Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
If race doesn't exist. Then neither does racism. Premise 2) Race as a genetic construct does not exist because diversity within homo sapiens has not reached a point to sufficiently be divided into sub species. |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
What's the difference? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
The consensus seems to be that only "white people" can be racist while everyone else is just "prejudiced". I pointed out earlier today in another thread that everyone is/can be racist/prejudiced and I was repeatedly called a "Nazi" for having this opinion about basic human behavioral patterns that can also be referred to as tribalism. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
If race doesn't exist. Then neither does racism. |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
It only takes into account skin colour basicallly. So that is incorrect. Race is based on phenotype, behavior, and class division/oppression. ---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 14:36 ---------- If race doesn't exist. Then neither does racism. This proves the irrationality of anti-racist humanists. People divide each-other by groups, races, ethnicities, families, societies, cultures, etc. People want to include others who are beautiful/strong/good/intelligent and exclude others who are ugly/weak/bad/unintelligent. This seems universal. Each human group/race wants to be "the best" and hold this position of 'superiority' over others. It's inherent in human nature. "My group is better than yours!" This is sociology. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
No… Caucasids and Mongolids can both have 'white' skin color; but we are different races. I dont know if 'behaviour' plays a role here, it smells Mary to be honest, I am not sure whether behaviour of village Europeans in 500 AD was much different from village Africans in 500 AD, its about who got civilisation first and so on. ---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 22:45 ---------- I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said: you can take out a Black from Africa, but you cannot take out Africa from a Black. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
But why is it that you might be this race in this country, but might not be in the next country?
You might be white in Brazil but black in America? Aren't Indians and Arabs Caucasian? So why is it when Indians are in America they have to check off Asian? And Arabs check off white? I always thought Turks were classified as white but in Europe I hear they aren't considered so? |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
I doubt she said that, but if she did, she lost a lot of respect in my eyes (even though she had none, so its negative value now). 1- Pick up some book about Physics, Chemistry, Biology... read it and you will realize is empty of Blacks. 2- There are no countries ruled by a majority of Blacks which had worked. Let's compare Jamaica with New Zealand. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
In Thatcher's times this was very badly seen, but today Nobel prizes like James Watson talk about the difference of intelligence and behaviour between races straight out. And two things are objective, and I'd like to clarify I'm not racist at all: Are you implying you're not racist but then you're saying black people are stupid? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
Race does exist, as a sociological concept. Just like "Santa's holiday is Christmas" exists. Racism exists as well.
Not hard. "Human races" isn't the most scientific concept ever, Biologically, strictly because in Taxonomy, we usually don't further divide species with as little evidence for which we do humans. Okay, this pocket or population of asshole-us is slightly taller, the rest relatively shorter, this one relatively redder, that yellower, this pocket or family more often have these kinds of eyes, that one, those kinds of faces, and yadda yadda etcetera. For all you know you could be talking about an organism type that hasn't further genetically diverged in any significant manner, and yet many's pompous stupid asses (I don't mean people who haven't put much thought into it, God bless'em -- they're the best) assume that they have. Of COURSE there's genetic variation, it's the point of sexual-reproduction to not have all clones of self. For the kajillionth time. And if you say "well yeah, I don't harp on the little stuff like with Europeans and Europeans, just the bigger stuff", you're talking about the same thing on a bigger scale, it's all relative. |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
Excusez moi Anyway, I think the colonitazion of Africa was good, as the colonitazion of Mediterranean lands by Rome was good, because Africans could take advantage of western advances like Industrial Revolution. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
By the way, about my last comment. It's best to get into stuff before randomly projecting one's ideas and opinions on to it, or the opinions of others, for that matter. Left or Right. Opinions and ideas can be random.
Kwestos wrote a good example, exampling in a simple manner what I expanded on above. Edit: Biology wasn't the main focal point of this thread though I guess. As far as I can tell it's general (a genuine question of a person wanting to know why people say what they do in general). Though, I'm guessing thread was started with socio-political stuff in mind / in store maybe. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|