Proposal: There never were, nor ever will be "Palestinian" people.

[CheskiChips]

That's my proposal, any takers?

[Ophiolite]

Most classifications of humanity into groups is subjective. In that regard if any subset of humanity see themselves as forming a group they are automatically that group. Therefore the Palestinians - who have seen themselves as such for at least eight decades - are indeed a people.

Get over it.

[DeepThought]

Most classifications of humanity into groups is subjective.


But sub-Saharan Africans have measurably larger jaws and smaller craniums than, for example, Europeans.

Isn't that more than just subjective?

[Ophiolite]

Which is precisely why I said most rather than all. However, even here the classification is subjective if we accord overmuch importance to the distinction.

[DeepThought]

Which is precisely why I said most rather than all.


Indeed you did.

However, even here the classification is subjective if we accord overmuch importance to the distinction.


One worries though that the weight given to this distinction is too small in contemporary society considering it is so central to the evolutionary development of our intelligence.

[Ophiolite]

And there you make an interesting point. The value and relevance of any classification system depends upon the purpose for which the classification system is proposed. A system that classifies individuals by how they tend to vote in elections will be useful for politicians planning an election campaign. It will be of very limited or no use for health officers assessing the number of potential diabetic sufferers.

(Off topic comment: I would like to see citations that support your claim that sub-Saharan Africans have smaller craniums. I would also like to hear what possible relevance that has to the evolution of intelligence. I trust this isn't some racist nonsense.)

[DeepThought]

(Off topic comment: I would like to see citations that support your claim that sub-Saharan Africans have smaller craniums. I would also like to hear what possible relevance that has to the evolution of intelligence.


I've got a comprehensive study carried out by a Japanese scientist which I will endeavor to dredge up off my hard drive.

I trust this isn't some racist nonsense.)


Racist? As in it isn't real?

Only the data will tell.

[Ophiolite]

Racist? As in it isn't real?

Only the data will tell.Racist as in 'let's take some observations out of context and make them fit our preconceived ideas of how the world is'.

[DeepThought]

Racist as in 'let's take some observations out of context and make them fit our preconceived ideas of how the world is'.


That's not 'racism' as far as I'm aware, but corrupted scientific method.

[Asguard]

MOD HAT:

guys this is not a discussion thread. If you wish to paticipate in the debate say so and use this thread to set up the rules. if not then i will close the thread as no one has accepted the challange. off topic posts WILL be deleted from now on

Draqon, if you wish to make that challange do so in another thread

[Ophiolite]

Oops!

[Asguard]

may well be but thats not up to me to determine, the rules for this section are clear. Proposal threads are ONLY for proposing and organising formal debates.

If you want to debate the racisium of his comments feel free to either make a complaint to james or plazma OR accept his challange and PROVE he is a racist

[Ophiolite]

Where I come from Oops! means 'blimey I do feel foolish. I've made a silly mistake. I'll get out of here quitely and quickly.' In short I did not notice this was a debate thread. I always enter threads via the New Posts route. Consequently, your 'may well be.....' sentence makes absolutely no sense to me. That said I think my initial post was a valid counterargument to Cheski's position.

[Asguard]

Ophiolite, that was aimed at draqon. He took the rude option of deleting his post and leaving my comment sitting out there looking stupid but hes just that kind of guy *sarcastic*

[Ophiolite]

Oops.;)

[CheskiChips]

They haven't been a people nationalized ever in history, and they are not one now other than being conscripted for a political motive.

[Ophiolite]

People do not need to be 'nationalised' to be a people. On what basis do you make such a claim. 'Nationhood' is a particular form of political (borad sense) organisation, but certainly not the only one. If you require that a people have be 'nationalised' before they can be considered a people, then you reject the possibility of peoples existing in ancient times. Your objection to calling the Palestinians people then becomes a debate about the meaning of the word people. Perhaps we should begin there.

[CheskiChips]

"Palestinian" was something no one called themselves until the 60's. Before other people called people "Palestinians"....the name derived from a Roman who wanted to destroy the identity of "Judaea".

[DiamondHearts]

There won't be any more left if things go as they are proceeding.

It's very sad what these brave people go through.

[Ophiolite]

"Palestinian" was something no one called themselves until the 60's. Before other people called people "Palestinians"....the name derived from a Roman who wanted to destroy the identity of "Judaea".I am strongly tempted to report you for blatant lying. In SAM's News from Gaza thread you made the same claim, to which I responded thus:

According to the online 2007 edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica the first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I.

More to the point in Porath's 1974 work The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929 he observes, on page 117 "the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921".

The Encyclopedia Brittanica enjoys a good reputation for accuracy. I am not an expert in this area but I understand that Yehoshua Porath who is Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is also well thought of.

Are you stating that both of these sources are flawed. Could you provide sources that substantiate your own claim please.

Please retract your flawed statement now.

[Asguard]

Mod Hat:
As no one has shown any interest in taking up the formal debate, thread closed

However i WILL say this, CheskiChips this site is not radical board and its not the white house. We dont apreciate people whos only purpose here is to push racisium.

If you cant cut it out it might be your name joining the ban list next.

This is a friendly warning, next time i will be moving for tougher action. Just because its against muslims insted of jews this time doesnt mean its not peddling petty hatred.