Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Jan 31, 2005 16:37:18 GMT -5
Berter are you saying that because you happen to fall into a different clade then Sub-Saharan africans that justifies Rascism? Its okay to racist as long as your not a member of that race? Faelcind, All I did in my last discussions with Darkstarr was to (1) Express my racial preferences (arab genes rather than negroe ones) (2) Evaluate objectively Blacks' contribution to the human civilisation (production of basic Civs). Do you think that my position vis à vis Blacks can be qualified as racist !?. To me, racism is a sort of hatred against another ethnicity and thats certainly not the kind of feeling I have towards them. Only a foolish will blame others for what they are. Btw, I read your good thread on the rise of civilisations and yes I instantely knew that it was directed in part to me even before reading your PM. I will try to add my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 1, 2005 3:20:24 GMT -5
Berter I think are you one of the best posters on this board but I yes I do think you betrayed a certain level of racism in your argument with Darkstarr. I don't think your evaluation of SSA achievments was objective it seemed to me more like an emotional response. Insulting Darkstar by proxy of his race by reaching for a stereotype not based in fact that is often quoted by the racists we see on these boards. Do you think you no enough of SSA history to really claim its peoples have produced nothing note?
I don' t think you are racist in the hatefull sense, no, but I think you have some prejudiced assumptions you might want to examine.
|
|
|
Post by Anima Eternae on Feb 1, 2005 4:25:40 GMT -5
What's wrong with being racist?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 1, 2005 6:03:33 GMT -5
Good question. If "racist" means that you believe that race differs noticeably, that it is possible to connect many facts present or historical to the differences between races (eg: West African dominate short distance running because of the imnate ablilities tipical of their race), that you may like or dislike this carachteristics and therefore prefer one or other race (eg: you value height above all other things so you prefer the Dinka or whomever is the tallest ethnicity), all this is debatable, but in the end rational, so I think also legitimate.
If instead being racist means that you evaluate all the members of a race and all their gene pool on the basis of their average, (eg: you would not like to have Mongoloid heritage because you think Mongoloids are ugly on average) this is not rational, as you are what you are, regardless of your heritage. Thus, non rational = stupid, and that's what's wrong in being racist.
Race may be a predictor of the probability of a carachteristic of a person. Once you know the person you don't need to care about his race.
That's why Berter's argument was racist, not because he thinks SSA African's achievements are minor than someone else's achievements, and that this is due to their imnate lack of abilities. This is a debatable, but rational and legitimate position. Saying he doesn't want to find any SSA gene in him is just racism, i.e. irrational hate for another race, as he would be just the same person he is now with any ancestry he could find in himself.
|
|
|
Post by Human on Feb 1, 2005 6:14:30 GMT -5
there are many negative points about racism and being racist. under a psychological approach it can be argued that it is no good for your mental health, to the mental health of the racist i mean. no doubt it will be very damaging to the mental health of the person who is the object of racism by the society. under a historical point of view, racism led and has led to xenophobia, extermination and much suffering (what if your appearance all of a sudden were labelled a backward one? if your parents and family should be segregated from normal life?). under a sociological point of view, racism causes a lot of tensions within societies and can cause disruption. this list is quite huge indeed, and there are many other negative aspects....
the only positive one, i think, is that racist people will probably be more successful in keeping their 'physical identity' and 'ancestry'. note that 'physical identity' and 'ancestry', it could be argued, may be too vague to justify such a negative impacting behaviour as racism generally is.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Feb 1, 2005 7:05:38 GMT -5
Racism is bad because it goes against the scientific method in that it starts from an assumption (whatever race is better/worse) and then looks for evidence to prove it, thus selecting whatever confirms your thesis and throwing away what doesn't. It could be argued that "anti-racism" does the same. So, I choose non-racism. Racism, and in a lesser degree, anti-racism have both been used as national-identity ideologies in order to unite the people of a certain country and make everybody feel as part of the same club. I think it's really bad. Spontaneous culture is one thing, a natural and interesting thing, but "official", state imposed culture is manipulation in my book. And racism/anti-racism (when sponsored by the state) is usually that, manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by IfTheLightTakesUs on Feb 1, 2005 21:44:38 GMT -5
What is considered "racism" nowadays is a good and very healthy thing. Most people are too stupid to get it.
How can you love another people more than your own?
Screw equality, we're going to end up with the same lowest common denominator human being without some racism.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 1, 2005 23:02:24 GMT -5
AE. The answer is simple the golden rule. Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. Its the central tenet that allows humans to live together and its no less applicable to large groups then small only more difficult to acheive.
Ifthelighttakesus. Racism is the refuge of the weak who are scared of competing on an even playing field with all people. Your white skin does not make you more intelligent or stronger but if convince people it does you have leg up. The overal fitness of the species is benifited be an even playing field were the cream can rise to the top no matter what their race. I have much more in common with strong, intelligent negroids then with small minded, weak racists.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 1, 2005 23:22:55 GMT -5
AE. The answer is simple the golden rule. Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. Its the central tenet that allows humans to live together and its no less applicable to large groups then small only more difficult to acheive. Ifthelighttakesus. Racism is the refuge of the weak who are scared of competing on an even playing field with all people. Your white skin does not make you more intelligent or stronger but if convince people it does you have leg up. The overal fitness of the species is benifited be an even playing field were the cream can rise to the top no matter what their race. I have much more in common with strong, intelligent negroids then with small minded, weak racists. I think you have a very valid point. I would prefer to see a society where idealogy and personal belief and behavior takes precedence over things you have no control over like race or ethnicity or nationality. It's nice though, to be proud of you heritage.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Feb 2, 2005 1:01:09 GMT -5
Yes, I also believe in the Golden Rule. What you do, say, and think denotes your character rather than your race and origins. There is a difference between being interested in race and nationality and being a 'racist' or 'hater.' I find the similarities and differences between groups of humans to be fascinating and also believe that hating mainly hurts the hater, unless of course violence emanates from the hate.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Feb 2, 2005 13:43:46 GMT -5
I'm not a racist, but a 'preservationist,' and not in the McCullough sense. If Europe restricted non-White immigration to negligible amounts, while increasing its birthrate beyond mere replacement (granted, it's not even at that now), I could not care less what happened in North America or elsewhere. In fact, I would probably end up marrying someone from say Central, South, or West Asia, or even from Africa.
Unfortunately, events have conspired to leave me, and others disillusioned with multiculturalism, etc., no place to run to. Our ancestral homelands are under siege (ethnically-speaking), and there is no place left to draw a line in the sand anymore.
I cannot live with my back against the wall, watching the destruction (in whatever form) of my 'tribe' while hand-cuffed. This situation is what makes 'preservationists' go from being proud of their heritage to extremists.
Had Europe properly dealt with (i.e. restrict immigration) their 30-35 million non-White immigrants (very rough estimate), I would have no issue and be contented. In fact I was contented to voluntarily exile myself from my own country and live in Europe, after all, NO group has ANY claim on North America.
But some places in Europe seem worse off than North America. Whereas before, 40 million could have been denied entry (a relatively peaceful means of ethnic preservation), now there are some 160 million non-Whites in Europe, the United States, and Canada.
And whereas before I could easily live with 120 million of them, now I don't feel the same way.
Other than that issue, I believe in pro-choice, equal rights for homosexuals, etc. In fact, in survey after survey I come out a hardcore liberal - even leaning more to the left.
But what do I care about my country, if I don't feel its people are my 'tribe' anymore? Thus, demographics for me overshadow all else. And I'd support whoever solved this problem, even if I despised the rest of that party or person's platform.
|
|
|
Post by IfTheLightTakesUs on Feb 2, 2005 16:43:37 GMT -5
AE. The answer is simple the golden rule. Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you. Its the central tenet that allows humans to live together and its no less applicable to large groups then small only more difficult to acheive. Ifthelighttakesus. Racism is the refuge of the weak who are scared of competing on an even playing field with all people. Your white skin does not make you more intelligent or stronger but if convince people it does you have leg up. The overal fitness of the species is benifited be an even playing field were the cream can rise to the top no matter what their race. I have much more in common with strong, intelligent negroids then with small minded, weak racists. Hahaha, good job giving a stupid, typical, pre-packaged response, you even managed to fit in a part where you assume I'm white! I believe that my culture, my people, and myself, are better than everyone else; I love it. That isn't to say I don't have respect for others, but that everyone should love their culture and heritage. Haha, "refuge for the weak," did you get that off of the ADL website? EDIT: Get it through your head, "racist" is not synonymous with "hater."
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 2, 2005 18:10:45 GMT -5
Ah the typical hysterical answer containing no reasonable premises. I know what you are ethnically Ifthelighttakesus and your amply demonstrating your charecter for the whole board.
|
|
|
Post by IfTheLightTakesUs on Feb 2, 2005 18:22:53 GMT -5
Ah the typical hysterical answer containing no reasonable premises. I know what you are ethnically Ifthelighttakesus and your amply demonstrating your charecter for the whole board. that was weak FORGOT: are you that irish guy with really curly hair or that big nosed german guy? (not an insult just asking)
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 2, 2005 18:34:36 GMT -5
Your arguments are weak, not to mention fallacious. In any event I am the irish american dude with the really curly hair.
|
|