|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 14, 2005 21:50:11 GMT -5
There seems no effort made to educate some posters that certain terms have specific meanings in racial biodiversity studies that differ from the common or street terms of that word. White for instance is a category used for all caucasoids. Some of you use it to mean the lightest of the depigmented caucasoids. Sorry, but that is just ignorance, stupidity or racism. Linnaeus and Blumenbach who can be regarded as founders did not mean the White term to have that limited and racist meaning. Some effort to reeducate these mistaken people or at least advise them of their errors would be appreciated. Otherwise this forum is just a haven for the ignorant and racist. Maybe Mr K. was right afterall!
|
|
|
|
Post by BriarHopper on Apr 14, 2005 22:04:55 GMT -5
Can you please delineate some instances in which Linnaeus used the term "white" to describe non-Europid peoples? Who are you to decide what Linnaeus meant? Bear in mind that in Linnaeus' day, the modern meaningless boogeyman "racism" wasn't even a concept and that he described homo sapiens afer, for example, as being "ruled by capriciousness." Does that make him a "racist," too?  Here's a valid definition you can start working with: Racist: n. what followers of the Boasian school of anthropology call those who disagree with their theories |
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 15, 2005 2:07:46 GMT -5
Take your sophistry somewhere else, I am not interested in the dissembling arguments of Sophists. You must be a lousy linguist if you think the adjective europaeus used by Linne was meant by him in a racial context to be restricted totally to Europe or what you think Europe is. I suppose you do not know that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia are in geographic Europe. Europid and European are different. Linne was a man of his time. Anyone who thinks White means what you think it means is racist. If the shoe fits wear it. I do not believe in boogeymen just as the Bible says "a ship of fools".
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Apr 15, 2005 7:12:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BriarHopper on Apr 15, 2005 10:24:24 GMT -5
Take your sophistry somewhere else, I am not interested in the dissembling arguments of Sophists. In other words, you have no effective rebuttal. You're pretty good at calling me names, though. First I was a "racist;" now I'm a "sophist." Do you have anything to contribute outside of ad hominem attacks? I don't think he necessarily meant it to be in accordance with what I think Europe is, but rather with what he thought Europe is, which is probably quite different from what you think Europe is. But as you've set yourself up as the sole interpreter of his words, I guess we'll just have to let you speak for the man. I have never made any mention of superiority of the people I (and most other White people) conceive of as being White, and I have never made any value judgements regarding the people not considered White in my taxonomy. You're the one who seems to think that not being considered White by White people is some sort of an insult. I think your real problem is that you have an inferiority complex. You want certain groups to be "White" (yourself, perhaps?) so badly that when someone draws the line at a place that excludes them, you experience the kind of emotional breakdown that led you to start this thread. It's quite sad, really. People should just learn to be happy with what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 15, 2005 12:00:30 GMT -5
Please, gentlemen, don't waste away your talent in an debate that can not be won.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newman on Apr 16, 2005 21:09:59 GMT -5
It's quite sad, really. People should just learn to be happy with what they are. I couldn't agree more.  I find this labelling business in deciding who is "white" or who isn't white enough or whatever other "racial" terminology a rather childish exercise that probably stems from personal insecurities in an attempt to try and fill that void. Is not being "white" or considered as such by a certain group of people a slight on one's character?  Very disturbing if it your personal identity and self-worth depends on something one has very little control of. But then again being of European stock does carry a certain amount of prestige in today's world and perhaps this is the source of such petty arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 16, 2005 22:05:56 GMT -5
Newman, you are on the wrong bus. I do not care about racist ideas, superiority, feeling slighted at being thought of as belonging to an undesirable racial group, or my or your racial identity. It is about respecting the definitions already established and not allowing ignorant or street level redefinitions based on silly and childish ideas of what was meant by the founders. The White or Caucasian group was never meant by von Linne or Blumenbach to be restricted to Europe or some tiny fraction of the population of Europe or some even smaller fraction of that fraction of NW Europeans who happen to be tall, blond, blue eyed, long headed, linear build, pink skinned and those other things some people seem to think on this board is White. Gravity has a number of meanings used by all people but only one scientific definition. I suppose some people may not accept gravity or its effects or its magnitude and redefine it. Chuck out men like Galileo Galilei and others and stick in some street definition. I do not know who Mr. B is but he is not the better of the founders. I am not debating, I am advising that any redefinitions of what has been already established is like rewriting the Gettysburg address because it uses arcane or old fashioned language or too verbose. And thank you, Vela, I have not been called a gentleman for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 17, 2005 18:47:17 GMT -5
As you'll understand, Mr. Senso, anthropology is far from being an exact science. Even if we could invoke a supreme authority on the subject, (which doesn't exist) ultimately an individual will believe what he wants to believe or understand what he's capable of understanding.
I don't think anyone here wants to take upon his/her shoulders the burden of rectifying every possible misconception and twisted argument that happens to be routinely posted in this forum.
When opposing views are presented on a subject I don't want to act like a referee and declare a winner or a looser. I prefer the power of words alone, the reasoning abilities of the participants to be the deciding factor in every controversy.
Ultimately, there's no guarantee that your truth or my truth will be accepted by others but even if that's the case we shouldn't let that cause us an upset stomach or make us loose our sleep. We know that in the end truth will prevail!
|
|
I find this labelling business in deciding who is "white" or who isn't white enough or whatever other "racial" terminology a rather childish exercise that probably stems from personal insecurities in an attempt to try and fill that void. Is not being "white" or considered as such by a certain group of people a slight on one's character? 
Very disturbing if it your personal identity and self-worth depends on something one has very little control of. But then again being of European stock does carry a certain amount of prestige in today's world and perhaps this is the source of such petty arguments.