|
Post by topdog on Apr 12, 2005 11:59:48 GMT -5
I have noticed tons of racialist sites, e.g., 'Nordish Portal, Alpish, and of course this forum which has a pro-Southern Euro theme to it. Why the need to base superiority based on racial subtypes? Most people can't tell the difference between an Alpish person and a Nordish person, but they all seem to promote superiority based on subracial types? Its bad enough that people attack anything remotely pro-black as 'Afrocentrism', but it seems the so-called 'Caucasoid' racialists cannot properly classify people within their own race, thus sites like the three above appear.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 12, 2005 12:10:12 GMT -5
I don't think this site has a "pro Southern Euro theme to it". Maybe some member has, but it is not the tone of the site.
About your question, I don't get it. Once you are racist makes sense to claim your "subrace" is the best. The smaller the "superior" group you belong to, the better you feel.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 12, 2005 12:21:50 GMT -5
I don't think this site has a "pro Southern Euro theme to it". Maybe some member has, but it is not the tone of the site. About your question, I don't get it. Once you are racist makes sense to claim your "subrace" is the best. The smaller the "superior" group you belong to, the better you feel. Nordish, Alpish, and Meddish people have interbreeded to a point to where they all blend into one another, plus genetics does not support clearcut demarcations between these three groups.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 12, 2005 12:35:58 GMT -5
Nordish, Alpish, and Meddish people have interbreeded to a point to where they all blend into one another, plus genetics does not support clearcut demarcations between these three groups. I agree completely. Actually the mere existence of these groups is questionable. However, as long as enough difference is found that you can think of a group as such (and you are talking about Nord, Med so you too recognise this words are not totally meaningless) you will have "group pride". Also this subracial groups are tied to nations and cultures, which amplifies the sense of belonging to a distinct group. I am not saying it is rational, only that it is human. I think the same inter race racism could be find in all races.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 12, 2005 12:42:16 GMT -5
I agree completely. Actually the mere existence of these groups is questionable. However, as long as enough difference is found that you can think of a group as such (and you are talking about Nord, Med so you too recognise this words are not totally meaningless) you will have "group pride". Also this subracial groups are tied to nations and cultures, which amplifies the sense of belonging to a distinct group. I am not saying it is rational, only that it is human. I think the same inter race racism could be find in all races. I use those terms as descriptive terms within the context of this thread. I don't believe in any of those terms. I believe in variation in all races, but I do not believe in clearcut demarcations between races. A round head doesn't make one 'Alpish'[see obsolete terms like 'African and American Indian Alpine], nor does having a long head in Europe make one Nordic or Meddish. If people would properly classify Europeans there would be none of this subrace racialism.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Apr 12, 2005 12:42:48 GMT -5
I see this site as an anthropological one for polite educational discourse between all types of people. Dienekes is Greek, and there are Southern Euros here, but that's about it, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 12, 2005 13:28:00 GMT -5
I see this site as an anthropological one for polite educational discourse between all types of people. Dienekes is Greek, and there are Southern Euros here, but that's about it, IMO. I believe what you say, but its hard to argue against this forum being pro-southern European when you hear people talking about Aryanists and Afrocentrists as the two evil ideologies.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 12, 2005 13:45:51 GMT -5
Subtypes like Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean have a long history of being arbitrary, I agree, but in the same vein that there are breeds of horses, there are breeds of humans and subracial types can be identified but they must not be too exclusive or clearcut to be useful. They are more of just guidelines for physical descriptions anyway, and, you are also correct Charlie in that you point out that there has been much mixture between peoples of different racial types. I highly doubt a pure Atlanto-Mediterranean population exists in the British Isles, but the physical type is there. Racial types often follow a geographic common sense as well. For instance, there is a clear discernable difference between Basques and Berbers, though both are classified within the Atlanto-Med family. So there are even subtypes within subtypes. The question is where does it end. I think it ends when the categories stop becoming useful guidelines for telling peoples apart.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 12, 2005 15:27:59 GMT -5
IMO, those individuals whose need to reassert their ethnic/racial identity is outwardly manifested by a marked activism could very well be reflecting a deep sense of personal insecurity.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Apr 12, 2005 20:14:22 GMT -5
Yes, there are all kinds of people and ideologies here. Interesting when taken with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 13, 2005 5:14:35 GMT -5
Maybe the physical differences between Europeans is taken to an extreme but whether one accepts subracial types or clines there are noticeable differences in Europeans in Europe's extreme geographic parts. My opinion is that Afrocentrism and Nordicist beliefs are similar in their aims and action which is aggressive and offensive. Medicism or Alpism? is defensive and protective. I am yet to read any articles and papers which claim that Mediterranean caucasoids created the South American civilisations, the Chinese, or Indian civilisations. I have yet to read that the Northern European were lead by brown skinned, raven haired and black eyed Mediterranean hierarchy in the opposite fashion of carl, jarls and so on.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 13, 2005 13:39:47 GMT -5
Indeed, the so-called Medicism is most of the time a defensive effort to repudiate Nordicist and Afrocentrist doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 14, 2005 2:21:00 GMT -5
Maybe the physical differences between Europeans is taken to an extreme but whether one accepts subracial types or clines there are noticeable differences in Europeans in Europe's extreme geographic parts. I agree, but the question remains, where does one end and where does one start?[subracial types] Afrocentrism is defensive, at least that what real Afrocentrism originally was, because so much of the history of black was distorted, thats an undeniable fact. Whether it was weird diffusionist theories or flat out racism, there was distortion. The original aim of Afrocentrism was to repudiate those distortions, not create a culture, heritage and history for a people who didn't have one as Igu and a few select others have claimed. I will admit there are some people who have and are doing more damage than good, but aside from that Afrocentrism isn't destructive and rarely has any Afrocentrist made any black **SUPREMACY** claims as Nordicists have made. Its unfair and biased to characterise Afrocentrism as anything but defensive while claiming Medicism and Alpism are totally defensive and proctective. Both have elements among them that are extreme and go beyond being defensive and protective.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Apr 14, 2005 2:47:25 GMT -5
Speaking of Black Supremacists, I've only met one--perhaps some of you saw him? I saw him standing in Times Square in New York City many times in the Eighties and Nineties ranting about White Devils and how Africans were the supreme race. There was always a crowd of interested onlookers of all races listening to him. He had a table on the sidewalk covered with literature.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 14, 2005 3:08:44 GMT -5
Afrocentrism is defensive, at least that what real Afrocentrism originally was, because so much of the history of black was distorted, thats an undeniable fact. Whether it was weird diffusionist theories or flat out racism, there was distortion. Its unfair and biased to characterise Afrocentrism as anything but defensive while claiming Medicism and Alpism are totally defensive and proctective. Both have elements among them that are extreme and go beyond being defensive and protective. I agree on this. It is quite hard to deny that Afrocentrism is, at least to a good extent, defensive, as surely Africans were at the receiving end of much more racism than Meds (and I wouldn't even mention Alpines, who exist only for a thousand Coonologyst around the wolrd and are a category totally unknown for all the rest). On the other hand, Medicism is just a mirror word for Nordicism, but it is a movement that doesn't and didn't ever carry any weight in any society or historical moment. This is even more true for Alpism, that has no existence at all out of the capacious head of some members of this forum. Thus I think that Nordicism and Afrocentrism take more heat not because they are more aggressive, but because they are more important movements that are having or had an historical role.
|
|