 11:34 AM

Appreciating the aethetics of any one ethnic group is not racist. Only appreciating one aethestic and the rejection of all others (as you were implying with the statement regarding people rejecting the idea of a child who wouldn't look like them) is where the racism creeps in.

Possibly, or it is just a very strong aesthetic preference. That would be what I would class hetero or homo sexuality as as well.

And I still disagree with the notion that white characteristics (however one would define that) are necessarily drowned out by other characteristics. Smacks of a sort of reverse confirmation bias to me.

Why do aesthetic preferences need to be perpetuated?

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 11:45 AM

Possibly, or it is just a very strong aesthetic preference. That would be what I would class hetero or homo sexuality as as well.

I disagree. I believe aesthetic preferences are more influenced by the culture in which you were brought up (see the references to Brazil and Hawaii for example). Sexual preference is a whole 'nother beastie.

Why do aesthetic preferences need to be perpetuated?

I don't believe they need to be perpetuated (although I am not sure what Radrook believes). In most cases, I think it is the cultural enviroment that will perpetuate those preferences rather than some genetic influence. Can aesthetic preferences be inherited? This is a genuine question, I honestly do not know.

ponderingturtle

9th November 2007, 11:53 AM

I disagree. I believe aesthetic preferences are more influenced by the culture in which you were brought up (see the references to Brazil and Hawaii for example). Sexual preference is a whole 'nother beastie.

Possibly but again so what? You can make that same argument for fetishes and I don't think anyone would say vetting partners by fetish is immoral.

There is also an extent issue, would you only consider a certain ethnicity or just prefer certain ethnicities over others.

I am not willing to say that someone with a preference for or against a particular race in choice of partner is racist.

I don't believe they need to be perpetuated (although I am not sure what Radrook believes). In most cases, I think it is the cultural enviroment that will perpetuate those preferences rather than some genetic influence. Can aesthetic preferences be inherited? This is a genuine question, I honestly do not know.

Genetically inherited or culturally inherited? Culturally, sure look at foot binding, there where a great many men who thought that those feet where the height of sexy.

Radrook

9th November 2007, 12:00 PM

I suggest you take a look at societies where racial mixing is common such as Brazil and Hawaii. I think you will find that the statistical probabilities you are seeing are a result of a racist (yep, there it is again) mentality that looks for differences rather than similarities.

And I also disagree with your definition of racism, the very first sentence in the Wiki you directed me to states this:

That's because you stopped at the first sentence. Further down the page-if you will, Wikipedia goes on to give the various accepted definitions and none of them jive with yours.

There is no mention of human rights, or the deprivation of such. Apparently you are using the wrong criteria in your example of personal preferences. For example, if you state that black features are less attractive than white features and therefore you would never want a black or partially black child, this is basically stating that black features are intrinsically inferior to white features. Basically, racism is a sub-category of discrimination in general.

Again, that's because you conveniently stopped at the article's initial statement.

BTW

The inferiority part is your idea, not mine.

Appreciating the aethetics of any one ethnic group is not racist. Only appreciating one aethestic and the rejection of all others (as you were implying with the statement regarding people rejecting the idea of a child who wouldn't look like them) is where the racism creeps in. And I still disagree with the notion that white characteristics (however one would define that) are necessarily drowned out by other characteristics. Smacks of a sort of reverse confirmation bias to me.

If you would read more carefully before posting a reply, you would clearly see that I am not making the illogical all-or-none genetic claims you accuse me of.

Hokulele

9th November 2007, 12:01 PM

PT, read the thread to see what point I am arguing against. I'm no longer interested in taking this off on some strange tangent just to satisfy your need for disagreement.

Radrook

9th November 2007, 12:14 PM

PT, read the thread to see what point I am arguing against. I'm no longer interested in taking this off on some strange tangent just to satisfy your need for disagreement.

I know which points you are referring to. The issue really is are they really my points or points that you believe are my points? For example, you mention Brazil and claim that its racial differences among its populations is due to racism. Perhaps you are right or perhaps your statement is an exagerration. However, be it as it may, it has nothing to do with what I am saying and really makes me wonder whether you truly know what I am saying at all. Sometimes anger clouds the mind in such a way that one perceives arguments in the wrong way. In any case, if you feel that I am merely interested in disagreeing, then I can undertrstand your decison not to continue this discussion. No hard feelings.

Radrook

9th November 2007, 12:37 PM

It sounds like we're in agreement that the comment was stupid.

The general tone of your comments doesn't suggest that you think it is "nothing to do with race", or at least nothing to do with ethnicity. I agree that certain attitudes, which you may find distasteful, may be more prevalent in certain ethnic groups (probably due to shared cultural heritage) and, fine, this might lead you to be more cautious. But assuming that not everyone of the race in question has been inculcated with those attitudes the answer is not to warn off your child on the basis of their chosen partner's race but to check that their chosen partner (and their family) don't hold those attitudes. Again it's down to the suitability of the individual, independent of their race.

I never said that all personality traits are genetically derived. If I did, show me where I said that. There is a vast difference, for example, between black Africans and African-Americans
Black Hispanics, Caribbean Blacks, in terms of culture and subsequently in terms of behavior as well. This is common knowledge and anyone not knowing it or lumping all black people throughout the world into one behavioral category is either undereducated or a moron.

It's the old issue of nurture versus nature and the examples above should convince people just how important nurture is in comparison to nature. So no I am not thinking in the manner you believe I am.

Anyway, this is slightly beside the point, because I thought we were still dealing with the original post (by bpesta I think) which argued that it is not racist to try to influence the race of your child's partner simply on the basis that you don't like the way a particular race looks. I certainly find that pretty offensive, simply because the way your opinion of your child's partner's aesthetic value is of absolutely no consequence at all.

Again we come back to the perennial issues of likes and dislikes. Where does it say that people should like the appearances of other people and if they don't that are racist? I hear white folk criticizing redheaded freckled people. Are they racist? The Greeks had an ideal for beauty which they expressed in their statues. Were they racist against anyone not meeting those ideals? I have heard Afro Americans say that whites look like ghosts and dead people due to their skin color. Is that Racist? Or when a black man says he prefers black women because they have bigger buts. Is that being racist against white women?

Really? How abut Mohammed Ali's Gorilla statements against Frazier? I never heard anyone say Ali is racist. Yet Ali disliked Frazier's appearance. Yet to me that's a racist remark since it disrespects Frazier's humanity and inflicts unwarranted psychological pain both on Frazier and on his family.

Or when a black Comedian states that he would feel horrified to find his daughter married to a Hispanic and proceeds to make mocking statements and the black Afro American audience laughs in glee. Is that racist? To me it is racist. But to the majority of TV viewers, such as yourself-perhaps, that's just plain Good ole American style fun.

BTW
If indeed personality traits are racially inherited as you suggest, the how come we don't see black Hispanics rioting in those Latin countries in response to social injustices?

bpesta22

9th November 2007, 04:08 PM

From what I remember, there aren't many race differences on measures of personality. Whereas personality traits might be genetic, I can't see how race differences could be, since there are no differences...

TuftedPuffin

9th November 2007, 05:46 PM

TuftedPuffin,

If you also dismiss LaRouche, your theories of art are worthless.

Let me paraphrase: "I can't actually refute your arguments, but I think LaRouche can, and as I don't actually understand his arguments or remember his sources I'm just going to have to hope you're familiar with the writings of one particular second-rate cult leader."

Classical Christian civilisation is inherently superior to all other forms of civilisation, but, again, to understand this you would have to read, specifically material by LaRouche and geniuses he references. Again, whites are the closest associates of this civilisation, and the fewer whites there are, the fewer people there are with a direct felt connection to the heritage of Europe. No white people, no classical civilisation. Unless you think the blacks, or the Hispanics, or the Jews, or the Orientals are going to suddenly become enamored of all those “dead white men” and rebuild the glory of Europa.

Umm...Japan of the last 100 years has been obsessed with all those dead white guys, for one. This forum, while harboring no love for the "white race", is incredibly uncritical about enlightenment ideals of objective truth, human rights, etc., ideas from, guess who, dead white guys. For that matter, everyone loves Shakespeare.

Also, race mixing perpetuates white culture. When a Jew and a Christian marry, what religion are their kids? Christian or Atheist, not Jewish. When someone marries an Asian, are the kids forced to overachieve in school? No. White culture is preserved in racial mixes.

P.S.
That's enough; either you get it by now or you don't; either you research or you don't. I have no hope anyway for Western civilisation. Just sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the spectacle of World War Four! It's been fun; thanks for the debate.

And you accuse us of Nihilism....

TuftedPuffin

9th November 2007, 06:03 PM

snip

So would the solution be to make all people the Norm, or to make all people the Other? Because Other status is quite nice when it's partially a matter of choice (for example, for me nerdiness is definitely an "Other" identity).

Radrook

9th November 2007, 06:08 PM

Actually, European ideals and culture have been in the ascendancy ever since the industrial revolution gave Europeans a military advantage over non-European nations which were subsequently colonized. So it seems that the cultures and values that are really in danger of being swamped are the non-European ones.

Take for example the indigenous cultures of the Americas. Th

The native religions are practically dead via amalgamation with the ones practiced by the Europeans. Catholicism holds sway over vast areas where once Aztec, Inca, and Mayan religions and social customs ruled unchallenged. This despite the intermarriage of Europeans with Native Americans.

slingblade

9th November 2007, 06:58 PM

So would the solution be to make all people the Norm, or to make all people the Other? Because Other status is quite nice when it's partially a matter of choice (for example, for me nerdiness is definitely an "Other" identity).

Yeah. You didn't read the links.

By the way, just because I can explain a course I took wasn't a recruitment booth for the KKK, what makes you think I have, or was offering, any solutions?

TuftedPuffin

9th November 2007, 07:06 PM

Yeah. You didn't read the links.

By the way, just because I can explain a course I took wasn't a recruitment booth for the KKK, what makes you think I have, or was offering, any solutions?

I didn't read the links, this is true. In this case, it seemed like the links were presented as "explore further" stuff, not your main point.

And I'm certainly not claiming you're presenting a perfect view of it, but as you've been through the class and I haven't, I was wondering what your perspective on the question of the existence of otherness/norms is. Believe me, my attack/refutation posts are much more annoying about it. I was just trying to start a discussion, as I think in general your points make sense.

slingblade

9th November 2007, 07:31 PM

I didn't read the links, this is true. In this case, it seemed like the links were presented as "explore further" stuff, not your main point.

And I'm certainly not claiming you're presenting a perfect view of it, but as you've been through the class and I haven't, I was wondering what your perspective on the question of the existence of otherness/norms is. Believe me, my attack/refutation posts are much more annoying about it. I was just trying to start a discussion, as I think in general your points make sense.

Oh, okay. Yes, I'm defensive. This topic often gets met with a lot of antagonism. I can't imagine why. ;)

I don't know that I have a position on it. Only an increased awareness of it. That's all the class was designed to do: get you thinking about it. One thing that was impressed upon us in the course was that race is inextricably intertwined with gender and class. You can't just pluck racism out of the sociological mix, wave your hands, and call it "solved." It doesn't exist in isolation; it won't be ended in isolation to other social concerns.

One interesting point made was about women's rights and civil rights in the 60s and 70s. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but we learned that there was a kind of behind-the-scenes battle going on for black women: it was seen by both blacks and whites as "okay" or "understandable" if they fought for civil rights, but not so cool if they also tried to fight for women's rights. As if they had a right to one fight, but not to the other, or as if they were betraying their blackness by fighting for their gender. They could be women...or they could be black. See the Combahee River Collective for more info on that.

My point is that, in general, whiteness studies do not purport to have the "answer" to racism. They simply examine one often ignored and very complicated aspect of it. Our professor was adamant in his assertion that racism will likely not have ended in our lifetimes, it's that insidious. And it's going to change its face, maybe, as whites become the minority in more and more places.

We were asked some questions early on in this class, which I found fascinating. Prof asked us if we thought we could describe, even superficially, what it means to be black in America. And most of us thought we could give some sort of answer, and did so. Then we were asked what it was like to be white, and we did hear answers like "Oh, white is normal" and "White culture is American culture, of course."

At any rate, it was a very interesting and thought-provoking class, and didn't ever try to imply that all whites are raging racists with Confederate flags hanging in the garage.

TuftedPuffin

9th November 2007, 07:44 PM

One interesting point made was about women's rights and civil rights in the 60s and 70s. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but we learned that there was a kind of behind-the-scenes battle going on for black women: it was seen by both blacks and whites as "okay" or "understandable" if they fought for civil rights, but not so cool if they also tried to fight for women's rights. As if they had a right to one fight, but not to the other, or as if they were betraying their blackness by fighting for their gender. They could be women...or they could be black. See the Combahee River Collective for more info on that.

Are you familiar with Intersectionality? It's a part of feminism that focuses on this exact topic...you might find some of the stuff its proponents have to say of interest. Basically, intersectionalists study the consequences of collisions between multiple types of oppression, like racism and sexism, and how victims of both have unique challenges not present for either larger group.

And yeah, the existence of these concepts of Norms are very interesting, though I do find that people who discuss this tend to ignore certain Other groups, which I think is problematic. In the end, it seems that Otherness is necessary for identity, and the real problem is that, for whatever reason, we tend to view people of other races with a uniform Otherness. Just my thoughts on the topic.

But yeah, I've heard a little of this stuff too. One of the more interesting examples I've heard is the color of "flesh-colored" bandages...it's little things like that that slip under the radar.

slingblade

9th November 2007, 08:16 PM

Are you familiar with Intersectionality? It's a part of feminism that focuses on this exact topic...you might find some of the stuff its proponents have to say of interest. Basically, intersectionalists study the consequences of collisions between multiple types of oppression, like racism and sexism, and how victims of both have unique challenges not present for either larger group.

Thank you! That does sound like an interesting topic, and having a name for it will help me investigate it. Cool.

And yeah, the existence of these concepts of Norms are very interesting, though I do find that people who discuss this tend to ignore certain Other groups, which I think is problematic. In the end, it seems that Otherness is necessary for identity, and the real problem is that, for whatever reason, we tend to view people of other races with a uniform Otherness. Just my thoughts on the topic.

I tend to agree. I do think our prof did a good job in this class explaining that with his "not in isolation" concepts. Otherness does seem necessary for identity: you must have a basis for comparison, and will inevitably find both differences and similarities. Humans like grouping things and ascribing meanings to the groups: trees, bugs, people, morals, skin colors.... :)

The problem is when this otherness is actually not other, but only a distortion of a segment of the norm that produces an artificial other. I think this might be part of the concept of "color-blindness," which our prof taught us was actually more harmful than helpful, and another form of hidden and seemingly condoned racism.

If I say, "I don't see your color; you're just the same as me," then I am deliberately ignoring all the ways in which your life and mine will never be similar--ways that you must deal with every day, which my skin color keeps me free to disregard. An oft-used example is housing. My income or credit rating may keep me from getting the place I want, but as a white woman, I can know that my skin color will likely never be the reason I didn't get the apartment.

The truth of it is, in most situations, my color or my race will never be used against me. Not everyone can say that, and to ignore it does them no service. Color-blindness is well-intentioned, but it's ineffective and even harmful. It doesn't lessen racism; it perpetuates it by putting a new coat of paint on it.

But yeah, I've heard a little of this stuff too. One of the more interesting examples I've heard is the color of "flesh-colored" bandages...it's little things like that that slip under the radar.

Exactly. Just a couple of years ago, I noticed the polymer clay I work with still labels pale pinkish-brown as "flesh." Is it a big deal? I woudn't put it in that spotlight; I'd say it's simply one more indication that systemic racism does exist, and that most people involved simply don't have any awareness of it. It's a cumulative effect, not one of particulars.

Radrook

10th November 2007, 12:37 PM

It's funny how racism has developed. During the Conquista, it was every good Spaniard's duty to mate with the natives in order to 'improve the breed'.

It wasn't based on improving the race. It was based on necessity, attraction, testosterone, and opportunity. Few Spaniards brought their own women to the Americans as the English did so they mated with the natives. Sometimes women were offered to them as gifts by the chiefs. At other times it was rape, Yet at other times simply mutual attraction. But there was no thought of racial improvement at all since the Spaniards didn't feel racially inferior to the natives nor to anyone else for that matter. Where you got that weird idea is beyond me. Care to post your dubious source?

quixotecoyote

11th November 2007, 09:09 PM

Where you got that weird idea is beyond me. Care to post your dubious source?

Calling a source dubious before you even know what it is? Dishonesty.

The School of Social Science at Manchester University (http://les.man.ac.uk/multimedia/mestizaje.htm) says:

Indians were distinguished from Spanish people as naturales opposed to gente de razón: the distinction is in terms of ability to reason and behave rationally, a quality which is assumed European. However, Indians are seen as lacking it because they are like children, and ignorance can literally be bred out of them. In the logic of the racial classification, Indian blood is redeemable: people with Indian blood somewhere back in their line can eventually become white if their ancestors have persisted in breeding with Spaniards. Black blood, however, is not redeemable: or to put it another way, people with African blood can never "whiten themselves". What post-colonial ideologies took from this colonial view of race was the association of social as well as personal progress with whitening.

I wish I still had a copy of this because it's not full text online, but I believe it explicitly spelled out how mestizaje (the race mixing in Latin America) was focused on a sense of 'whitening':
Safa, H. (2005). Challenging Mestizaje. Critique of Anthropology, (25)3, pp. 307-330

This one is full text:
C. Rogers. (1946) The morality of race mixing in Puerto Rico. Social Forces, (25)1, pp. 77-81.

The significant fact about these practices is that neither these unions nor the mixed offspring form them were strongly stigmatized. Wheter the unions were either promiscuous or de jure, or whether the children were "bastards" or legitimate did not operate seriously to prejudice the persons involved.

This over-all moral attitude tended to produce an optimum condition for race mixing...

This is a summary (http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/emily_monroy/race_mixing.asp)of Belgian sociologist Pierre van den Berghe's book in which he mentions that mixed-race people were more valued than natives.

The attitude towards 'whitening' the native didn't end there. It actually stuck around. Here's a link to an excerpt from Contemporary Latin American Cultural Studies (http://books.google.com/books?id=JtovkVJ0R-8C&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=mestizaje+whitening&source=web&ots=JIyLREnU99&sig=SGUaM-gyA_11j_UAxZVrRgBzz74#PPA222,M1) showing the idea is still present into the 1980s.

This is not a big secret, it's a well known issue in Latin American studies that has a continuing impact on racism through today.

Ron_Tomkins

11th November 2007, 11:18 PM

Statements such as "all white people are racist" sound to me kind of like:

"All racists are the same!!. If it was up to me, I'd put them all on a line and shoot 'em up in the head, I tell ya!!"

Which to me, has always sounded kind of like an oxymoron. I don't know why:confused:

quixotecoyote

11th November 2007, 11:28 PM

Good thing they qualified it then.

Roboramma

12th November 2007, 12:15 AM

This is not a big secret, it's a well known issue in Latin American studies that has a continuing impact on racism through today. I think he thought you were saying that the Spanish believed that they would improve themselves by "mixing" with the native americans, rather than the other way around.

I would have been surprised by that idea as well. What you posted above is interesting (and thank for it) but not as surprising.

Just trying to avoid misunderstandings...

TuftedPuffin

12th November 2007, 12:46 AM

Hey, and one final word on this topic for now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GY8o-qAb08

Avenue Q FTW!

flimflam_machine

12th November 2007, 05:08 AM

I never said that all personality traits are genetically derived. If I did, show me where I said that. There is a vast difference, for example, between black Africans and African-Americans, Black Hispanics, Caribbean Blacks, in terms of culture and subsequently in terms of behavior as well. This is common knowledge and anyone not knowing it or lumping all black people throughout the world into one behavioral category is either undereducated or a moron.

It's the old issue of nurture versus nature and the examples above should convince people just how important nurture is in comparison to nature. So no I am not thinking in the manner you believe I am.I'll ignore the unecessarily confrontational tone of your post because it sounds like we're more or less in agreement. I never accused you of saying that all personaility traits are genetically derived. When it comes to personality I agree that nurture is important (cf my comment "I agree that certain attitudes, which you may find distasteful, may be more prevalent in certain ethnic groups (probably due to shared cultural heritage)"

Previously it sounded as if you were saying that people of a specific race/ethnicity would invariably hold certain attitudes. I apparently misinterpreted you because, as you say, nurture is important so this just isn't true. As such, acting to warn your child off from marrying someone of a particular race/ethnicity would be rash. Rather you should assess the merits of the individual concerned. That's what I've been saying all along.

Again we come back to the perennial issues of likes and dislikes. Where does it say that people should like the appearances of other people and if they don't that are racist? I hear white folk criticizing redheaded freckled people. Are they racist?I think you're missing the point here Radrook. The questionable action is not holding a particular aesthetic preference, but the fact that you try to inflict your own individual, subjective, idiosyncratic aesthetic preference upon your child. To do so is just stupid. You have no more right to dictate how your child's partner looks than you have to walk up to a random stranger in the street and say "You shouldn't date that woman because she's ugly."

I don't believe that it is racist not to find members of a particular race attractive, in the same way that it is not discriminatory not to find tall people/ginger people/freckly people/etc. attractive. However, if you are intelligent enough to realise that your child's aesthetic preference is more important than your own aesthetic preference in the choice of their partner, then it is questionable to try to dictate to them the race/height/hair colour/skin colour/etc. of their partner. The reason that it is questionable is because it suggests that you believe that your own aesthetic preference is not just your own, individual, subjective, idiosyncratic, aesthetic preference, but an absolute ideal of attractiveness that your child should adhere to.

I don't know how to put it any more clearly than that, and I think we are in agreement because I completely concur with your comment here:

Or when a black Comedian states that he would feel horrified to find his daughter married to a Hispanic and proceeds to make mocking statements and the black Afro American audience laughs in glee. Is that racist? To me it is racist.To me also.

If indeed personality traits are racially inherited as you suggest, the how come we don't see black Hispanics rioting in those Latin countries in response to social injustices?That's precisely what I didn't suggest, please note again my comment:

I agree that certain attitudes, which you may find distasteful, may be more prevalent in certain ethnic groups (probably due to shared cultural heritage)Note "due to shared cultural heritage", not "due to shared genetic or racial heritage".

Radrook

12th November 2007, 08:32 AM

I'll ignore the unecessarily confrontational.... [/B]"

....I think you're missing the point here Radrook. The questionable action is not holding a particular aesthetic preference, but the fact that you try to inflict your own individual, subjective, idiosyncratic aesthetic preference upon your child. To do so is just stupid. You have no more right to dictate how your child's partner looks than you have to walk up to a random stranger in the street and say "You shouldn't date that woman because she's ugly."

The words, "inflict", "dictate," and especially "stupid", are unnecessarily confrontational. But I will also ignore them because we are generally in agreement on other points and because I feel you are misunderstanding me on this particular one.

Do you really believe that parents don't express their aesthetic preferences to their kids and that doing so is idiosyncratic? It's a common practice. So I guess all humans are idiosyncratic in this area according to your criteria.

The illustration of ordering a stranger not to marry someone is a false analogy since we aren't dealing with stranger's. A stranger's personal decisions might not impact my existence in any way manner or form whereas the decisions of my children would in one way or another.

Clarification:Please note that in terms of aesthetic choices I don't dictate anything, I merely suggest. Neither do I judge any individual person as good or bad based on race or ethnics. Never have done that and never will.

flimflam_machine

12th November 2007, 09:10 AM

The words, "inflict", "dictate," and especially "stupid", are unnecessarily confrontational. But I will also ignore them because we are generally in agreement on other points and because I feel you are misunderstanding me on this particular one.My apologies if you think I'm being confrontational. I thought that the original suggestion that one could justifiably intervene in your child's choice of partner based on their appearance (mediated, in the original suggestion, by race) was actually bpesta's, not yours. I will stand by those words though because I cannot see how such an intervention could possibly do anything other than create huge anomosity between parent and child (even if it has nothing to do with race). In my head the conversation would go thusly:

Parent: "I don't think you should marry/date Jonny/Sally"
Child: "Why not?"
Parent: "Because he/she is ugly?"
Child: "Well I find him/her very attractive, otherwise I wouldn't be marrying/dating them."
Parent: "But I find him/her ugly."
Child: "And what the hell has that got to do with anything?"

How exactly do you see that conversation resolving itself in a non-acrimonious fashion?

Do you really believe that parents don't express their aesthetic preferences to their kids and that doing so is idiosyncratic? It's a common practice. So I guess all humans are idiosyncratic in this area according to your criteria.I was using "idiosyncratic" to mean "individual" in a tautological sense to hammer home the point that your aesthetic preferences are yours and yours alone and hence have no bearing on your child's choice of partner. No doubt many children do share aesthetic values with their parents, since they were brought up by them and therefore are exposed to their parent's aesthetic choics during their formative years. However, they will not necessarily be exactly the same and, as such, the choice of one's partner belongs to the individual and not their parents. Do you genuinely think that it is common practice to try to dictate your child's choice of partner based on looks alone alone? I've never heard of it.

The illustration of ordering a stranger not to marry someone is a false analogy since we aren't dealing with stranger's. A stranger's personal decisions might not impact my existence in any way manner or form whereas the decisions of my children would in one way or another.Your child's choice of partner could indeed affect your life and, as I said before, this entitles you to advise them on their choice of partner if you think that the partner they've chosen is irresponsible, a cheat, financially incompetent etc. and so might cause them grief in the future. But we are talking about aesthetics i.e., looks, and looks alone, and as such the analogy is perfectly valid. How will how your child's partner looks affect your life?

Clarification:Please note that in terms of aesthetic choices I don't dictate anything, I merely suggest. Neither do I judge any individual person as good or bad based on race or ethnics. Never have done that and never will.I applaud you for your stance on race and ethnicity, but I'm still not sure why you feel you have the right to even "suggest" anything about anyone else's purely aesthetic choices, given that the aesthetic is the quintessential subjective, personal judgement.

Radrook

12th November 2007, 09:58 AM

My apologies if you think I'm being confrontational. I thought that the original suggestion that one could justifiably intervene in your child's choice of partner based on their appearance (mediated, in the original suggestion, by race) was actually bpesta's, not yours. I will stand by those words though because I cannot see how such an intervention could possibly do anything other than create huge anomosity between parent and child (even if it has nothing to do with race). In my head the conversation would go thusly:

Parent: "I don't think you should marry/date Jonny/Sally"
Child: "Why not?"
Parent: "Because he/she is ugly?"
Child: "Well I find him/her very attractive, otherwise I wouldn't be marrying/dating them."
Parent: "But I find him/her ugly."
Child: "And what the hell has that got to do with anything?"

How exactly do you see that conversation resolving itself in a non-acrimonious fashion?

Such a crude conversation and savage approach isn't a good idea and I would never speak to anyon-much less my children in that way.

I agree that everyone has a right to choose in accordance with his or her preferences. I also agree with those who feel that they have a right to make their own preferences known to their children. Both have a right to their preferences. Neither has the right to demand that the other feel as the other does. That would be tantamount to demanding that one like to eat certain food when the food is disliked. However, it is the right to dislike the food that I am defending. Because n one has the right to dictate to me what I should or should not prefer in terms of aesthetics or not. Hope that clears it up a little at least.

I was using "idiosyncratic" to mean "individual" in a tautological sense to hammer home the point that your aesthetic preferences are yours and yours alone and hence have no bearing on your child's choice of partner. No doubt many children do share aesthetic values with their parents, since they were brought up by them and therefore are exposed to their parent's aesthetic choices during their formative years. However, they will not necessarily be exactly the same and, as such, the choice of one's partner belongs to the individual and not their parents. Do you genuinely think that it is common practice to try to dictate your child's choice of partner based on looks alone alone? I've never heard of it.

Hammering and dictating is your idea not mine. I am merely referring to a parents right to make his aesthetic preferences known. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your child's choice of partner could indeed affect your life and, as I said before, this entitles you to advise them on their choice of partner if you think that the partner they've chosen is irresponsible, a cheat, financially incompetent etc. and so might cause them grief in the future. But we are talking about aesthetics i.e., looks, and looks alone, and as such the analogy is perfectly valid. How will how your child's partner looks affect your life?

I applaud you for your stance on race and ethnicity, but I'm still not sure why you feel you have the right to even "suggest" anything about anyone else's purely aesthetic choices, given that the aesthetic is the quintessential subjective, personal judgement.

Well, I guess that's where we differ. You feel that a parent has no right to express his preferences in this area and I feel that parent does. This doesn't mean that I am advocating a hammering, orv dictatorial insistence or harassment, or any other type of right-of-choice violation.

flimflam_machine

12th November 2007, 10:29 AM

I agree that everyone has a right to choose in accordance with his or her preferences. Including one's own children. Fine. We agree on this.

I also agree with those who feel that they have a right to make their own preferences known to their children.Could you just clarify here, do you mean that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference for their partner e.g. Mother to daughter "I like tall ginger men like your Dad", or that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference about their child's partner e.g., Mother to daughter "I don't think you should marry Jonny because he's short and dark (not like your father)"?

Obviously I wouldn't to to take away anyone's right to do the former, and if you really want to do the latter that's up to you. I'd defend your right to endanger your relationship with your child in the same way that I would defend your right to be rude.

However, as you may have gathered, I still think doing the latter is stupid, unproductive and very likely to cause serious strife between parent and child, even though I think you have the right to do so. If it is the latter that you are advocating, could you indicate how you would broach the subject in such a way that wouldn't end up with your child telling you where to go? Also do you see that to express your aesthetic preferences with respect to your child's choice of partner could seem morally suspect because it implies that you think that their partner is in some way inherently inferior?

Radrook

12th November 2007, 04:40 PM

Including one's own children. Fine. We agree on this.

Could you just clarify here, do you mean that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference for their partner e.g. Mother to daughter "I like tall ginger men like your Dad", or that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference about their child's partner e.g., Mother to daughter "I don't think you should marry Jonny because he's short and dark (not like your father)"?

Obviously I wouldn't to to take away anyone's right to do the former, and if you really want to do the latter that's up to you. I'd defend your right to endanger your relationship with your child in the same way that I would defend your right to be rude.

However, as you may have gathered, I still think doing the latter is stupid, unproductive and very likely to cause serious strife between parent and child, even though I think you have the right to do so. If it is the latter that you are advocating, could you indicate how you would broach the subject in such a way that wouldn't end up with your child telling you where to go? Also do you see that to express your aesthetic preferences with respect to your child's choice of partner could seem morally suspect because it implies that you think that their partner is in some way inherently inferior?

There are many things which endanger our relationship with our kids and which we as parents feel a right to teach them as part of our parental responsibility. What type of person they marry is the least among these since this becomes important to them only after they are virtually adults.

Then of course it can become a disagreement between adults. However, it need not become the problem which you envision it to be but might merely remain as a simple disagreement and nothing more. It all depends on how irrational the parent is in his views. I for one don't believe in nagging or insisting on my views when an adult has clearly chosen his own.

However, what I do require is that my own view be respected, and that I not be required to feel or feign attraction to what I am not attracted to. Besides that--there is no problem.

BTW
Since you seem to be getting more riled up as the discussion proceeds, perhaps it's better to discontinue. No hard feelings.

LostAngeles

12th November 2007, 05:33 PM

Radrook, did you ever come up with the cites for the case of the arson and the woman left to die on the floor of the hospital?

Radrook

13th November 2007, 12:26 AM

LostAngeles

13th November 2007, 01:28 AM

Here is the link to one of the articles. The incident happened at the Martin Luther King Hospital in Los Angeles Ca.
I'll try to find the other ASAP.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKQXUTlH_hkB1zhrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13oe7oeo0/EXP=1195025047/**http%3a//family.propeller.com/story/2007/06/14/tape-911-operators-did-little-to-help-dying-woman-in-er

I suspected the latter was the King-Harbor case. Nothing I heard about the case indicated it was anything more than a simple failure on the hospital's part and your link doesn't indicate that it was, "ethnic," either.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1

...And other families are now speaking out with allegations that their loved ones died of neglect while in the King-Harbor ER.

In March 2003, 20-year-old Oluchi Oliver waited hours to be admitted to the hospital with crippling stomach pains, according to his family. After 10 hours, he collapsed dead on the floor. No one noticed, his father, Akilah Oliver, said.

"It's always unimaginable when a child dies, but for him to die like this, as if he were invisible. … It's really tragic and it's really unimaginable," Akilah Oliver said.

Last week, federal inspectors declared that patients at King-Harbor were in "immediate jeopardy" of harm or death and gave the hospital 23 days to correct procedures or lose certification. It was the fourth time in less than four years that the hospital had received the warning.
...

The hospital itself had problems dating back for years as you'll note.

Unless you can prove that it was due to her ethnicity, I'm going to have to ask that you retract your assertion, please.

Radrook

13th November 2007, 01:56 AM

I suspected the latter was the King-Harbor case. Nothing I heard about the case indicated it was anything more than a simple failure on the hospital's part and your link doesn't indicate that it was, "ethnic," either.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1

The hospital itself had problems dating back for years as you'll note.

Unless you can prove that it was due to her ethnicity, I'm going to have to ask that you retract your assertion, please.

Perhaps you are right and I jumped to conclusions. Having said that I consider this conversation over.

flimflam_machine

13th November 2007, 04:21 AM

BTW
Since you seem to be getting more riled up as the discussion proceeds, perhaps it's better to discontinue. No hard feelings.I'm not riled Radrook, just... baffled. I'm still a little bit unclear about exactly what it is that your supporting since you didn't answer my direct question:

"Could you just clarify here, do you mean that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference for their partner e.g. Mother to daughter "I like tall ginger men like your Dad", or that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference about their child's partner e.g., Mother to daughter "I don't think you should marry Jonny because he's short and dark (not like your father)"?"

Of course I don't wan't to remove anyone's right to free speech, and hence remove their right to say either of these things. The former, particularly, is completely uncontentious. However, if it's in the context of the latter that you "require [your] own view be respected" I'm confused why you would require this "respect" when the expression of your own preference is (a) irrelevant and (b) a possible source of dischord between you and your child.

what I do require is that... I not be required to feel or feign attraction to what I am not attracted toI completely agree with you here, and I'd add that, depending on exactly what you mean by "attraction", feeling or expressing attraction for your child's partner could be considered weird. But I'm still unclear how actively expressing your lack of attraction could be in any way productive. Yes it would be a "disagreement between adults", but even so I can't see how it would be resolved amicably since it is a disagreement over the most notoriously subjective concept. If you are suggesting that one should actively raise the topic (rather than just respond honestly when asked) I'd be interested to hear how you'd do it wiithout inducing strife, otherwise I too shall withdraw taking my slight sense of bafflement with me. Thanks for chatting.

Radrook

13th November 2007, 10:29 AM

I'm not riled Radrook, just... baffled. I'm still a little bit unclear about exactly what it is that your supporting since you didn't answer my direct question:

"Could you just clarify here, do you mean that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference for their partner e.g. Mother to daughter "I like tall ginger men like your Dad", or that they have the right to express their aesthetic preference about their child's partner e.g., Mother to daughter "I don't think you should marry Jonny because he's short and dark (not like your father)"?"

Of course I don't wan't to remove anyone's right to free speech, and hence remove their right to say either of these things. The former, particularly, is completely uncontentious. However, if it's in the context of the latter that you "require [your] own view be respected" I'm confused why you would require this "respect" when the expression of your own preference is (a) irrelevant and (b) a possible source of dischord between you and your child.

I completely agree with you here, and I'd add that, depending on exactly what you mean by "attraction", feeling or expressing attraction for your child's partner could be considered weird. But I'm still unclear how actively expressing your lack of attraction could be in any way productive. Yes it would be a "disagreement between adults", but even so I can't see how it would be resolved amicably since it is a disagreement over the most notoriously subjective concept. If you are suggesting that one should actively raise the topic (rather than just respond honestly when asked) I'd be interested to hear how you'd do it wiithout inducing strife, otherwise I too shall withdraw taking my slight sense of bafflement with me. Thanks for chatting.

I believe all people are related via Adam and then via Noah and his family. So there is no way that your suspicion of racism is relevant in my particular case. To me, it is simply a matter of preference within the human family nothing more. As for telling my children what I would prefer their choice to be within the human family, that is simply a matter preference-nothing more. If they choose otherwise then that's their choice and I would respect that choice and behave decently to anyone whom they marry and treat that person as I would any other inlaw.

Is the expression of my preference relevant? To me it is because when family members agree on such things family harmony is increased-a statement which I am sure you will suspect, not fully comprehend, and ask for further clarification which woud only further baffle you and you would ask fo another clarification based on your suspicion that I am a racist. Ironic since during my lifetime, I have constantly been on the receiving side of racism perpetrated mostly by those who constantly complain that they are being victimized by racists. Even then I have never retaliated in kind because it is against my principles to do so. So your suspicions are completely misguided.

BTW

Since you already tagged my opinion as being rude, I feel rather uncomfortable continuing this subject.

LostAngeles

13th November 2007, 02:56 PM

XenonII

14th November 2007, 02:05 AM

The concepts of "white race" and "white culture" are pretty damned stupid, considering neither of those things actually exists. You do, however, have to feel sorry for people who cling to the idea of membership in a nonexistent group, since their lives must be so empty and meaningless otherwise. Kind of like Trekkies, but in white robes instead of homemade Starfleet uniforms.

White culture is Western culture, the very foundation of civilization and democracy and something that had existed for thousands of years before the destructive and culturally suicidal enforced mass immigration of third worlders by liberals. Only traditionally white countries are denied the fundamental human right to freedom of association. Western countries must assimilate with foreigners but its perfectly OK for Asian, Arabian and African countries to maintain racial purity amongst their populace. Non-white countries can stay non-white and not be forced to mix but countries that were exclusively or predominetly white must now throw open their doors with gay abandon and let in all and sundry. According to the liberal mindset, this is not a contradiction, it's not hypcrispy to force integration on white countries and not others and it's not racist to allow non-white countries to remain racially pure.

White people were responsible for most if not all of the world's greatest inventions. Blacks, having invented little of any real value, discracefully have then gone on to steal the credit for much of the white race's technilogical achievements. These lies are then indoctrinated into school children each year during the racist so-called "Black History Month", which is little more than a thinly disguised orgy of racial supremacy and anti-white hatred. When is White History Month? Oh that's right, there isn't one because blacks have demanded and received preferential treatment from society.

White people have every reason to be rightly proud of who they are and their race's achievements and they are not racists for doing so. It is not a crime to be white even if that's the way society is going. Liberals have fostered a guilt mentality and defeatest attitude amongst the members of the white race. Being white is not a sin and is nothing to be ashamed of.

Now what's "pretty damned stupid" is claiming race doesn't exist. Race is a scientific FACT! If race doesn't exist than neither can racism yet liberals are the first to yell "RACIST!" at the top of their lungs when anyone has the courage to speak out against their evil socialist agenda. Of couse 99% of what is labeled racism nowadays is nothing of the sort but just a logical rebutal of liberal propaganda.

The communists have taken over our universities as seen by the attempted racist persecuted of the majority by the corrupt University of Delaware administration. Whites are not racists for having pride in who they are and defending themselves against an ongoing and relentless onslaught against their culture, heritage and way of life. Blacks are more likely to be racists than whites and use the race card at the drop of a hat. Nothing is ever their fault. It's always the evil white man and his alleged oppression against them that is responsible. Blacks freely use the "N" word amongst themselves unchallenged, but if you or I were to do the same to refer to these people we would be instantly branded a "racist", which is the unpardonable sin nowadays from the left. Whites are far more likely to be the victim of a hate crime committed by blacks yet blacks have special rights in the form of hate crime legislation. Most crime against blacks is committed by another black.

To the liberals, Blacks are above reproach and the white man is the devil. Liberals hate white people and to them only a white person can be racist, indeed in their twisted way of thinking ALL whites are racists, this despite their ludicruous denials that race even exists!

Radrook

14th November 2007, 02:26 AM

So Radrook, in short, since you can't back up your assertions in the slightest, you're just going to abandon the discussion? Since you can't understand the influence a parent's, "preference," has, you're just going to abandon that discussion also?

Noted.

Those are strawman arguments with faulty premesis to boot. All I have said is that I have a right to have preferences. Isn't it paranoid to be intolerant of other people's preferences because you see every choice as racist?

quixotecoyote

14th November 2007, 02:32 AM

XenonII

14th November 2007, 03:02 AM

Race as a biological construct doesn't exist.
Race as a social construct exists.
People who take harmful actions on the basis of a perceived race are racists.
As there is no evidence to back the basis of their beliefs they are ignorant.
The evidence against race/racism is so obvious and widespread that their ignorance cannot be accidental.
Thus racists are either stupid or evil.

Please note I differentiate prejudice from racism. Negative/unwarranted prejudiced is an unfortunate though unavoidable product of socialization. As long as one seeks to identify and refrain from acting on unwarranted prejudices, I don't think they can legitimately be called a racist. eta: Although I understand arguments that say being a privileged member of the society which created the prejudice puts you in an unavoidable racist position, I just think it dilutes the meaning of racist.

Oh yeah and poor picked on Xenon because people won't let him say ******. I weep.

Race is genetic. It is the way a person is born, unlike for instance those dispecable homosexuals who freely choose the behavior that defines their very existance and have no proof whatsoever to back up their far fetched claim that they are born that way and therefore society should excuse their unhealthy, lifespan shortening and sinful deathstyle. There maybe only small differences in genetics between races but then the same is true between humans and chimpanzees. :D

I see no point in claiming race doesn't exist, because that is so obviously false and you can easily see the physical differences between different races. Race is not a bad thing and we should celebrate God's diversity rather than denying it! Discrimination against a race (like those University of Delaware slime disgracefully attempted), or racism is what is bad and claiming race doesn't exist doesn't make it true, anymore than claiming the sky is green makes that particular falsehood true, or make racism magically disappear. Racism is a much overused word but the socialists in control of the University of Delaware are certainly a bunch of filthy racists and if that wasn't bad enough, also race traitors as they are whites persecuting their own kind, not that any race should ever be persecuted by anyone for any reason whatsoever of course!

Pointing out the fact blacks are sadly more likely to be AIDS sufferers or fall into a criminal lifestyle is for example not racist it is just fact. No one is claiming that ALL blacks have AIDS or are criminals that would be preposterious, just they are more likely to break the law and go to jail and be an AIDS sufferer. This is simply the truth and there is plenty of governmental statistics to back this up. There are of course AIDS sufferers and criminals amongst all racial groups and there are some fine upstanding citizens of the community who are black, Condaleeza Rice springs immediately to mind here, an admirable and intelligent black woman who has managed to break free from the Democrat plantation.

I'm not picked on because I can't say the "N" word. I don't use that word and don't want to, I just think blacks should show some respect for themselves and not use it either because it is a racist word REGARDLESS of who uses it! Negro is a fine word to use though and while we are talking about the "correct" words to use to describe a particular racial group, I must confess I hate that title "African American". Please, enough of the political correctness already, just call them black. I don't care if someone calls me white and they shouldn't care if someone calls them black. White is what I am, it's my racial heritage and identity and i'm proud of it and my race's many fantastic inventions and achievements to the make the world a better place to live for us all.

quixotecoyote

14th November 2007, 03:30 AM

More genetic diversity exists between individuals within what you call 'races' than exists between them, so your supposed difference cannot be based on genotypes.

Perhaps you refer to phenotypes. In that case I submit that while you may have a clear ideal of a white person or a black person, you have no method to draw a line separating the two groups, making the execise pointless

<rantings about socialist conspiracies, gay deviance, and race traitors passed over>

XenonII

14th November 2007, 05:42 AM

quixotecoyote

14th November 2007, 05:49 AM

difference != race

flimflam_machine

14th November 2007, 06:37 AM

Radrook, I'm still baffled. Mainly because you seem to be responding to points that I haven't actually made. Seriously, it's getting to the point that I'm wondering if you're either not reading my posts or intentionally winding me up. To set the record straight, I don't suspect that you are racist; I don't think that you are rude, in fact you strike me as remarkably civil.

Just to be sure that we're talking about the same thing, here's a definition of a word I've been using a lot (OCD):

aesthetic
/eessthettik/ (US also esthetic)
• adjective 1 concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty. 2 of pleasing appearance.

So we're talking about people's preference for looks alone, rather than suitability of any other form. In the context of this type of judgement, which is notoriously subjective, I'm really intrigued not so much by the issue of race and racism, but by how you would raise this as an issue with your child. I am genuinely interested, I don't have children yet, but I would like to fairly soon. You sound as if you do, so I'd appreciate your insight.

what I do require is that my own view be respected

This is where I get a bit fuzzy. Saying something like "I require that my opinion be respected" can be taken to mean "I should not be persecuted simply for holding a specific opinion." This is not at all contentious and is something that I think most people would agree on. However, some people use such a phrase to mean "my opinion should be taken into account when a choice/judgement is made", which is clearly a more debatable sentiment. The same vagueness also exists with phrases like "I have the right to express my opinion", well yes you do, you can say whatever you like (and I wouldn't want to take that right away), but nobody is necessarily obliged to take your opinion into consideration.

What I'm not clear on is what particular meaning you are going for. You say:

when family members agree on such things family harmony is increased

Which is at first glance uncontroversial. However I don't see what it means in functional terms. Should a child take their parents' aesthetic opinions into account when choosing a partner? Since we seem to be talking about "expressing one's opinion" rather than just "responding honestly" you appear to be suggesting that you should be able to raise the fact that you don't find your child's partner attractive (or just aesthetically pleasing) in a way that leads to harmonious agreement between you and your child. How?! How would you raise the issue, and what would you do if your child took offence at the fact that you are expressing an opinion in a situation where it has no relevance, or if they refused to change their partner. I'm genuinely interested in how you would resolve this.

The whole issue of racism is only slightly related to this, in that it could be a factor in a specific situation i.e., the parent disputes their child's choice of partner on the grounds that they simply don't like the way that black/white/asian people look. However, I'm more interested in the familial interaction between parent and child and the degree to which you think the parents' opinion should be "respected".

XenonII

14th November 2007, 06:38 AM

bolding mine

I disagree with the bolded part. IMO--distinguishing differences is a natural process. Racism occurs (see definition from Dictionary.reference.com below) when it is believed that the differences make one race superior/inferior to the other.

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Well I don't agree with the definition of 1 at all so I can't agree with 2. either which is a logical extension of it. Number 3. however sounds right. Intollerance and hatred of other races is racist but what is racist about acknowledging that inherent differences amongst races determines culture or individual achievement? Wouldn't inherent differences have that effect?

For example, it is widely known that Blacks as a group perform worse in IQ tests than either Whites, Asians or Jews. That doesn't mean that all White people are more intelligent than Blacks or that there aren't some very intelligent black people, but as a group and in general they do have lower intelligence on average. To compete with whites in a Western society, blacks need all sorts of special priveledges like affirmative action and racist organizations to support them like the United Negro College Fund. The purpose of such preferential treatment is not to provide Blacks with equal opportunity to Whites but try and achieve an equal outcome with them. A United Caussasian College Fund would never be tolerated.

Plenty of blacks have a different culture to whites despite living in a Western country like the United States. Instead of assimilating, they maintain there own seperate culture and this is encouraged through mulitculturalism. It is hardly a positive culture either. It encourages Blacks to view themselves as thugs and live that kind of lifestyle, it glamorises crime and illegal behavior, teaches them to hate whites and use the race card, to adopt a poor use of the English language, to swear a lot and to treat woman with disrespect labelling them as "bitches" and "hoes".

European society was remarkably different to African society at the time of African colonization despite both races having an equal amount of time to develop their civilizations. European culture was much more advanced and although it's true Africa has catched up a lot (but nowhere near enough) since then this is because of colonization. I'd dread to think what state Africa would be in now if Whites were never involved. Now the Whites aren't in charge of Africa it has become more unstable, more prone to outbreaks of political instability, war and famine and it is the only continent in the last 20 years to have become poorer while all others have gotten richer. The only solution seems to send the White's back in, but of course the chances of that happening in these PC times of self determination and independence are practically nill.

So given the above facts I certainly think that dictionaries defintion of racism is utter nonsense, but I do accept 3. That would be my definition.

flimflam_machine

14th November 2007, 06:47 AM

Racism is a much overused word but the socialists in control of the University of Delaware are certainly a bunch of filthy racists and if that wasn't bad enough, also race traitors as they are whites persecuting their own kind, not that any race should ever be persecuted by anyone for any reason whatsoever of course!

If "[no] any race should ever be persecuted by anyone for any reason whatsoever of course!" why do you use the term "race traitor". It's obviously a derogatory term, but the clear implication is that it's less deplorable to persecute someone of a different race than someone of another race. Doesn't that strike you as slightly... well... racist?

i'm proud of it and my race's many fantastic inventions and achievements to the make the world a better place to live for us all.

Why are you so proud of all these achievements to which you haven't contributed one iota? Since you had absolutely nothing to do with the development of penicillin or the jet engine (to name two things invented discovered by white men), why are you particularly more proud of those achievements than, say, the invention of gunpowder or algebra (to name 2 things invented by non-white men).

XenonII

14th November 2007, 06:52 AM

difference != race

It's one of the ways people differentiate from others. Sometimes those differences may be fundamental and other times when the person has adopted a Western culture they may be a lot more superficial such as mere appearance and one's accent for example. Even when a person of non-Western decent is raised in a Western culure though this is certainly no guarantee that the person will adopt that culture as I have demonstrated above.

flimflam_machine

14th November 2007, 06:59 AM

So given the above facts I certainly think that dictionaries defintion of racism is utter nonsense, but I do accept 3. That would be my definition.

Most of the "facts" that you give suggest very strongly that you subscribe to definition #1.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 07:23 AM

If "[no] any race should ever be persecuted by anyone for any reason whatsoever of course!" why do you use the term "race traitor". It's obviously a derogatory term, but the clear implication is that it's less deplorable to persecute someone of a different race than someone of another race. Doesn't that strike you as slightly... well... racist?

We live in a society where racism towards whites by either liberals or non-whites is often not only tolerated but actively encouraged. To be racist against white people is no big deal, they are expected to just put up with it and stay silent. It's become trendy even to pick on the majority. But if anyone says anything negative about a person from a non-white race (no matter how true the statement) they are immediately branded a racist. The University of Delaware has taken this attitude to an extreme, claiming that ONLY whites can be racist and ALL whites are racist.

Most Conservatives are trembling in their boots at the prospect of being called a racist by a liberal, well I think that is just pathetic! Look at how the liberal media went into an almost spastic frenzy when a few white boys were accused of raping a black stripper (glorified prostitute) who was later found out to be a liar. They went on and on about it and wouldn't shut up. Yet if the stripper had been white and the accused had been black we most probably would never have even heard a peep out of the liberal media.

The fact is far more crimes are committed by blacks in relation to their numbers than whites but the liberal media doesn't find these to be newsworthy. These stories rarely if ever make national headlines. The liberal media is biased against white people and if the liberal media would report the news concerning the more undesirable elements within the black community people would be absolutely horrified and appaled at that communities behavior, instead the liberal media is protecting the criminal elements within it.

Even though the liberal media rarely reports on black crime, at least at the national level, we can however still see how bad the problem is concerning crime amongst the black community by checking out the FBI's statistics on crime based on race.

The University of Delaware was only called to account for their despicable actions because they took their bias against whites this time to such an extreme almost unbelievable level. Their appalingly offensive actions simply couldn't be ignored or tolerated.

Please do not confuse me calling the University of Delaware administrators race traitors as indicating that their racism is any worse than anyone else. It is not, but it is just a simple fact that if you have white people racially persecuting other white people then those ones doing the persecuting are race traitors because they are of the same race. Same as if blacks had been being racist towards other blacks those racists would equally be race traitors as well. If the whites had been persecuting blacks that would have been just as bad. Racism is unexceptable period no matter who the perpitrator is or who the victim is or what race they are. While I think it may be just natural to feel more revulsion or anger when someone attacks their own kind I don't believe that makes the action any more repugnant.

Why are you so proud of all these achievements to which you haven't contributed one iota? Since you had absolutely nothing to do with the development of penicillin or the jet engine (to name two things invented discovered by white men), why are you particularly more proud of those achievements than, say, the invention of gunpowder or algebra (to name 2 things invented by non-white men).

Because it was MY people that made these achievements and invented these things. My race, not anyone elses and white people have contributed far more to humanity than anyone else. I'm not saying blacks can't have pride in the achievements of others, or share in the benefits of those achievements as we are all human after all, but it is still a fact it was whites that invented those things and not others, so being a member of the white race myself I can take extra pride in my races achivements and why not? We have achieved so much for the benefit of all humanity and we should be rightfully proud of that fact.

As for the non-white inventions you mentioned, i'd have to check those out to see if they really were invented by non-whites. You would be surprised at the number of things white people have invented that others have attempted to steal the credit for. :rolleyes:

flimflam_machine

14th November 2007, 07:56 AM

The fact is far more crimes are committed by blacks in relation to their numbers than whites but the liberal media doesn't find these to be newsworthy.Crime rates are related to wealth. Black people are generally less wealthy. The mediating factor could well be wealth, not race.

Please do not confuse me calling the University of Delware administrators race traitors as indicating that their racism is any worse than anyone else. It is not, but it is just a simple fact that if you have white people racially persecuting other white people then those ones doing the persecuting are race traitors because they are of the same race.So if persecuting someone of your own race is no worse than persecuting someone of another race, why use the term race traitor? You are implying that you owe more allegiance to people of your own race than to people of other races. Do you believe this and, if so, why?

Because it was MY people that made these achievements and invented these things. My race, not anyone elses and white people have contributed far more to humanity than anyone else.In what sense "[your] people". By what standard do you claim particularly close association with these people given that many of them were born many years ago or have family trees that last crossed with yours many generations back. There are probably non-white people who are making huge contributions to society to whom you are more closely related than these white contributors that you mention. Basically it seems like you're just trying to big yourself up by claiming association with someone because your skin is roughly the same colour as theirs. You may as well feel proud of the contribution of everyone who shares your taste in shoes.

so being a member of the white race myself I can take extra pride in my races achivements and why not?

See above. In short, because they are nothing to do with you.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 08:22 AM

Most of the "facts" that you give suggest very strongly that you subscribe to definition #1.

I think why definition #1 isn't true most of the time (but no means always), is because if someone is for an example an Arab born in the Middle East like they normally are, then they would be a Muslim as that is the culture of the Middle East bar Israel, and bar Israel the Middle East's people are all Arabs which is a distinct ethnicity of Asians.

Middle Eastern countries have a culture a lot different (you could say socially primative) to the West, their Religion is still evolving and it's said to be like 200 years behind Christianity in its outlook. These people are a lot more religiously minded just as people in the West in the past were, and they follow their religion a lot closer than do most people in Western nations today.

The people from the Middle East have a distinct ethinicty and culture unique to themselves, the only ones to share it are members of their race who have moved to or were born overseas. The Israelies are the only people from the area who have a different culture, a much more progressive one, and they are of European descent.

The Muslims outside of the Middle East also seem to be not so aggressive in their demeanor compared to those within and by that I'm thinking of those that are not ethnicaly Arabs such as the Muslims of Indonesia, again demonstrating that race or ethnicity is involved in forming a groups culture and possibly character.

People of European descent always seem to adopt a Western culture but non-whites living in Western countries often shun those countries culture and adopt or maintain their own races culture which just goes to show that race can be an extremely part of a persons identity, it can and often is in fact the deciding factor in the culture that person follows!

The Arab born in America or who moves there more often than not still finds himself culturally drawn to the Middle East where his ethnicity is descended from and adopts its customs and culture, despite his physical location.

When the Arab chooses to follow the Middle Eastern Arab culture when he was born in America or has moved there then he is doing so simply because of his ethnicity and to bond with people of the same ethnicity as himself. Race and ethnicity bring people together in solidarity and that is only natural.

Sometimes non-Whites can and do adopt a White person's (Western) culture and then the only general differences between the two different races are their physical appearances which are just superficial differences.

Basically #1 can be true or not depending on the individual of the race involved, but to say it is always true is absurd and false. In fact often the opposite of #1 is true which is why I disagree with it but I do concede it is at least true sometimes.

So summing up, even when a non-white person is raised in the West they still can and usually do adopt the culture of their race and whole races and ethnicities do have individual cultures but not everyone from a certain race follows his races culture (but whites almost always do) throughout his life. People can and sometimes do choose a different race's culture to live by then there own, usually because they were born or moved to a different race's countries.

LostAngeles

14th November 2007, 09:08 AM

Those are strawman arguments with faulty premesis to boot. All I have said is that I have a right to have preferences. Isn't it paranoid to be intolerant of other people's preferences because you see every choice as racist?

How is you failing to back up your assertions a strawman? You can't cite the supposed case of an, "ignorant, immigrant, Mexican family being burned alive in their homes by their white neighbors," and somehow you projected ideas of ethnic prejudice onto the King-Harbor ****-up and that's a strawman?

You insist that parental preference on what their offspring's mate looks like has no influence and could never ever ever be a symptom of bias without considering anything flimflam or anyone else has said and that's a strawman?

I do not think strawman means what you think it does.

And XenonII has come over? AWESOME. Now this party can get down.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 10:52 AM

Crime rates are related to wealth. Black people are generally less wealthy. The mediating factor could well be wealth, not race.

The mediating factor is the culture the person follows. Blacks that commit crime aren't following the Western culture they are following the black "gangsta" culture which glorifies crime and unsociable behavior. Wealth has little to do with it and the lack of it is no excuse for criminal activity! There are far more poor whites in America but blacks still commit more crime and about half of the blacks that are commiting these crimes are actually well off.

So if persecuting someone of your own race is no worse than persecuting someone of another race, why use the term race traitor? You are implying that you owe more allegiance to people of your own race than to people of other races. Do you believe this and, if so, why?

I have already answered this but someone being a race traitor does not make their racism any worse it is just something someone is when they are racist against their own race. It is not really important, it is just something someone is. Real racism, as opposed to a liberal interpretation of racism, is unacceptable period. You just can't be a race traitor being racist against another race that's not how it works, but the point is you shouldn't be a racist to begin with against anyone regardless of whether the person is the same race as you or not. I do feel allegiance to my own race because it is something we have in common and it is our culture, our heritage and forms an important (at least I think so, it certainly does to me) part of our identity. It unites us and empowers us.

In what sense "[your] people". By what standard do you claim particularly close association with these people given that many of them were born many years ago or have family trees that last crossed with yours many generations back. There are probably non-white people who are making huge contributions to society to whom you are more closely related than these white contributors that you mention. Basically it seems like you're just trying to big yourself up by claiming association with someone because your skin is roughly the same colour as theirs. You may as well feel proud of the contribution of everyone who shares your taste in shoes.

The white race is one big family and I feel solidarity with it and I'm glad to be white. It is my people and i'm proud what we as a race have achieved. I love my race. There very well may be non-whites that are making huge contributions to society, I am sure that is the case and I feel solidarity with them also, us being the same species and all, but I will never feel as close to them as I will with my own race who I share a language, culture, heritage and identity with. It is something we all have in common but only some blacks, asians and arabs have in common with us and that is not their natural language, culture or heritage just their adopted one and even when they live in a Western nation most of them shun that nations culture anyway.

See above. In short, because they are nothing to do with you.

They are more to do with me than someone who isn't white because I am the same race as they are, the non-white person is not. It is my races achievements so although we are all human and can share in the white race's many achievements and have pride in them, they are still more closely to do with me than other races.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 11:27 AM

Talking of racism, what could be more racist than racial genocide or ethnic cleansing?

This is exactly what liberals are promoting through multiCULTturalism, interracial dating (a lot of liberals don't even bother to get married anymore before they breed as they have such contempt for the instituation, it's no wonder they support so-called same-sex "marriage") and inter-marriages and this would be the logical result if everyone was a miscegenationist.

MTV (which just so happens to be owned by a Jew) has pro-homosexual and pro-miscegenation propaganda 24/7 as do a lot of the TV shows these days, not that I watch a lot of TV.

Celebrate God's (racial) diversity rather than destroying it! Miscegenation is racism in action and is something that doesn't even occur in nature that's how natural it is, not at all. Most non-whites still think miscegenation is wrong and several countries still outlaw it as well and I hope that's how things stay.

What is truely baffling though is that those that promote racial diversity by being opposed to miscegenation are the ones that get called the racists rather than the ones that are advocating racial genocide and ethnic cleansing by promoting and favoring miscegenation. Funny that.

ImaginalDisc

14th November 2007, 12:05 PM

flimflam_machine

14th November 2007, 12:17 PM

I have already answered this but someone being a race traitor does not make their racism any worse it is just something someone is when they are racist against their own race.But you obviously do think that it makes them a worse person, because you think they are a traitor as well as a racist.

Sorry Xenon, I don't think I'm going to bother discussing this with you (sorry LostAngeles for ducking out of the party!). Many of the points that you raise e.g., influence of culture, inherent differences in particular abilities, over-cautiousness of media, are worth discussing. But, I'm afraid that it's mixed in with rather too much bald assertion without evidence e.g., "Miscegenation is racism in action and is something that doesn't even occur in nature" (different breeds of dog?) and nasty-sounding race pride ("racial genocide" indeed) to make it worthwhile picking apart.

The white race is one big family and I feel solidarity with it and I'm glad to be white. It is my people and i'm proud what we as a race have achieved. I love my race. There very well may be non-whites that are making huge contributions to society, I am sure that is the case and I feel solidarity with them also, us being the same species and all, but I will never feel as close to them as I will with my own race who I share a language, culture, heritage and identity with.I'm still just puzzled by you being proud of things that you didn't do. As for you feeling an affinity for all white people, that's your choice, but don't pretend that it's got anything to do with your actual similarity to a person. Rather it's just your choice to try to associate yourself with people who have the same colour skin, in order to feel part of some cosy club. Personally I feel that I probably have more in common with some non-white people living in my country than I do with white people living elsewhere. After all I probably share more culture with a black Brit than a white Albanian.

I do feel allegiance to my own race because it is something we have in common and it is our culture, our heritage and forms an important (at least I think so, it certainly does to me) part of our identity. It unites us and empowers us.And excludes everyone else on the basis of their skin colour. Racism in action!

XenonII

14th November 2007, 01:10 PM

Are you seriously equating my dating a white girl to genocide? I'm not sure whether that's an insult or a compliment.

Not exactly BUT if everyone dated AND procreated outside their race the effect would be racial genocide just as if everyone chose to be a homosexual the human races would become extinct. One lifestyle destroys the diversity that God has created and the other threatens to destroy humanity by not breeding at all. If everyone chose the miscegenationist lifestyle then it would be no better than what Hitler did to the Jews just a different method of achieving it. Miscegenation is contrary to nature, it brings together what God has designed as seperate and destroys the characteristics unique to each race.

ImaginalDisc

14th November 2007, 01:15 PM

Not exactly BUT if everyone dated and procreated outside their race the effect would be racial genocide just as if everyone choice to be a homo the human races would become extinct. If everyone chose the miscegenationist lifestyle then it would be no better than what Hitler did to the Jews just a different method of achieving it. Miscegenation is contrary to nature, it brings together what God has created seperate and destroys the characteristics unique to each race.

What's that, you're backing down?

If god created races seperate, why is it impossible to find strict biological criteria for race? How is it contrary to nature when organisms other organisms, generally speaking, without particular regard for where they are from. How can "miscegenation" be "against nature" when it is a social contruct without natural criteria?

Radrook

14th November 2007, 01:17 PM

How is you failing to back up your assertions a strawman? You can't cite the supposed case of an, "ignorant, immigrant, Mexican family being burned alive in their homes by their white neighbors," and somehow you projected ideas of ethnic prejudice onto the King-Harbor ****-up and that's a strawman?

You insist that parental preference on what their offspring's mate looks like has no influence and could never ever ever be a symptom of bias without considering anything flimflam or anyone else has said and that's a strawman?

I do not think strawman means what you think it does.

And XenonII has come over? AWESOME. Now this party can get down.

Strawman because your accusations are not what I stand for nor
correctly represent what I have said in my posts. I never said that parental preferences could never ever be a sign of bias or racism or that parental preferences could never ever influence the child. Those are your concepts not mine.

As for not citing to your satisfaction, I tried but cannot locate the article on the web. Is that a possibility in your book? That's not the only case there are plenty. Actually, that there is inter-ethnic tensions that sometimes reach the point of violence between these two groups is common knowledge.

Since that is the case, you are either unaware due to seclusion or else are feigning ignorance for the sake of argumentation or perhaps simply to blow off steam.

Excerpt:

January 16, 2007, 10:36 pm
A City’s Violence Feeds on Black-Hispanic Rivalry
Civil rights advocates say that ethnic and racial violence in Los Angeles grew at an alarming rate last year, continuing a trend of more Latino versus black confrontations and prompting street demonstrations and long discussions on talk-radio programs and in community meetings.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKjIWjtHI6oAhSBrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13e485u81/EXP=1195158600/**http%3a//news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/a-citys-violence-feeds-on-black-hispanic-rivalry/

BTW

The immigrant Hispanic family was burned alive in an Afro American neighborhood by certain Afro Americans who didn't like them living there. Why do you jump to the conclusion that the perpetrators are white? Isn't that rather biased judgment based on race?

XenonII

14th November 2007, 01:26 PM

But you obviously do think that it makes them a worse person, because you think they are a traitor as well as a racist.

Sorry Xenon, I don't think I'm going to bother discussing this with you (sorry LostAngeles for ducking out of the party!). Many of the points that you raise e.g., influence of culture, inherent differences in particular abilities, over-cautiousness of media, are worth discussing. But, I'm afraid that it's mixed in with rather too much bald assertion without evidence e.g., "Miscegenation is racism in action and is something that doesn't even occur in nature" (different breeds of dog?) and nasty-sounding race pride ("racial genocide" indeed) to make it worthwhile picking apart.

I'm still just puzzled by you being proud of things that you didn't do. As for you feeling an affinity for all white people, that's your choice, but don't pretend that it's got anything to do with your actual similarity to a person. Rather it's just your choice to try to associate yourself with people who have the same colour skin, in order to feel part of some cosy club. Personally I feel that I probably have more in common with some non-white people living in my country than I do with white people living elsewhere. After all I probably share more culture with a black Brit than a white Albanian.

And excludes everyone else on the basis of their skin colour. Racism in action!

Miscegenation is the real racism in action because what could be more racist than engaging in behavior that promotes a races extinction and reduces diversity?

So different breeds of dog breed in nature? I don't think so and even if they did it wouldn't make it right as it's obvious that what would be most natural would be a dog to breed with the same breed and not another breed. If all dogs breeded with others and such a thing was possible it would lead to mass extinctions.

The only time when being a race traitor is worse is when miscegenation is involved.

I feel a solidarity to all people, because we are all part of the human species (not race) but I feel most solidarity with people of the same race because they are of my race and there is nothing wrong with that. A white person has just as much right to feel pride as anyone else, particularly considering all that the white race has accomplished. I have pride in what my race has achieved, not me personally, we are one big family united through race.

volatile

14th November 2007, 01:35 PM

XenonII

14th November 2007, 01:37 PM

What's that, you're backing down?

If god created races seperate, why is it impossible to find strict biological criteria for race? How is it contrary to nature when organisms other organisms, generally speaking, without particular regard for where they are from. How can "miscegenation" be "against nature" when it is a social contruct without natural criteria?

No i'm not backing down. A few people engaging in miscegenation might seem relatively harmless, but if everyone did it it would lead to the genocide of the races soon followed by their extinction. Who says its impossible to find a strict biological criteria for race? This claim that race is a social construct is a relatively new one and it is this claim that is the social construct. Race is a genetic fact and it is obvious from the look of a person what there race is, if you can't tell with someone it's probably because they are mixed. It is against nature because it doesn't happen in nature and if God had only wanted one race which is what will happen if everyone becomes a misegenationist he would have only created the one race to begin with! He didn't, so he obvious favors and wants racial diversity, something you can't maintain if you engage in miscegenation.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 01:43 PM

Being proud of your "race" is like being proud of your hair colour.

Think of all the great things the mousey-brown-haired have done throughout history! Revel in the proud lineage of the mousey-brown-haired people! Some of the world's greatest inventions have been made by the mousey-brown-haired! Some of the most magnificent artists in all humanity had mousey-brown-hair! Bow before our superiority!

How dare the mousey-brown interbreed with the blonde! Too much inter-mixing and the brown-haired might die out altogether! Sacrilege! We must preserve one particularly arbitrarily selected phenotypic characteristic, else the human race is DOOMED! Doomed, I tell you! Doomed!

I don't see how that is a valid comparison. People with a particular hair color don't have their own culture. Hair color is not linked to intelligence but race is. People with certain hair colors are not more likely to have AIDS or commit crimes either. Any race can have a particular hair color (with the exception of blacks with blonde hair possibly except out of a bottle). People can change their hair color artificially but you can't change your race.

Come to think of it isn't it only whites that have all these different hair colors? Blacks have black hair and so do Asians. Whites are more genetically diverse and they are a lot easier to tell apart as well even when completely disregarding their much greater diversity in hair coloring.

volatile

14th November 2007, 05:09 PM

Hold on. Wait.

Did you say there's a link between race and AIDS; one that's NOT cultural but somehow inherent?

Could you be any more ignorant?

Jeff Corey

14th November 2007, 05:25 PM

... Hair color is not linked to intelligence but race is...
No. Race and intelligence are both poorly defined concepts. Any flaw in either definition dooms your statement to the basement of useless and potentially dangerous and inflammatory ideas.
Eugenics ring a bell, Dr. Pavlov?

Radrook

14th November 2007, 06:08 PM

I don't see how that is a valid comparison. People with a particular hair color don't have their own culture. Hair color is not linked to intelligence but race is. People with certain hair colors are not more likely to have AIDS or commit crimes either. Any race can have a particular hair color (with the exception of blacks with blonde hair possibly except out of a bottle). People can change their hair color artificially but you can't change your race.

Come to think of it isn't it only whites that have all these different hair colors? Blacks have black hair and so do Asians. Whites are more genetically diverse and they are a lot easier to tell apart as well even when completely disregarding their much greater diversity in hair coloring.

It's good to keep in mind that there were great migrations in Europe and intermixture with Asiatics. The Huns for example settled in Hungary. The Avars, another Asiatic race mixed in with the European populations. The Romans, conquered England and left their hereditary seed there. The Arabs conquered Spain and southern Italy and left their seed there. Genghis Khan and his Mongols invaded Europe and left their genetic mark on Russia and other neighboring lands. The northern Laplanders are of Asiatic origin and yet they are Northern Europeans. Even among the Irish there is a dark type of individual which reminds the people there of intermixture.

BTW
There is a great variety among the black race as well. But it's more in terms of body proportion. For example: the pygmies, Hottentots, Bushmen, Watusies, and Ethiopians, are all physically distinct to one another in size, body proportions and facial bone structure.

The following anthropological site is very informative:

http://www.geocities.com/racial_reality/index.html

LostAngeles

14th November 2007, 08:16 PM

Strawman because your accusations are not what I stand for nor
correctly represent what I have said in my posts. I never said that parental preferences could never ever be a sign of bias or racism or that parental preferences could never ever influence the child. Those are your concepts not mine.

As for not citing to your satisfaction, I tried but cannot locate the article on the web. Is that a possibility in your book? That's not the only case there are plenty. Actually, that there is inter-ethnic tensions that sometimes reach the point of violence between these two groups is common knowledge.

Since that is the case, you are either unaware due to seclusion or else are feigning ignorance for the sake of argumentation or perhaps simply to blow off steam.

Excerpt:

January 16, 2007, 10:36 pm
A City’s Violence Feeds on Black-Hispanic Rivalry
Civil rights advocates say that ethnic and racial violence in Los Angeles grew at an alarming rate last year, continuing a trend of more Latino versus black confrontations and prompting street demonstrations and long discussions on talk-radio programs and in community meetings.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKjIWjtHI6oAhSBrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=13e485u81/EXP=1195158600/**http%3a//news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/a-citys-violence-feeds-on-black-hispanic-rivalry/

BTW

The immigrant Hispanic family was burned alive in an Afro American neighborhood by certain Afro Americans who didn't like them living there. Why do you jump to the conclusion that the perpetrators are white? Isn't that rather biased judgment based on race?

What accusations have I made aside from you failing to understand flimflam's point and failing to back up your assertations?

I'm not denying that there is ethnic strife in some mixed neighborhoods, but you seem to be advocating a, "keep to your own kind because we should be afraid of people who are different because they hate us." Which, frankly is ********.

As to assuming that the perps were white, considering you can't even find the case, I can't know that I'm incorrect, but assuming that I was, yes, it is a leap, true.

Let's see what my google-fu using, "Mexican family dead arson," gives me:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06EED6153EF932A3575BC0A9659C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/I/Immigration%20and%20Refugees

Nearly a month after someone lobbed a burning object into a Mexican family's home, forcing them to flee as the house erupted into flames, the Suffolk County police said today that they had charged four teenagers who live nearby.
...

No mention is made of the ethnicity of the four teenagers.

http://www.aztlan.net/murder_mexican_immigrants_rise.htm - Mention of an possible arson in an apartment building that killed 10. No mention of any suspects, their ethnicity and the neighborhood.

Using "immigrant family dead arson" gives:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/05/15/bc_fire-20060515.html

...
Adela Etibako and three of her children – two girls and a boy, between the ages of eight and 13 – all died in the fire.

Close family friend Alain Musende said the fifth victim was the girlfriend of Etibako's 16-year-old son, Bolingo.

Bolingo Etibako is being treated in hospital for severe burns.

Adela's two oldest children weren't in the home at the time.

Neighbours of the Congolese family were in a state of shock and disbelief Monday...

So I whip out my sexy LexisNexis access and search for results from the last 10 years"

Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)

July 23, 2003, Wednesday

One town's struggle to accept immigrants

BYLINE: By Leon Lazaroff Special to The Christian Science Monitor

SECTION: USA; Pg. 03

LENGTH: 1055 words

DATELINE: FARMINGVILLE, N.Y.

HIGHLIGHT: An influx of immigrants has brought tension - and violence - to a Long Island community.
Walking by the remains of a firebombed clapboard home that was formerly occupied by a family of Mexican immigrants, Pedro Escorza Vargas shrugs incredulously.

"This was racism," says Mr. Vargas, a Mexican day laborer. "Most of the people here know we just want to work, but there are some that hate us."

Just after midnight on July 5, long after local Independence Day firework displays had ended, a flammable device was thrown into a small two-story house in this semi-suburban Long Island town. The house, with a family sleeping inside, was quickly enveloped in flames. Neighbors who heard the blast helped ferry the family out of the home without injury.
...

Looks to be the same initial case I found earlier.

The New York Times

February 12, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

3 Die and a Fourth Is Badly Burned in a Staten Island Fire

BYLINE: By EDWARD WONG

SECTION: Section B; Page 3; Column 3; Metropolitan Desk

LENGTH: 788 words

A fire that broke out in a Staten Island building early yesterday morning killed three recent immigrants, sent one man rushing outside in flames and forced two people to jump from a third-floor window. Fire officials said the blaze appeared to have been deliberately set.

The fire, reported at 12:20 a.m., engulfed the upper two floors of a three-story brick building at Brook Street and Westervelt Avenue in Tompkinsville, fire officials said.

Firefighters found three dead men on the third floor. Although officials did not release their names, a family member said one of the victims was David Euserra, 24, who came to the United States last year from Honduras and worked at a local carwash.

"It's awful," said Julissa Ramirez, Mr. Euserra's sister-in-law. "He was too young to die." Ms. Ramirez said she did not know the names of the other dead men, but said one was Honduran and another was Mexican....

The Advertiser

September 14, 2004 Tuesday

10 dead in arson attack

SECTION: FOREIGN; Pg. 26

LENGTH: 83 words

COLUMBUS, Ohio: An apartment complex fire which yesterday killed 10 people, eight of them from the same family, is believed to have been deliberately lit.

All of those killed, including a child, lived in the same apartment in Prairie Township and are believed to have been Mexican immigrants. Some other residents escaped the flames by jumping from third-floor windows....

That looks to be the case that the Aztlan site mentioned. I can only presume that this is the case you were looking for.

It is not the case that I can find any follow-up information on the case, hence, I can not tell you who the suspects were, much less, their ethnicity.

Here's an accusation for you: I think that if you weren't making this stuff up, you were most certainly interpreting these things through your own personal bias and projecting motives and such for which there is exactly no evidence for.

So why don't you find some evidence for your assertions and then rejoin the conversation?

XenonII

14th November 2007, 08:18 PM

Hold on. Wait.

Did you say there's a link between race and AIDS; one that's NOT cultural but somehow inherent?

Could you be any more ignorant?

NO I didn't say that! :eek: The link is cultural, not inherent. AIDS does not discriminate on grounds of race or sexual preference. AIDS is a preventable disease by practicing abstinence, which is the lifestyle that everyone who is not married should be living anyway! What AIDS DOES do is target the wicked, the workers of iniquity, whom God hates. "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight, thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalm 5:5 The overwhelming reason someone gets AIDS is because of the depraved, devilish lifestyle that they have chosen to lead. Of course there are regretably a few innocent victims caught up in the crossfire of this spiritual warfare between good and evil, but the vast majority are simply reaping what they have sown. God will not be mocked! "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" Galatians 6:7. AIDS is most previalent amongst non-whites and non-heterosexuals. I believe this is God's way of punishing the degenerate, those living sexually immoral or otherwise Godless lifestyles.

Society has legalised and aggressively promoted through the liberal media all sorts of perversion in recent years and now God has said enoughs enough, he has stepped in to do the job that society has passed up and is punishing these people by torture and eventual death. "The wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23. People acquire AIDS because they engage in homosexuality, promiscuity, fornication, miscegenation, adulturey, sodomy or they are drug users and the punishment for many of these crimes in the Bible is the death penalty. I believe AIDS is a gift from God to this perverse end times generation, it is his way of being true to his word by punishing the wicked and it is blasphemous to fight it or attempt to cure it.

Radrook

14th November 2007, 08:51 PM

What accusations have I made aside from you failing to understand flimflam's point and failing to back up your assertations?

I'm not denying that there is ethnic strife in some mixed neighborhoods, but you seem to be advocating a, "keep to your own kind because we should be afraid of people who are different because they hate us." Which, frankly is ********.[

There you go again Jimmy! Another false accusation! I am NOT saying that we should be afraid of ALL people who are different because they hate us. Only an imbecile would say something like that. So perhaps your imagination is clouding your comprehennsion because you are agitated.

LostAngeles

14th November 2007, 09:11 PM

There you go again Jimmy! Another false accusation! I am NOT saying that we should be afraid of ALL people who are different because they hate us. Only an imbecile would say something like that. So perhaps your imagination is clouding your comprehennsion because you are agitated.

Those are the very ones which I found after making my search. However, my inability to find the original article doesn't mean that I made it up. You see, that's the whole problem with your line of thinking. You jump to hasty conclusions based on scanty evidence and feel justified in calling a person you don't know personally a liar. Worse yet, a liar who liees because he is racist. That is called fallacious reasoning and would not hold up in court because of it.

No my friend, the article I read was very clear about the motives and very precise about tyhe people involved. What I really don't understand is why you find it so unbelievable. Haven't you ever been unreasonably victimized based on your race or ethnicity? It happens all the time in the USA unless you live ain a plush protected neighborhood where all is peaches and flowers. But in neighborhoods of a lesser kind there are all types of crazy things going on. So your insistence that I must have misunderstood or that I am making it up comes across as being racist since you are saying that your people are far too decent to stoop to such a level when peop-le stoop to such levels among all races. So why the vehement incredulity?

BTW
I was physically attacked on a bus in Miami by a group of African American youths based on what they thought was my Cuban ethnic backround and because I was conversing with an African American woman.

My kids were constantly harassed in an African American neigborhhood and couldn't go out to play in peace. Neither did they have peace in school because of the same treatment.

Severalk times African American cashiers have refused to serve me as a way of showing contempt.

The list is long and I won;t go into the fine details because that is irrelevant to the post. I only say this tyo show that I have absolutely no need to provide sources because I myself and the other members of my family have lived through a veritable hell. So please spare me the "That can't be so Shpiel!"

I could go into details galore based on personal experience.

BTW
I grew up in a multicultural neighborhood and some of my best frinds were Afro-American. However, at that time this type of attitude wasn't manifested. At least not to the degree it is today.

You know what? I've been victimized because of my ethnicities also. It still happens. It doesn't stop me from walking into a Latino neighborhood and doing my job. It doesn't stop me from living in a mixed neighborhood and it doesn't stop me from going to school in an affluent neighborhood.

I've been brought home to parents who have sneered at me for being a different color than their son. I've been told that I'm not good enough because I'm too light and so can't truly know the pain of being called a ******. Some assume that because I am American-born, I've never been told to, "go back to," my, "own country." I'm not even the right race for some family members apparently.

We don't need to have a racial-trauma dick size war here.

I can't find your source for a Mexican immigrant family being burned to death by a group of blacks. You made the assumption that King-Harbor failed to treat a Latino woman because... King-Harbor is near Compton? You've suffered prejudice at the hands of African-Americans and...

You play the, "some of my best friends line." I can not roll my eyes hard enough.

I don't think you're lying. I think you're an unreliable source who's own bias has heavily colored how you interpret things to the point where you seem to be assuming (hey, note the word, "seem." Mayhaps you should look up what it means.) that all African-Americans hate all Latinos.

So I guess the real problem here is that I'm too black to understand you.

Radrook

14th November 2007, 09:33 PM

You know what? I've been victimized because of my ethnicities also. It still happens. It doesn't stop me from walking into a Latino neighborhood and doing my job. It doesn't stop me from living in a mixed neighborhood and it doesn't stop me from going to school in an affluent neighborhood.

I've been brought home to parents who have sneered at me for being a different color than their son. I've been told that I'm not good enough because I'm too light and so can't truly know the pain of being called a ******. Some assume that because I am American-born, I've never been told to, "go back to," my, "own country." I'm not even the right race for some family members apparently.

We don't need to have a racial-trauma dick size war here.

I can't find your source for a Mexican immigrant family being burned to death by a group of blacks. You made the assumption that King-Harbor failed to treat a Latino woman because... King-Harbor is near Compton? You've suffered prejudice at the hands of African-Americans and...

You play the, "some of my best friends line." I can not roll my eyes hard enough.

I don't think you're lying. I think you're an unreliable source who's own bias has heavily colored how you interpret things to the point where you seem to be assuming (hey, note the word, "seem." Mayhaps you should look up what it means.) that all African-Americans hate all Latinos.

So I guess the real problem here is that I'm too black to understand you.

Well, I guess we differ in our views. So why don't we just leave at that.

XenonII

14th November 2007, 10:17 PM

There you go again Jimmy! Another false accusation! I am NOT saying that we should be afraid of ALL people who are different because they hate us. Only an imbecile would say something like that. So perhaps your imagination is clouding your comprehennsion because you are agitated.

Just as women should be wary around "strange men" so should whites be vigilante and on their guard around non-whites, particularly when around blacks that subscribe to the "gangsta" lifestyle, a group which has a tendency to commit crime at rates massively out of proportion to their numbers. Only the illegal Mexican immigrant gives blacks a run for their money in this regard.

Blacks make up approximately 12.6% of the US population, a percentage that is gradually decreasing because these people commit 37% of all abortions, so much for the neo-con barefaced lie that blacks are "socially conseravtive". That must be why they almost singlehandly keep the baby butchering mills running and why over 90% of them consistently vote Democrat, "conservative" my butt! It's time for Conservatives to grow some balls and stop making excuses for immoral black behavior, and place the blame squarely where the problem lies. Blacks are responsible fo their own behavior just like anyone else, it is not the fault of whites, liberal or otherwise.

Despite making up only 12.6% of the population they commit over 50% of the crime, and it is not because of the excuse liberals would have you believe that it's all the fault of poverty (as if being poor was ever a valid excuse in the first place to break the law!). It is far more to do with a sub-culture that glorifies crime and wrong doing and a group where illegitimate births and single parent households are the norm. Children need both a mother and father, that is the best circumstances to raise a child and that is the natural order, and a boy raised without a father is much more likely to be a criminal and/or a homosexual.

You put a child with a homosexual "couple" to raise as a "family" and that is paramount to child abuse! That child will grow up to be confused, will grow up being taught that rather than homosexuality being an abominable sin worthy of death, it is not only normal and right but is better than heterosexuality, and as a result of this wicked indoctrination is far more likely to choose that lifestyle.

In the USA, blacks are also more than five times as likely to go to jail, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes this group perpitrates. They are also more than 30 times likely to have AIDS than a white heterosexual and world wide, over 92% of all AIDS cases are amongst Africans, which just goes to show you the type of reckless lifestyles that many of these people lead.

The problem within the black community is not that many of them define themselves by their race and then build a culture around that to form their own racial identity, as that is an important part of many peoples identity and each race has its own distinctive culture and heritage. No, the problem is these black people in question create a negative culture as the basis of their racial identity rather than a positive one.

They would be much better off, as would society as a whole, if more of them would make the effort to assimilate fully into Western society by abandoning multiculturalism and adopting the culture of the Western society in which they reside. You don't have to be white to follow a Western culture and I believe it is highly desirable for all those living in Western countries to do so.

The West must protect and maintain its unique and extremely important culture which has been such a tremendous force for good throughout the world if our people and their way of life are to survive and flourish now and into the future.