one of my favorite models was 1/2 american italian and 1/2 american negro She and her twin sister seemed happy with their lives. (maybe being beautiful had something to do with that?)
I admit, it's a curious endeavor to figure how the first two sentences relate to the third. (1) "You destroy the ability to refer to it as a topic" — Wrong. You might choose that meaning, for whatever reasons you find important, but no, your projection is not a necessary result. (2) "destroying it at the point of language" — I would wonder, though, why we would perpetuate the language of supremacism. (3) It is interesting that you chose this course in addressing the question; let us please review and consider: • We don't use the terms, "Colored", or, "Negro", anymore. Does that beget an assumption that something (¿what?) is a done and dusted topic? If you say "there are no interracial couples, only couples", you don't destroy racism. You destroy the ability to refer to it as a topic. Obviously, as a society (even if you want to talk exclusively of Manhattan society), we are not in a position where destroying it at the point of language reflects our having destroyed it in our everyday dealings. The problem isn't a question of arguability; I happen to disagree with the necessity of your projected result about "destroy[ing] the ability to refer to it as a topic". The problem is that you seem to be trying to evade the question; combined with a dearth of response to the point about multiethnicity, your sentences on "recourse to other adjectives that they deem as more palatable" stand out. Meanwhile, the proposition that, "we are not in a position where destroying it at the point of language reflects our having destroyed it in our everyday dealings", is another one of those notions that works in its own context; it happens to be true when held up as its own point in its own circumstance. However, as an answer to the question at hand— • Does [the obsolescence of terms "Colored" and "Negro"] beget an assumption that (¿what?) is a done and dusted topic? —the proposition is in itself no answer. The "¿what?" in that formulation refers to the inability to even discern what, precisely, you are referring to, something about how regarding the word "interracial" as obsolete "begets an assumption that it is a done and dusted topic and becomes just another way to assert the normalcy of obliviousness in the name of political correctness", but you clarify well enough: "If you say 'there are no interracial couples, only couples', you don't destroy racism". Which only leads us back to the question: • "Obviously it's not an issue relegated to history (or America's geography ) if it's still being experienced in the present. While much has been done to improve things, prematurely patting one's self on the back (or 'talking down' anyone who brings up the mere words 'interracial couple', what to speak of the subject ) comes across as poor form. It begets an assumption that it is a done and dusted topic and becomes just another way to assert the normalcy of obliviousness in the name of political correctness." ▸ We don't use the terms, "Colored", or, "Negro", anymore. Does that beget an assumption that [racism] is a done and dusted topic? And you make the point: "If you say 'there are no interracial couples, only couples', you don't destroy racism." True enough, as it goes, but the question of "destroying it at the point of language" is a subjective expression; as a behavioral matter, conditioning praxis is conditioning praxis, and there remains a question of what we are actually destroying at the point of language. And if what we're destroying turns out to be a normalization of racist priority in behavioral praxis, well, yeah, y'know, sounds great.
If it was wrong, you would have inserted a more PC acceptable version rather than a blank space. There's a link between category and words. Granted some words are more loaded than others, but if you have a category in which all words are prohibited, do you destroy the category or bring an elephant into the room? Have you done away with words like negro and coloured or replaced them with other words? Do you have no category or a category for which you (or, apparently, anyone else) are not allowed to use words? At this point, the only thing you are destroying are people's ability to express their experiences of crossing ethnic and racial stereotypes in society. The only person bringing "south of Manhattan" or "colonial" tropes to this thread (so far) is you .... the apparent reason being so you have a platform to legitimize your thought-policing. At the best, you are just premature in locking down things before they heat up. At the worst you are illustrating the type of ethnic supremacy you claim to be combating. nb. I could also maybe be missing something. Maybe your past experiences with this site warrants a policy of excessive lock down on racial discussions. Maybe there is a long legacy on racial flame wars here I am not privy to .... although the sleepy membership rate would suggest otherwise.
is the default zero point pure blooded ? does not propogating & extenuating the premis of variant acredited recognised named blood lines define a true value of pure blood ? each to their own in my opinion, if you wish to keep your own breeding blood line pure & named etc, what ever floats your boat... however, there does seem to be an inherant theme of linkage which i find interesting. denoting the specificity of the variation declares the acceptability of racial profiling. obviousely some cultures racial profiling is part of the culture. these people have found a niche where they can make money. if they were not making money from their media they would not be doing it to anywherenear the extent i should imagine. thus... is it performance art ? the new reality TV ?
"Musika " whoa there ! you cant use a geographical boundary to discribed blood lineage culture. thats what we might call propoganda that is equal to saying "we are all born on earth so no one is allowed to own land or tell others to get off any land anywhere" it is a wholely constructed paradigm used to serve the ends which is now being justified by the means.
I don't think there is a "zero point." What does pureblooded mean, anyway? We all came from Africa originally and mutations made our skin paler (or darker) and our faces look different. So you can't claim "pure blood" unless you were living in Africa and can trace your lineage all the way back to the start of man. Which is unlikely. You could hypothesize a "zero point" where all races become so mixed it's hard to pick out the original characteristics any more, but that's unlikely to happen. There's nothing wrong with profiling people based on race if the intent isn't to deny them rights. Doctors, for example, prescribe BiDil (isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine, a heart medication) only for blacks due to slight differences in their biochemistry. Health advocates push sunscreen more for pale skinned people because they are more susceptible to skin cancer due to UV damage. Which people?
i am not sure i agree to all human DNA being from Africa, though generically i agree with your comment & that is my general point RE "pure-blood" being somewhat of a false term. thus false to be implied from either point of the spectrum. absolutely agree with you here RE no harm in profiling genetically. i think the term "race" is a little loaded to more commonly mean; based on superficial constructs of social segragation. RE Heterosexual brain Bi sexual brain Homo sexual brain transgender brain etc etc.. i agree with the science. Genetics is Genetics regardles of what cult you subscribe to. (side note interesting to see how korea relates to homosexuality, easy to see the massive level of social bias loaded into the culture as normaitve gender modelling). same sex interacial couples with children ... not a big thing in some countrys... is it ok ? is it normal ? probably doesnt sell very well in korean or conservative US media. shared conservative values being projected from inside an acceptable form of variation ...
i am not sure i agree to all human DNA being from Africa, though generically i agree with your comment & that is my general point RE "pure-blood" being somewhat of a false term. thus false to be implied from either point of the spectrum. absolutely agree with you here RE no harm in profiling genetically. i think the term "race" is a little loaded to more commonly mean; based on superficial constructs of social segragation. RE Heterosexual brain Bi sexual brain Homo sexual brain transgender brain etc etc.. i agree with the science. Genetics is Genetics regardles of what cult you subscribe to. (side note interesting to see how korea relates to homosexuality, easy to see the massive level of social bias loaded into the culture as normaitve gender modelling). same sex interacial couples with children ... not a big thing in some countrys... is it ok ? is it normal ? probably doesnt sell very well in korean or conservative US media. precisely !
a good look inside the true feelings of the culture about cultural norms (awesome video very ballanced perspective)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Race, ethnicity, or nation: Click for Franco-Morroccan-Japanese-British, or is it Eurafrasian? (Anis not included.) It almost seems like you're tilting a windmill, but it's not really clear: (1) "If it was wrong, you would have inserted a more PC acceptable version rather than a blank space" — ¿Huh? It would be nice to have something more to say here than, "Says you", but even in that case it is unclear what you mean. (2) "There's a link between category and words." — Okay. That can mean any number of things, but I can find a few contexts by which it is a true statement. (3) "Granted some words are more loaded than others, but if you have a category in which all words are prohibited, do you destroy the category or bring an elephant into the room?" — It is an interesting question but what has it to do with the present? Therein we find the hulking shadow of some quixotic windmill; it is unclear, though, inasmuch as it seems reasonable enough to simply wonder at the change of subject. A weird story emerged late last year when author Ijeoma Oluo described an encounter with USA Today, by which apparently the newspaper wanted her to write a feminist response to something, but only the feminist response they told her to write. That is, they didn't want a feminist response, but a feminist to play the role of antifeminist bogeytrope. (See #3494136/35↗ for excerpt and article link.) From the outset↑— If one is not on the receiving end of racism, they tend to be oblivious to it (despite the best of liberal intentions). —you seem to be↑— While much has been done to improve things, prematurely patting one's self on the back (or "talking down" anyone who brings up the mere words "interracial couple", what to speak of the subject ) comes across as poor form. It begets an assumption that it is a done and dusted topic and becomes just another way to assert the normalcy of obliviousness in the name of political correctness. —having a completely↑— If you say "there are no interracial couples, only couples", you don't destroy racism. You destroy the ability to refer to it as a topic. Obviously, as a society (even if you want to talk exclusively of Manhattan society), we are not in a position where destroying it at the point of language reflects our having destroyed it in our everyday dealings. —different discussion↑— At this point, the only thing you are destroying are people's ability to express their experiences of crossing ethnic and racial stereotypes in society. The only person bringing "south of Manhattan" or "colonial" tropes to this thread (so far) is you .... the apparent reason being so you have a platform to legitimize your thought-policing. At the best, you are just premature in locking down things before they heat up. At the worst you are illustrating the type of ethnic supremacy you claim to be combating. —and the problem with taking you seriously is your refusal to address what is actually on the record. Let us see if we can piece this together, since you won't bother: I wonder what happens if we start saying "multiethnic", instead. One aspect many people can agree on is that "race is a social construct", or some such expression thereof. The word "interracial" requires artifice; multiethnicity is far less judgmental, and has actual medical merit, but it's a hell of a lot less interesting to the people who fret about interracialism; see Billvon at #11↑ above regarding multivalent multiethnicity. Even the prefix inter- is problematic in this manner, invoking, identifying, or isolating particular dynamism, such as the act of relating. It can be a difficult concept to grasp, but try explaining the difference to yourself without using the prefix itself. Inter- includes a certain aspect of reciprocity [interaction] that implies some manner of action or relationship between otherwise disparate elements, and in the American context of interracialism it is impossible to avoid the point that such very reciprocity is itself offensive for denigrating the "superior" element in the relationship. Multi-, to the other, is pretty static and existential. (#13↑) You actually skipped that part↑, and what we got was, "Even if we want to limit ourselves to your 'we', I'm pretty sure they have recourse to other adjectives that they deem as more palatable." So, right. Given another adjective, you lament something or other about recourse to other adjectives, which is what it is, but, yeah, there you go, except at no point do you acknowledge this; perhaps those parts are inconvenient to your pseudoheroic mythopoeia. Or, like I said↑, the problem is that you seem to be trying to evade the question; combined with a dearth of response to the point about multiethnicity, your sentences on "recourse to other adjectives that they deem as more palatable" stand out. That is, you appear to be complaining in some manner about a comparative lack of recourse to other adjectives while ignoring the part about another adjective. You will probably make more sense when you start dealing with what is actually on the record instead of scowling about in fantasy.
So what do you call it when multi-ethnic couples face discrimination? A rose by any other name (or no name?) and all that ...
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that all human DNA comes from Africa, just that there was a population bottleneck there - i.e. at one time all Homo Sapiens were there, and we radiated outwards from there. Little outside the norms of the majority sells well in conservative US media. Fortunately society is slowly dragging conservative media along with it; there is today less rejection of rights for blacks and less attacks on the LGBT community than there was 20 years ago. (Of course there's still a long way to go.)
Most people call it racism, but ethnocentrism and ethnosupremacism are applicable, and many just shorthand supremacism, as there are only a few that are applicable in any given circumstance. Meanwhile, Perdurabo↱ reminds, "A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not." Nor is anybody certain what you're so angry about, except that it really, really looks like you're offended by the prospect of diminishing racist priority in language.° ____________________ Notes: ° Hint: There's a setup there, for you; use it well. Perdurabo, Fr. "The HIMOG". The Book of Lies. 1912. BibliotecaPleyades.net. 30 March 2018. http://bit.ly/2sbb4Q7
There is the HUMAN race and then the ...... ...... ....... Nope that's it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
my err then, i still head echoes of the old battle cry of geographically orientated rights to racial identity via minority obfiscation of ligitimised in-equality. as you were. no need to appologise. i err on the side that there is 'far too much missing knowledge to know' the current human species is only descendant from a single subspecies as it were. i was eluding to the unknown variables. i am quite mildly fascinated with the whole crypto zoology concept of unknown heritage as a pseudoscience fancy. e.g we were once frogs/fish etc... i did read extensively on the subject some time back.. however the details slip my mind currently. http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-homoerectus-and-vs-homosapien/ ...fascinating unsolved mystery(i will endevour to be a little more concise in future with my comments)
pondering simili's to same sex couples & the dissasociative process that seems to be normalised in human behaviour to re-define non congruent concepts as exterior non qualifiers. naturalness defined as a form of subspecies ? un-naturalness defined as a form of social normative moral qualifier... etc etc... hhmmm... in theory([a theory]?), we should be able to document the erosion of segragation as a factor of time & inclusion.
All the races are sociological, cultural, etc, constructions. They are nevertheless real - as real as religions, police officers, and dental bills.
Nope One race - any more are made up - hence not REAL Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Michael 345 This person seems to be a foreign version of Jan Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Musika Wow. Does Baldee also belong to your master ethnicity? www.sciforums.com/threads/is-there-life-after-death.145213/page-6#post- I guess the real question here is whether you are a racist that is sometimes magnanimous, or you are magnanimous and sometimes racist.
