It wasnt 5 million who created the labels, that is wrong. 5 million may have quickly adopted the labels but 5 million did not create them. That is wrong. And good, if you dont portray the individuals who created the labels as an entire race, which is exactly what you did initially, there is no problem.
You haven't done any of that research recommended to you yet, obviously. You are now entering an ocean of confusion about how language itself changes, and what labeling and naming involve, linguistically. Try this: do you think an individual invented the term "black", or an individual invented its application to dark skinned human beings, and everybody else over an entire continent and two centuries - who had never thought of such a thing for themselves - learned to do that from that one guy? Does that make sense to you as a likely historical account of what actually happened? The term I used originally, and ever since, is "white men". Same term, page one to page eight. It's the term they used for themselves, all the millions of them, and - as you repeatedly emphasized - it's practical. Or you could just reread this:
Nothing confusing about any of this. I have stated self attesting facts. You are just determined to villify the white race. Dont pretend not to understand how you portrayed it as "white men" and the baggage that comes with that statement. It was individuals.
Nonsense. I'm the guy who thinks there isn't one, remember? I'm vilifying individuals, just like we agreed. A few million of them, all of them white men, who over time and under pressure came to share a convenient and practical delusion of "race", and imposed it on the entire US. Try research, argument, and evidence, rather than "self". That way, your facts will not be in conflict with recorded history, logical reason, and observable reality.
You claim that, but your words say otherwise. These self attesting facts fall right in line with what is observable, logical, and historical. And ive argued it already, i will not repeat them. You can reread the thread. You are wrong. It was individuals. And portraying them as white men is an inaccurate way of describing them due to the baggage with thay, matter how you try to portray it, this is factual. Own up
? Not only my claims, but my posted evidence and my posted arguments and my posted observations, support my central assertion: that US democracy is currently threatened by the the consequences of the racial division of US society; that this racial division is a recently established and purely sociological convention, a product of mutual agreement and collective action over many generations among a subset of the male immigrants into the Americas. This subset called itself "white men", and organized the entire US civilization around this self-established "race" it had defined itself to be and labeled itself as, and the other "races" it defined and labeled accordingly (the gender division had been accomplished already). These "races" did not exist prior to that, either named or unnamed - those particular collective groupings of those various peoples and cultures and origins had never existed before. As you were probably going to have trouble understanding that, I pointed to specific subsets of the new "races" that had never been associated with each other until then, so you could see what I meant. You have posted not one single supporting piece of observable evidence, not a single supporting argument, or a single link to illustrative historical event, in eight pages of thread. You have done nothing here but repeat unsupported assertions, which conflict with the links, evidence, and arguments posted by others. I'm sorry about the baggage, but it's the way the organized, collectively acting, mutually communicating, millions of male individuals in this self-defined "race" described themselves for hundreds of years, and the way their heirs (not all their descendants, their heirs) continue to describe themselves to this day. As you have repeated so many times, it's practical to label them as they labeled themselves. They agreed to label themselves for practical reasons, and that is one of them. They fought for those classifications and those labels, by law and by violence and by continual hardbitten effort to enforce custom, for hundreds of years across an entire continent - we might as well make use of the success of their efforts, since we have to deal with the consequences regardless. You call it "baggage", but you insist on using their racial grouping and labeling system yourself, and attributing bad characteristics and "baggage" to currently living people based on their racial designation within that particular system - so it's a bit odd that you object to other people using it. Don't you think?
Portraying it the way you do, is where the baggage comes from. It was individuals, not white people, who created the labels. Still factual. Ive addressed your arguments already, you just refuse to see that, which is no fault of my own.
Everyone loses when you take away the right to vote, therefore democracy does not collapse because in an election there are many losers. Also, if the leadership is dependant on a majority vote, then there are more winners then losers on each election cycle. As long as there are more winners on each round then the democracy will flourish. It is only if a group of supporters who are less than a majority end up winning because of election rules that the democracy would colapse. DE
Isn't the labelling of races based on the science standards biology uses to catalog species? For example, cat or feline represents a wide range of similar animals In the catalog of species, cat is further divided down into separate groups, often based on geographical origins. The lion is African, the Jaguar is centered in Central America, the Tiger is continental Asia, If you go to the web site ancestry.com you can pay them to do a DNA test with your saliva. From your DNA they can tell you the countries of your ancestral roots. There are genetic markers that subdivides each race of humans down to particular places of origin. This is proven science and not subjective. There is more data for the white race. With the white race they can show distinctions between ancestors from England, Germany, Scotland, Poland, France, etc., and/or the proportions of these, even when mixed with other races. The real problem is not connected to cataloging based on DNA, but rather is connected to how the Democratic party divides people to get votes. Back in the 1960's through the 1970's most of the racist and sexists distinctions were gone; love generation. The legal barriers were removed and the premise of all are equal was allowed to run its course. Anyone could fly under the power of their own ability and hard work. Racism were reintroduced by the Democrats, who were the original party of racism. The snake appear again, beginning in the 1980's. They divided the country into victims and bullies to justify the lack of organic equality, after all the legal barriers were removed. Organic equality is when thing happen naturally without having to cheat the system like before. They no longer wanted a level playing field, but a different lopsided legal playing field, one that could create an illusion of equality. The more they cheated the system and the results did not happen, they more they doubled down. This unfair irrationality (blame the present for the past) created a backlash of resentment by those who believe in equality based on merit. This resentment then was spun to justify their original faulty deceptive premise of systemic racism and sexism. The game is like this. Say I try to get the female vote by telling then they can run as fast as men in the 100M. This is not possible due to biology. However I will play on their fears and vanity by blame this natural result on the men fixing the game, so they always are able to run faster. It is not due to biology but cheating. The men now need to pay retribution for always cheating. This faulty premise is taught as propaganda in the liberal run schools. The men know this is about biology, but to make the women stop nagging and feeling insecure , they go alone. The solution is the men now have to have a handicap when they run the 100M, and the women get to have a head start. This is call a fair race due to PC word games. Even with this lopsided start to the race, it does not quite work out for as many woman as the Democrats promised. So they double down and blame this on a glass ceiling where the males are still cheating in secret meetings. Those who are willing to cheat and steal will accept any excuse to cheat and steal. They can't accept the fact that men can run faster based on their biology and DNA. This is what they do, naturally, without having to cheat. The Democrats project that everyone is cheating, but they are the one's who cheat, but are too irrational to see this. This is why they project. For example, Hilary tried ti cheat the system by having a private server. This allows shady behavior off the record. Most the Democrats don't even see this as cheating due to conditioning of similar behavior. They think everyone else doing the cheating. When the department of education is abolished the democrats will not be able to indoctrinate the young people with nonsense. This will allow the next generation to be more rational. These problem will solve themselves.
Incorrect. The genetic markers are not indicators of race, but simply identify particular markers that we know to be associated with a particular geographic area. And feline classification into species is not based on geography, but on major genetic differences, generally associated with the inability to interbreed. The rest of your post is thinly disguised racism and not worth wasting further commentary on.
I am not racist. I am a rational scientist stating the facts. PC or political correctness is not science. Politically correct means the proper way to spin for political gain? Politics has nothing to do with science and truth. It has more to do with manipulating and appeasing emotions and feelings and creating optics. Used car salesmen are skilled at these things, but they are not a reliable source of truth. If you look at the NBA, most of the top players are black. Is this do to laws, glass ceilings, good ole boys networks and propaganda? The answer is no, the bulk of the top players are black because the black race has, on the average, excellent physical ability, high athletic drive and they will put the hard work to get better. There are no laws that prevent anyone from any race from trying out for the NBA. The result is natural, not racist. It is as simple as that. This applies to all aspects of culture where some races are better equipped. If this choice was done by PC, it would become racist, because it would not reflect a natural result based on natural ability. It would use some type of legal or social manipulation. The current result follows the scientific principles of natural selection and selection advantage. PC has nothing to do with natural. It is about unnatural selection, which needs a manipulative legal system; PC used car salesmen. To me, racism is when laws are made that favor or disfavor any race and therefore alter the nature result of free and open competition. Quotas are racist since it does not allow a natural result, but rather allows for a manipulated result based on race. Blaming the present for the past is a scam, since people of the present are innocent of all charges, that occurred before they were born. Thus irrational claim is based on racism. A legal system, that is not racist, provides equal opportunity for all. It does not attempt to create equal results for all. Equal result for all is based on human selection; racism. If we wanted equal results for all in the NBA, the system would need to be legally rigged to avoid the natural equilibrium where there will be more blacks. You will need unnatural selection to do this, which is often based on PC and how many votes you expect to get.
You stated that the genetic tests establishing the geographic regions inhabited by the ancestors of living people "subdivide the races". They do not. They subdivide the human population they are being applied to. There is no racial indication in them. Your mistake there is an elementary one of logic, not one a scientist would make.
On Madness and Otherwise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for a zombie's only hope. You know, mad libs do not proper argumentation make. Other than that, could you please be a bit more specific about this bizarre period in which there was apparently no racism in the United States, because historians, anthropologists, and behavioral economists alike will be absolutely thrilled to learn how this new-fangled reality works?
Since you choose to divide people and characterise people by their race, that is suggestive. Since you seem to be unaware that the term race is not considered a very useful one in science, that is suggestive. Since you have used some meticulous, but frankly silly sudivisions of populations and called them races, that is suggestive. You are either a racist, or not very well educated, or intellectually challenged. Whichever status applies, your posts can be safely disregarded.
It was the Spanish colonists who applied the adjective negro, literally "black" (pronounced NEH-groh), to the African slaves, for the obvious reason that to their eyes they looked quite black. In Spanish, adjectives can be used as nouns when applied to humans, so the people became negros. The people of the British colonies (which eventually became the USA) borrowed the word, but pronounced the word according to English phonetics and it came out NEE-grow, and as is standard in our language, it was only used as a noun. In the South, where the colonists came from regions in England with different accents, it was mangled into "NIG-ger." No insult was implied, it was just a matter of phonetics. When it became necessary to distinguish the slaves from their masters, the people of European ancestry were called "white," which is obviously the opposite of black/negro. It was't until after the Civil War, when the people of the now-defeated Southern states regarded the now-freed slaves as the root of their problems (rather than their medieval storybook economy with the white people as the aristocrats and the black people as the yeomen, since white people were no longer willing to be yeomen), that "nigger" came to be used primarily an insult, rather than just a descriptive term. A linguistic chess game ensued as old words became taboo and new ones replaced them. The phrase "colored people" was coined in 1909 by W.E.B. DuBois and the other founders of the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People," and this was the term regarded as polite by "white" people up through the 1950s. Then the "colored people" decided to simply call themselves "black" and we had come back to the beginning of the circle. But after a couple of centuries of intermarriage (or more likely rape), many of the people in the "black" community didn't look much darker than the "white" people, so the term "African-American" and its more easily pronounced variant "Afro-American" came into vogue. But after WWII, when racism began to wane--every so slowly--intermarriage among the people of European ancestry and all of the other immigrant communities (Latino, Eastern Asian and Western Asian as well as African and Native American) left us without any good names for a huge segment of the population. The children of immigrants (or slaves or people whose ancestors were here before ours arrived) tend to grab onto an identity, and commonly call themselves Latino, African, etc. But the next generation--which generally intermarry with little regard for race--usually identify themselves simply as "Americans," just like the rest of us.
Bullshit. The slave status was built into the origin of the term, and denigration built in with it. You have got to be kidding. No, they weren't. Only some people of European ancestry were called "white" initially (the Italian and Spanish Catholics were not, for example). The US "white" race took more than two hundred years to create. That wasn't the reason. Your sci-fi future sounds nice, but here in the present day US white and black and red and yellow and even brown people know which US racial classification applies to them (or they can pass as), and are keenly aware of its implications. And whether or not American democracy can survive the US white men losing control of the process, even partially, remains to be seen.
If very many of my fellow white men are like Donald Trump, it's time for us to go home and let somebody else run things.
That is going to happen. The question is whether they will step aside willingly. My bet is trouble, on that score.
