I do too... thats called racismOriginally Posted by Devill
I do too... thats called racism
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens
Racism [South African context]: Anything a white persons says that affects/insults/gets taken out of context/by a black person, it is also an inherently white disease, it cannot be transferred to anyone that does not have a white skin.
Well, I'm sure that's how Juju and co will define it...
1. I don't know about Genetic differences but I do think that there are "cultural differences between racial groups and that these differences have behavioral consequences." This isn't a racist thing to say, it's just a fact.
2. Being loyal to ones own race is fine as long as that doesn't translate into discriminating or violence against another person because of their race. (That's a little contentious but that's just my honest opinion.)
3. Some people may feel this way and they are entitled to do so, but I feel that I would rather put the interests who are useful (regardless of race) ahead of the rest in a conflist for resources.
4. No. That is racism at it's worst imo.
A Eugenicist is someone who believes a certain race has "superior" genes. Not a racist.
From Wikipedia:Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations.[2][3] The origins of the concept of eugenics began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwinism and Social Darwinism.
Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century.[5] The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people.[6]
Eugenics was a controversial concept even shortly after its creation.[7] The first major challenge to eugenics was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan, who demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the birth of a fruit fly with white eyes from a family and ancestry of the red-eyed Drosophila melanogaster species of fruit fly.[8] Morgan claimed that this demonstrated that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance and that the concept of eugenics based upon genetic inheritance was severely flawed.[8]
By the mid-20th century eugenics had fallen into disfavor, having become associated with Nazi Germany. This country's approach to genetics and eugenics was focused on Eugen Fischer's concept of phenogenetics[9] and the Nazi twin study methods of Fischer and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer. Both the public and some elements of the scientific community have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced "racial hygiene", human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in eugenics.[citation needed]
Racism is the act of discrimination based on colour. E.G. Apartheid and choosing a certain colour car over another, or a sexual partner over another because you prefer their skin colour.
Sexism is the act of discrimination based on gender or sex.
Discriminating is the act of choosing. Banning choosing because you don't like someone else's set of preferences is an infringement of that individuals rights.
Dr Walter Williams: The Right to Discriminate
"Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. Let's look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members. The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members. The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.
You say, Williams, that's different. It's not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment." While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn't change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.
If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn't follow that he will find it in his interest to do so. An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled "The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars," in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated, but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.
When one sees a law on the books, he should suspect that the law is there because not everyone would voluntarily comply with the law's specifications. Extra-legal measures, that included violence, backed up Jim Crow laws. When white solidarity is confronted by the specter of higher profits by serving blacks, it's likely that profits will win. Thus, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights represented government countering government-backed Jim Crow laws.
One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive. "
Last edited by WilD_CaT; 24-05-2012 at 09:39 PM.
Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx
Interesting view point, never thought of it like that and it makes a whole lot of sense.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
All the above = capitalism, where race equals money
Last edited by Picard; 25-05-2012 at 06:49 PM.
Actually, a "capitalist" wouldn't care about race at all, or is the least racist as by definition or implication, what they care about is money. If the average black guy with the same skills/experience/cv etc. as a white guy earned less on average, a "capitalist" would always hire the black guy over the white guy as it would cost him the least.
Conversely, a "capitalist" employee will always choose the job that pays him the most money.
Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx
Basically he explained why if white Americans were historically so racist, did they need laws to persecute black people in the first place. The reason is because given the choice, many white people in the business world preferred making money (Which meant hiring the cheap labour, making products for the poor "black" communities, making services available to black people and charging them...) to being racist.
Basically white cab drivers would happily accept black peoples money for example and give them rides. At the time the state didn't like this so they needed laws to prevent this. Then during the civil rights changes, instead of simply removing Jim Crow laws from the books and simply allowing cab drivers to decide for themselves, they created even more legislation.
It is similar to Obama's flip-flop stance on gay marriage.
First he says on record that marriage is between a man and a woman. He did this when he was running for presidency the first time.
Now he changes his mind, (Good change btw) however he TOTALLY goes about correcting this the wrong way.
You see, originally the government had an issue with people getting married for some unknown reason. So it created a law requiring people to obtain a "marriage license". In order to get such a license you had to meet certain criteria, one of those criteria is to be a man and a woman.
So, the obvious solution to this entire problem is simply do away with a marriage license. Why the hell would I even need the state's permission to marry someone is beyond me.
However, Obama has NOT done this. He wants to MAINTAIN the marriage license with a couple of extra/different clauses in it, again. In other words, from Obama's POV you STILL may only get married if you comply with certain terms and conditions and you STILL require the permission of the state to do so.
What right do they (Obama/Government/Republicans/Democrats/Anyone) have to get involved in any private affairs I will never know, and shame on those ignorant liberals on this forum who actually support this guy and even congratulate his changing stance when really, all he has done is changed a technicality in the legislation and not his fundamental principle/stance, which is, he knows better than you and you may only associate in ways he deems appropriate, and terms he allows and call it names that he allows.
Last edited by WilD_CaT; 28-05-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx
Racism is not about the differences between races. Its about how you regard those differences.
Racism comes from the belief that one ethnic community is superior to other ethnic communities.
Racists tend to feel threatened by anyone who is from a different race, religion, or culture. It comes from ignorance and fear brought on by stereotypes.
The thing is, we are not born racist. It’s not in our genes. It comes from our views and beliefs that develop as we grow up. We can be influenced by friends, family, newspapers, and society in general. If a child or young person grows up within a racist family, or has friends who are racist, they may believe that racism is normal and acceptable.
No. This is a white south african desperatly trying to find a reason for being a racist which would be acceptable.
Oh snap
I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race—and that does not imply contempt for other races—is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them. -Adolf Hitler; February 13, 1945
The acknowledgement and support of the concept of 'race'. Race is based on a socially constructed belief based on purely subjective testiment and the heresy of others and their theories and collectively formed characteristically of person hood.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with say seeking certain traits for your children, for those who want this and for them alone, and solely if this is purely personal, this is only for the preservation of certain traits alone, not for the matter of some children being better than some others, the desire to adopt another child or even create another child with different traits while seeking to retrain and preserve certain traits for another one of own future children would not contradict each other.
Verbage is absolutely crucial to this matter, i think that most of the cahos in society arises from people not understanging the premise of seeking to preserve certain charactersitics, i think that it is exactly like art and music, sometimes you desire to preserve certain traits and sometimes you desire to mix, both are foundational to natural selection. And even as to sex, sometimes you would be greatly sexually attracted to a particular individual, but would not want to have children with that person as you seek to have children with another person who has similar characteristic to your own self or something you think would be very good for your children. I think that this is the only matter as to what we commonly refer to as 'race' that really legitamatly matters, and not in any social context either, simply for designing chilren.
Race does not exist, the only matter that people may seek to employ such a concept is simply for the desire to preserve certain physical characteristics for some of their children, and only this, and if done ethically and personally, there would be no matter of harm imposed on any other person either.
Further than this people commonly associate with each other because either they are too afraid to communicate the just aforementioned or simply because culture is still deep rooted in the old world, non-cperate tribal structure, where people were not as integrated to share ideas and qualities as they are able to do today.
Last edited by phenom; 01-06-2012 at 04:26 PM.
Well I'm afraid this idea can't work in a world which will only get more and more interconnected. I think that people (and no not 'groups') should go straight to the matter and tell their friends that simply state that they wish this and that trait for their children, simply for the sake of their own selective desire, in this case, if it could be cultural accepted. Disaster comes from making a cultural and social matter of one's colour, it draws unnecessary boarders and encourages distrust. As people have different characteristics and qualities, the more variety the better, however it is not either that some should not mix, it is just that others may want to preserve physical traits and this is the core matter that they might hold of importance, and i don't think that this matter, if it is recognised and accepted that some want to do this. should spell that people should draw any attention or cause any harm whatsoever. It should be the same as saying for example, that you wish your children to have pointy eared(some people like it) too, wishing this physical trait for your children would not spell that you should only go o a church with pointy eared people(just an example, we could use indian 'dark chocolate skin' as an example too) and join in a community with pointy eared people only. It is of no matter of concern to any other person whatsoever. besides for the fact that some who wish to preserve certain physical traits for their children, and even including this very matter, race does not exist at all. I think that various catagorisations of phenotype (ie. french, german, duch, japanese, chinese), and at the same time ensuring that it is solely private to one's own desires would be a better way of doing this.
secondly, japanese and chinese are very similar genetically, he simply and directly did not mention that the and his only concern was really about perserving certain aestetic characteristics, not that mixed people do not have the same quality, but that if there were only mixed people then we would all be the same and no more different characteristics and hitler's phony understanding of the ubermensch and inbreeding only created mutant children, so for this matter and the fact that he's own misapprasal for the understanding of ethics is exactly why over 50 million of the most healthy whites (army soldiers) have also died, and even if he got his way today, if whites only reproduced with whites for the sake of perserveing 'whiteness' we would go directly to the emliminating the physical characteristics which some may desire, this means no more french, dutch, sweedish etc.. only one race where everybody looks round about as Mitt Romney does. Hitler was also wrong about near everything i have read about him saying about jews not being creative(ie israel produces more scientific papers than any other nation on earth, the 0.2% that the jews are on this planet hold 25% of the nobel prises), he was also wrong about them not caring about genetics, jews have performed more selective breeding procedures on themselves than any other on this planet, above this they have never hurt or annoyed any other person in so doing.
I say we discriminate against people who have inferior character, I say we associate with those who have similar and more successful character and beliefs and separate ourselves against those with inferior beleifs, lets segregate the racists, whatever their colour!
Last edited by phenom; 01-06-2012 at 06:14 PM.
Cross referencing world statistics on crime, education and successful countries, do you think this is unfounded ?
only if you come to the conclusions that you want to and disregard the rest of the data
Hitler's like the Mickey Mouse of evil. Except Goofy is Goebbels and Minnie is on fire in a ditch.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks