and again, here is your quote.............."throughout history the human condition has been different for white man."
so since I AM a "white man", I am to assume by your quote that my "human condition" has been much better than people of other races. so I would like you to explain that quote.
if you meant to say "old rich white men", then that is what you should've said instead of lumping all "white men" together. and even if you said "old rich white men", I would have to point out that some of the most powerful people in the world are Arabs and black Africans, so it is NOT just "old rich white men" that are ruling the world.
we are going to remain at an impasse if you continue to exclude arabs as being 'white'. or at least the same 'race' as whites.
have you even any idea how integral the united states economy is to the world's economy. have you any idea what happens when wall street takes a dive? do you realise how entwined your economy is to your foreign policy? are you aware that your military is used to maintain the united states' primacy in the world's economy?
who is your president again?
who is the managing director of the world bank?
who is the managing director of the IMF?
who is the director general of the WTO?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
we are going to remain at an impasse if you continue to exclude arabs as being 'white'. or at least the same 'race' as whites.
have you even any idea how integral the united states economy is to the world's economy. have you any idea what happens when wall street takes a dive? do you realise how entwined your economy is to your foreign policy? are you aware that your military is used to maintain the united states' primacy in the world's economy?
who is your president again?
who is the managing director of the world bank?
who is the managing director of the IMF?
who is the director general of the WTO?
Arabs AREN'T white, don't know where you came up with that. "whites", as in "white Americans", for the most part came from Europe. also, there are a lot of powerful people in China, Japan, and South America. are these people "white" as well?
I have a good idea how the US economy is linked to the world economy and how it affects foreign policy and how/why the military is used blah blah blah. why do you ask? what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? can you quote me anywhere where I said the US government is above reproach when it comes to such things? no. my point is.....people like Bush for instance, are assholes who are hellbent on maintaining their own power at any cost. ok, that's a given. but what exactly does that have to do with him being "white"???? there are just as many "white" people who are deadass broke and living in the gutter or busting their ass to make a living, and there are just as many "non-white" assholes hellbent on destruction. so in my eyes, race doesn't have anything to do with the level of assholedom in the world.
Arabs AREN'T white, don't know where you came up with that. "whites", as in "white Americans", for the most part came from Europe. also, there are a lot of powerful people in China, Japan, and South America. are these people "white" as well?
I have a good idea how the US economy is linked to the world economy and how it affects foreign policy and how/why the military is used blah blah blah. why do you ask? what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? can you quote me anywhere where I said the US government is above reproach when it comes to such things? no. my point is.....people like Bush for instance, are assholes who are hellbent on maintaining their own power at any cost. ok, that's a given. but what exactly does that have to do with him being "white"???? there are just as many "white" people who are deadass broke and living in the gutter or busting their ass to make a living, and there are just as many "non-white" assholes hellbent on destruction. so in my eyes, race doesn't have anything to do with the level of assholedom in the world.
well what are arabs if not white?
and yes non indigenous south americans are white. what else would they be?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and yes non indigenous south americans are white. what else would they be?
Arabs are Arabs. they are middle eastern descent. how do you come about the assumption that they are "white"? hell, they don't even LOOK white.
I am not a South American historian, but I believe that most of the people there are a mixture of not only Europeans, but of the indigenous people as well. so you could argue one way or another, but they aren't "white" like the "white" people who came from Europe and now live in North America. by that logic, you'd have to say that American born blacks are also "white".
that's the thing, I think to attempt to "challenge" it would be a validation of it, and I choose not to. it lacks any kind of merit, so rather than validate it, I'd just call the author what he is....an ignorant racist. and though I'm no poetry expert, I don't see who this could even be viewed as "art". this is just stream of conscious from a bitter old man. if so many people didn't view him as a "genius" or if he didn't come from a time when this avant garde crap was looked on so highly, he would be viewed as nothing more than one of those demented street preachers roaming around NYC and California.
if you notice from the left...it's like pulling teeth to get their actual beliefs....b/c they know they can't win.
the poem is based on stereotypical plattitudes and that's supposed to be intellectual...
ok...how about explicitly expanding on and defending any one insinuation in that "poem" and let's debate it.
i'm no poet...but i'll tell you where i stand, and i'll defend it...not too good at disguising it with vagueries.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Arabs are Arabs. they are middle eastern descent. how do you come about the assumption that they are "white"? hell, they don't even LOOK white.
I am not a South American historian, but I believe that most of the people there are a mixture of not only Europeans, but of the indigenous people as well. so you could argue one way or another, but they aren't "white" like the "white" people who came from Europe and now live in North America. by that logic, you'd have to say that American born blacks are also "white".
so by white, you actually mean european, is that it?
and no there is no logic in calling black americans white. your comment is not comparable in this instance.
but i am curious as to what you call tiger woods or malcom x or bob marley.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and yes non indigenous south americans are white. what else would they be?
What are you talking about? Middle Easterners are not white people. They more often refered to as brown-skinned people. But they are not white. Neither are South Americans.
Where do you get these silly notions?
White people are....Irish, German, British, Scotish, French, German, Swiss, Finns, Sweedes, French-Canadians, Russians, Slovs, Italians...just to name a few.
....and no there is no logic in calling black americans white. your comment is not comparable in this instance..
Uh, there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in calling middle easterners (or Arabs) and South Americans....White People. No logic at all. yet, you've convinced yourself they are white and that your logic (which you have failed to explain) is accurate.
Much like your list, which I dressed in post # 74; you are once again absolutely inaccurate and completely off base.
so by white, you actually mean european, is that it?
and no there is no logic in calling black americans white. your comment is not comparable in this instance.
but i am curious as to what you call tiger woods or malcom x or bob marley.
you DO realize that there are more than just "white" and "black" people earth, right?
what do I call those people by their race? well, I believe Bob Marley was Jamaican, which is not a race, but I would call him "black". I would also call Malcolm X black, as I imagine both his parents were black. Tiger Woods is bi-racial, and that is how I see him. though I think there is some legal standard that says if one parent is black, then the "legal" status is black.
the point of this is lost on me. if we're talking about what race people are, I still don't know how you conclude that middle eastern people are "white". though "white" is a generic term, they aren't even generally close to meeting the generic standard for "white". they're closer to being Asian than white. and while I see you could make an argument for South Americans being white, I still say they aren't because their ancestors were native to that land.
I could be wrong, but I believe "Asian" is considered a race. and therefore, middle easterners would be considered "Asian", not "white.
Arabs are Arabs. they are middle eastern descent. how do you come about the assumption that they are "white"? hell, they don't even LOOK white.
they don't LOOK white? what do white people LOOK like exactly? how white is white? do we start measuring the width of people's nose bridges to determine whiteness?
well you know it's entirely possible that more of us have middle eastern ancestors that realise it. would that make us less white?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What are you talking about? Middle Easterners are not white people. They more often refered to as brown-skinned people. But they are not white. Neither are South Americans.
Where do you get these silly notions?
White people are....Irish, German, British, Scotish, French, German, Swiss, Finns, Sweedes, French-Canadians, Russians, Slovs, Italians...just to name a few.
thank you for clarifying for me that you believe white=european.
don't patronise me by calling what i believe a silly notion. holy fuck!
i tell you that i believe race to be a social construct for the purpose of exclusion and you act as if its the most incredibly ridiculous thing ever said.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Uh, there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in calling middle easterners (or Arabs) and South Americans....White People. No logic at all. yet, you've convinced yourself they are white and that your logic (which you have failed to explain) is accurate.
Much like your list, which I dressed in post # 74; you are once again absolutely inaccurate and completely off base.
then please educate me if you believe me to be mistaken and deluded. how do we measure whiteness? who is allowed in this exclusive club? what the fuck is race as you define it?
i find the construct of race to be illogical therefore i can not explain differences i dont see. if you're basing your beliefs about race on appearance then you have a problem.
while we're all at it, why don't we just heil hitler and be done with it. the final solution was about racial purity and look how well that worked out.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
then please educate me if you believe me to be mistaken and deluded. how do we measure whiteness? who is allowed in this exclusive club? what the fuck is race as you define it?
i find the construct of race to be illogical therefore i can not explain differences i dont see. if you're basing your beliefs about race on appearance then you have a problem.
while we're all at it, why don't we just heil hitler and be done with it. the final solution was about racial purity and look how well that worked out.
You are irrational.
This is a discussion on racism and hypocracy. Therefore for the purposes of distinction and identification; we (including you) have used the standard definitions and methods of identifying different races.
....i tell you that i believe race to be a social construct for the purpose of exclusion and you act as if its the most incredibly ridiculous thing ever said.....
First of all, this is the first time you've actually said this. Your previous posts were vague statements without any defined clarification. But essentially you're speaking idealistically and theoretically, when you make this above comment. Which on some levels, I do agree with.
I do believe the distinctions and classifying do divide and exclude. It would be nice if we could all just refer and speak in terms of human beings; without making race distinctions. Oh what a wonderful dream world, that would be. But make no mistake; it wasn't the white people who first conjured up and utilized these methods of identification and distinction.
Furthermore, we're speaking in terms of reality, here. So when we're speaking in terms of reality (not idealistic concepts) the color of skin, race and other distinguishing features are required for identification in ownership, the pursuit of criminals, to protect us from being confused with a person who may have or will commit a crime; as well as to protect us from identification fraud. That's the world we live in. That's reality.
I find this change of gears by you, very interesting. Because you, yourself have used the very same terms of race identification and distinction, in this very thread. But suddenly you're above that? You're better than that?
...just taking into account the last 500 or so years:
the empire building of european powers.
the taking of indigenous lands and the exterminations of native people.
the treating of 'others' as just that.
the colonisation of africa.
the arrogance that white man is the epitome of everything.
the denial of basic human rights to indigenous and displaced peoples
the spreading of christianity and the denial and intolerence of other religions.
Okay, so what was this all about, then? Clearly you are making race distinctions for the sake of identification, here.
Are all of these comments in regards to strictly white and black people? Is your world simply black or white?
I for one percieved some of these comments to pertain to Native Americans.
In your world are Native Americans White People?
You may be interested to know a lot of Native Americans have been found (through genetic testing) to be descendant of ancient Asian and Siberian tribes. Although, there are some variables and other genetic contributions...from others; depending on the individual and tribe.
If you consider Native Americans to be White people, why would you refer to them in your "list"? Afterall, white on white crime and attrocities would not fit into the subject matter of this discussion.
Interestingly and techinically, Middle Easterners are actually considered caucasian. But it is people such as you who try to segregate Middle Easterners into a seperate "brown-skinned " race. We've all seen it a few thousand times as extremist liberals attempt to condemn and demonize the white man/white people and expound on white people's racism and discrimination. Some Middle Easterners do it themselves. They attempt to segregrate themselves from the term and classification......caucasian.
So I speak in terms people like you can understand. Terms defined by people...like you. But now, you're saying middle easterners are white......caucasian. You people really need to make up your minds and stick with something...anything.
I am mostly Portuguese. A historian I once spoke with told me the Portuguese colonies were originally established by people who came from the areas we now identify as Germany and Italy. They settled in that area and they mingled, fought with and eventually bred with the people now known as the Spaniards (not all of them did, but a lot of them).
What's that make me?
Well, I also have Irish, British, French and ......gasp.....heaven forbid......a teeny-weeny fragment of african black in my blood line:eek:
then please educate me if you believe me to be mistaken and deluded. how do we measure whiteness? who is allowed in this exclusive club? what the fuck is race as you define it?
i find the construct of race to be illogical therefore i can not explain differences i dont see. if you're basing your beliefs about race on appearance then you have a problem.
while we're all at it, why don't we just heil hitler and be done with it. the final solution was about racial purity and look how well that worked out.
And you still refuse to address my response in post# 74.
what do I call those people by their race? well, I believe Bob Marley was Jamaican, which is not a race, but I would call him "black". I would also call Malcolm X black, as I imagine both his parents were black. Tiger Woods is bi-racial, and that is how I see him. .
Bob marley's pops was a white guy too.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
then please educate me if you believe me to be mistaken and deluded. how do we measure whiteness? who is allowed in this exclusive club? what the fuck is race as you define it?
i find the construct of race to be illogical therefore i can not explain differences i dont see. if you're basing your beliefs about race on appearance then you have a problem.
while we're all at it, why don't we just heil hitler and be done with it. the final solution was about racial purity and look how well that worked out.
Race is more than a construct. If you stand a man from Japan, a man native to France, and a Sudanese man next to eachother, well... you get my point. To recognize those differences as race is not illogical. To TREAT those men as anything other than equals, IS illogical. THAT'S where construct comes in. Drop those three men off on a corner in Mississippi, or have stand them on a street to catch a cab in new york city, and then tell THEM race does not exist. That its merely an "illogical construct". Recognizing differences of race based upon physical appearance is not a problem. Determing an individuals worth based upon their obvious racial characteristics IS a problem.
i fully agree that "racial puity" is an absolute joke. There is no such thing. Anyone who claims such is foolishly naive. Race still exsists, however. There is no denying that.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Recognizing differences of race based upon physical appearance is not a problem. Determing an individuals worth based upon their obvious racial characteristics IS a problem.
i fully agree that "racial puity" is an absolute joke. There is no such thing. Anyone who claims such is foolishly naive. Race still exsists, however. There is no denying that.
Race is more than a construct. If you stand a man from Japan, a man native to France, and a Sudanese man next to eachother, well... you get my point. To recognize those differences as race is not illogical. To TREAT those men as anything other than equals, IS illogical. THAT'S where construct comes in. Drop those three men off on a corner in Mississippi, or have stand them on a street to catch a cab in new york city, and then tell THEM race does not exist. That its merely an "illogical construct". Recognizing differences of race based upon physical appearance is not a problem. Determing an individuals worth based upon their obvious racial characteristics IS a problem.
i fully agree that "racial puity" is an absolute joke. There is no such thing. Anyone who claims such is foolishly naive. Race still exsists, however. There is no denying that.
Interesting post, cornnifer. This thread sure took an interesting turn!
Just some thoughts: I would suggest that the concept of human races is pre-scientific. And the way most people use it (esp in this thread), it is. But it should be noted that biologists commonly use the term race for subpopulations of species other than human, and that this term seems to have a more or less well defined basis. So, I suggest that we look into this concept of race in nonhuman species and see whether or not it can be extended to human populations, and to which populations it would then apply.
I would also suggest that the "box checking" type of self identification that has been so much discussed in connection with statistics may be meaningful in sociology, but is much less so in biology. So we may have legitimate schools of interpretation.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Interesting post, cornnifer. This thread sure took an interesting turn!
Just some thoughts: I would suggest that the concept of human races is pre-scientific. And the way most people use it (esp in this thread), it is. But it should be noted that biologists commonly use the term race for subpopulations of species other than human, and that this term seems to have a more or less well defined basis. So, I suggest that we look into this concept of race in nonhuman species and see whether or not it can be extended to human populations, and to which populations it would then apply.
I would also suggest that the "box checking" type of self identification that has been so much discussed in connection with statistics may be meaningful in sociology, but is much less so in biology. So we may have legitimate schools of interpretation.
Those are nice ideas. We can actually start by talking about the white species, the black species, etc. Doesn't that sound odd?
Edit: I mean that in a good way. No sarcasm. It seems to me that what you are stating when you say "pre-scientific" is exactly that in the way "race" is used.
Interesting post, cornnifer. This thread sure took an interesting turn!
Just some thoughts: I would suggest that the concept of human races is pre-scientific. And the way most people use it (esp in this thread), it is. But it should be noted that biologists commonly use the term race for subpopulations of species other than human, and that this term seems to have a more or less well defined basis. So, I suggest that we look into this concept of race in nonhuman species and see whether or not it can be extended to human populations, and to which populations it would then apply.
I would also suggest that the "box checking" type of self identification that has been so much discussed in connection with statistics may be meaningful in sociology, but is much less so in biology. So we may have legitimate schools of interpretation.
Its pretty clear, isn't it, that the physical characteristics we use to define "race" (skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.), are merely physical adaptations to various world climate? So, yeah, not real important to biology (although there are some biological implications such as the fact that Blacks, for example, for some reason, tend to be more prone to sickle cell anemia etc.). Due to historical legacy, however, the sociological implications, as you say, are huge. The way to adress these implications, IMO, is to do just that. Address them. Sweeping them under the rug and claiming that race does not exist, accomplishes nothing. In fact, it does more harm than good.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Its pretty clear, isn't it, that the physical characteristics we use to define "race" (skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.), are merely physical adaptations to various world climate? So, yeah, not real important to biology (although there are some biological implications such as the fact that Blacks, for example, for some reason, tend to be more prone to sickle cell anemia etc.). Due to historical legacy, however, the sociological implications, as you say, are huge. The way to adress these implications, IMO, is to do just that. Address them. Sweeping them under the rug and claiming that race does not exist, accomplishes nothing. In fact, it does more harm than good.
I agree 100%. Race is ALWAYS an issue. And saying that race is an issue does not mean that racisim is prevalent. Race is an issue between myself and minority friends/collegues. It does not mean that I or they are racist, but it's recognized and, to a large extent, we are not familiar with the effects of the other's race on their lives.
I would prefer to see more, not less dialogue on race.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Its pretty clear, isn't it, that the physical characteristics we use to define "race" (skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.), are merely physical adaptations to various world climate?
Actually, it is a bit more involved than that in this day & age.
"Are ethnic groups genetically definable?
As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic ones. People in those populations are more likely to have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. (There may be rare variations, however, that are found only in some populations.) This cannot be very surprising, in light of the vast extent of intermarriage among human populations, now and throughout history and prehistory. There is no such thing as a genetically "pure" human population."
So, yeah, not real important to biology (although there are some biological implications such as the fact that Blacks, for example, for some reason, tend to be more prone to sickle cell anemia etc.).
Sickle cell is something that occurred in the West African population as a defense against malaria (an intracellular parasite). Another example of a 'race-related' inherited disease would be, Tay-Sachs disease which is common amongst the Ashkenazi (sp?) Jews. There are a number of other inherited hemoglobin abnormalities such as the thalassemias, that are in high frequency in my ancestry (Mediterranean). In cases like these, ancestry, rather than race is the key, as many of us have a mixture of different ancestries.
Due to historical legacy, however, the sociological implications, as you say, are huge. The way to adress these implications, IMO, is to do just that. Address them. Sweeping them under the rug and claiming that race does not exist, accomplishes nothing. In fact, it does more harm than good.
Agreed. This is why I feel 'race' is important as it pertains to sociology. But I have to say, race, in general, is a social construct.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
we are going to remain at an impasse if you continue to exclude arabs as being 'white'. or at least the same 'race' as whites.
have you even any idea how integral the united states economy is to the world's economy. have you any idea what happens when wall street takes a dive? do you realise how entwined your economy is to your foreign policy? are you aware that your military is used to maintain the united states' primacy in the world's economy?
who is your president again?
who is the managing director of the world bank?
who is the managing director of the IMF?
who is the director general of the WTO?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Arabs AREN'T white, don't know where you came up with that. "whites", as in "white Americans", for the most part came from Europe. also, there are a lot of powerful people in China, Japan, and South America. are these people "white" as well?
I have a good idea how the US economy is linked to the world economy and how it affects foreign policy and how/why the military is used blah blah blah. why do you ask? what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? can you quote me anywhere where I said the US government is above reproach when it comes to such things? no. my point is.....people like Bush for instance, are assholes who are hellbent on maintaining their own power at any cost. ok, that's a given. but what exactly does that have to do with him being "white"???? there are just as many "white" people who are deadass broke and living in the gutter or busting their ass to make a living, and there are just as many "non-white" assholes hellbent on destruction. so in my eyes, race doesn't have anything to do with the level of assholedom in the world.
well what are arabs if not white?
and yes non indigenous south americans are white. what else would they be?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Arabs are Arabs. they are middle eastern descent. how do you come about the assumption that they are "white"? hell, they don't even LOOK white.
I am not a South American historian, but I believe that most of the people there are a mixture of not only Europeans, but of the indigenous people as well. so you could argue one way or another, but they aren't "white" like the "white" people who came from Europe and now live in North America. by that logic, you'd have to say that American born blacks are also "white".
if you notice from the left...it's like pulling teeth to get their actual beliefs....b/c they know they can't win.
the poem is based on stereotypical plattitudes and that's supposed to be intellectual...
ok...how about explicitly expanding on and defending any one insinuation in that "poem" and let's debate it.
i'm no poet...but i'll tell you where i stand, and i'll defend it...not too good at disguising it with vagueries.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
so by white, you actually mean european, is that it?
and no there is no logic in calling black americans white. your comment is not comparable in this instance.
but i am curious as to what you call tiger woods or malcom x or bob marley.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What are you talking about? Middle Easterners are not white people. They more often refered to as brown-skinned people. But they are not white. Neither are South Americans.
Where do you get these silly notions?
White people are....Irish, German, British, Scotish, French, German, Swiss, Finns, Sweedes, French-Canadians, Russians, Slovs, Italians...just to name a few.
Uh, there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in calling middle easterners (or Arabs) and South Americans....White People. No logic at all. yet, you've convinced yourself they are white and that your logic (which you have failed to explain) is accurate.
Much like your list, which I dressed in post # 74; you are once again absolutely inaccurate and completely off base.
you DO realize that there are more than just "white" and "black" people earth, right?
what do I call those people by their race? well, I believe Bob Marley was Jamaican, which is not a race, but I would call him "black". I would also call Malcolm X black, as I imagine both his parents were black. Tiger Woods is bi-racial, and that is how I see him. though I think there is some legal standard that says if one parent is black, then the "legal" status is black.
the point of this is lost on me. if we're talking about what race people are, I still don't know how you conclude that middle eastern people are "white". though "white" is a generic term, they aren't even generally close to meeting the generic standard for "white". they're closer to being Asian than white. and while I see you could make an argument for South Americans being white, I still say they aren't because their ancestors were native to that land.
I could be wrong, but I believe "Asian" is considered a race. and therefore, middle easterners would be considered "Asian", not "white.
they don't LOOK white? what do white people LOOK like exactly? how white is white? do we start measuring the width of people's nose bridges to determine whiteness?
well you know it's entirely possible that more of us have middle eastern ancestors that realise it. would that make us less white?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
thank you for clarifying for me that you believe white=european.
don't patronise me by calling what i believe a silly notion. holy fuck!
i tell you that i believe race to be a social construct for the purpose of exclusion and you act as if its the most incredibly ridiculous thing ever said.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
then please educate me if you believe me to be mistaken and deluded. how do we measure whiteness? who is allowed in this exclusive club? what the fuck is race as you define it?
i find the construct of race to be illogical therefore i can not explain differences i dont see. if you're basing your beliefs about race on appearance then you have a problem.
while we're all at it, why don't we just heil hitler and be done with it. the final solution was about racial purity and look how well that worked out.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You are irrational.
This is a discussion on racism and hypocracy. Therefore for the purposes of distinction and identification; we (including you) have used the standard definitions and methods of identifying different races.
First of all, this is the first time you've actually said this. Your previous posts were vague statements without any defined clarification. But essentially you're speaking idealistically and theoretically, when you make this above comment. Which on some levels, I do agree with.
I do believe the distinctions and classifying do divide and exclude. It would be nice if we could all just refer and speak in terms of human beings; without making race distinctions. Oh what a wonderful dream world, that would be. But make no mistake; it wasn't the white people who first conjured up and utilized these methods of identification and distinction.
Furthermore, we're speaking in terms of reality, here. So when we're speaking in terms of reality (not idealistic concepts) the color of skin, race and other distinguishing features are required for identification in ownership, the pursuit of criminals, to protect us from being confused with a person who may have or will commit a crime; as well as to protect us from identification fraud. That's the world we live in. That's reality.
I find this change of gears by you, very interesting. Because you, yourself have used the very same terms of race identification and distinction, in this very thread. But suddenly you're above that? You're better than that?
Let's review.
Okay, so what was this all about, then? Clearly you are making race distinctions for the sake of identification, here.
Are all of these comments in regards to strictly white and black people? Is your world simply black or white?
I for one percieved some of these comments to pertain to Native Americans.
In your world are Native Americans White People?
You may be interested to know a lot of Native Americans have been found (through genetic testing) to be descendant of ancient Asian and Siberian tribes. Although, there are some variables and other genetic contributions...from others; depending on the individual and tribe.
If you consider Native Americans to be White people, why would you refer to them in your "list"? Afterall, white on white crime and attrocities would not fit into the subject matter of this discussion.
Interestingly and techinically, Middle Easterners are actually considered caucasian. But it is people such as you who try to segregate Middle Easterners into a seperate "brown-skinned " race. We've all seen it a few thousand times as extremist liberals attempt to condemn and demonize the white man/white people and expound on white people's racism and discrimination. Some Middle Easterners do it themselves. They attempt to segregrate themselves from the term and classification......caucasian.
So I speak in terms people like you can understand. Terms defined by people...like you. But now, you're saying middle easterners are white......caucasian. You people really need to make up your minds and stick with something...anything.
I am mostly Portuguese. A historian I once spoke with told me the Portuguese colonies were originally established by people who came from the areas we now identify as Germany and Italy. They settled in that area and they mingled, fought with and eventually bred with the people now known as the Spaniards (not all of them did, but a lot of them).
What's that make me?
Well, I also have Irish, British, French and ......gasp.....heaven forbid......a teeny-weeny fragment of african black in my blood line:eek:
So what am I? Black, white, hispanic? What?
You're just desperately and blindly flailing about, in hopes of landing a strike. You have failed.
And you still refuse to address my response in post# 74.
Why?
Bob marley's pops was a white guy too.
Race is more than a construct. If you stand a man from Japan, a man native to France, and a Sudanese man next to eachother, well... you get my point. To recognize those differences as race is not illogical. To TREAT those men as anything other than equals, IS illogical. THAT'S where construct comes in. Drop those three men off on a corner in Mississippi, or have stand them on a street to catch a cab in new york city, and then tell THEM race does not exist. That its merely an "illogical construct". Recognizing differences of race based upon physical appearance is not a problem. Determing an individuals worth based upon their obvious racial characteristics IS a problem.
i fully agree that "racial puity" is an absolute joke. There is no such thing. Anyone who claims such is foolishly naive. Race still exsists, however. There is no denying that.
Beautifully said!
Interesting post, cornnifer. This thread sure took an interesting turn!
Just some thoughts: I would suggest that the concept of human races is pre-scientific. And the way most people use it (esp in this thread), it is. But it should be noted that biologists commonly use the term race for subpopulations of species other than human, and that this term seems to have a more or less well defined basis. So, I suggest that we look into this concept of race in nonhuman species and see whether or not it can be extended to human populations, and to which populations it would then apply.
I would also suggest that the "box checking" type of self identification that has been so much discussed in connection with statistics may be meaningful in sociology, but is much less so in biology. So we may have legitimate schools of interpretation.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Those are nice ideas. We can actually start by talking about the white species, the black species, etc. Doesn't that sound odd?
Edit: I mean that in a good way. No sarcasm. It seems to me that what you are stating when you say "pre-scientific" is exactly that in the way "race" is used.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Its pretty clear, isn't it, that the physical characteristics we use to define "race" (skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.), are merely physical adaptations to various world climate? So, yeah, not real important to biology (although there are some biological implications such as the fact that Blacks, for example, for some reason, tend to be more prone to sickle cell anemia etc.). Due to historical legacy, however, the sociological implications, as you say, are huge. The way to adress these implications, IMO, is to do just that. Address them. Sweeping them under the rug and claiming that race does not exist, accomplishes nothing. In fact, it does more harm than good.
I agree 100%. Race is ALWAYS an issue. And saying that race is an issue does not mean that racisim is prevalent. Race is an issue between myself and minority friends/collegues. It does not mean that I or they are racist, but it's recognized and, to a large extent, we are not familiar with the effects of the other's race on their lives.
I would prefer to see more, not less dialogue on race.
Actually, it is a bit more involved than that in this day & age.
"Are ethnic groups genetically definable?
As far as scientists know, no particular genes make a person Irish or Chinese or Zulu or Navajo. These are cultural labels, not genetic ones. People in those populations are more likely to have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. (There may be rare variations, however, that are found only in some populations.) This cannot be very surprising, in light of the vast extent of intermarriage among human populations, now and throughout history and prehistory. There is no such thing as a genetically "pure" human population."
The above is from http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp/faq.html A very interesting site if you have the time to browse it.
Sickle cell is something that occurred in the West African population as a defense against malaria (an intracellular parasite). Another example of a 'race-related' inherited disease would be, Tay-Sachs disease which is common amongst the Ashkenazi (sp?) Jews. There are a number of other inherited hemoglobin abnormalities such as the thalassemias, that are in high frequency in my ancestry (Mediterranean). In cases like these, ancestry, rather than race is the key, as many of us have a mixture of different ancestries.
Agreed. This is why I feel 'race' is important as it pertains to sociology. But I have to say, race, in general, is a social construct.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm surprised I didn't see it. Or is this like the time the sun danced around the sky of Cova da Iria?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
Welcome to S.Y.N.E.R.G.Y, which stands for the World Association for Attention Deficit Suffering Dyslexic Fucks.
But man, can this guy sing.
http://www.kingyellowman.com/
(click on music box)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")