Justification of racism

Indeed, so in order to fully benefit from the advantages of race, you should practice inbreeding

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I tend to think of it as aiding natural selection.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A justification of racism is only possible within racism which is based on a constant effort to select/ignore facts and intentions.

Does it mean that racists do not want to go anywhere in the world? So, why would this text later own the Ancient Rome that had no intention in staying in Rome? How about Roman Empire taking Middle Eastern and African soldiers to Western Europe and not really caring about mixing of races? Does it trouble a white supremacist to find out an Iraqi or African ancestry?

Is a pure race decided by how its members look today? If scientific evidence show that all living members of homo sapiens are from Africa, and started to spread only about 60000 years ago, when did supreme white race start? what was it before?

If the skin color or facial characteristics are nothing but adaptation to the physical environment, do supreme whites worship to the climate god?

Ethnic and racial groupings of the newcomers are reactions to the treatment they face. If their definitions of self does not involve any kind of supremacy, but a shared experience of attacks and pressure, they wouldn't have the same violent and destructive effect on society as a white supremacist group.

No self-respecting person would like to be reduced to her/his skin colour or ethnicity. Immigrants don't travel with the idea of forming a new group based on where they come from. They travel for a new life in a new land. If the locals of the new land treat them based on their skin colour/ethnicity, then they are forced to form new solidarities.

These groups would have no problem interacting with other skin colours or ethnicities who share a similar treatment. Their "own territories" usually include a variety of ethnicities.

A destructive side effect of these groupings would be reproduction of racism, and thus defining the self with the imposed racial terms.

This kind of argument prefers to stay away from statistics.

The differentiation of skin colour started with travel, so the continuation of the evolution of races depends on further travel rather than ethnic nations.

Racial violence and oppression occurs when one group calls itself supreme, not when some people travel to another land.

Where and when does "white area" start and end? Does it cover 10000 BC Middle East where agricultural revolution took place, or Mesoamerica that, "like India, Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt, is one of the few places in the world where writing has developed independently"(1).

Where would white race be if it didn't interact with those more civilized parts of the world?

To be white supremacist, is to be an ignorant idiot who would be very scared if his/her skin colour really turned white.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_writing_systems

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bad news for you is that the human race itself isn't defined by genetics. Species boundaries are determined by ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. You might be tempted to apply the same logic to counterargue the existence of intra-human races, but your counterargument must presuppose that the flow of time has ceased, and that therefore change and by that evolution has also stopped. None of which is true (I'll get back to this later).

By the way, I think your hiding behind the genetics argument.

Because genetics can be reduced to lines of code, it's great for applying statistical algorithms to to prove anything you want, within reason. All those arguments tend to blur into and eventually contradict each other after a while. According to Cavalli-Sforza's work, all non-African populations are genetically more closely related to each other than to Africans, yet you tell us: "genetic difference between families of the same "race" (using the Canadian social classification scheme) is greater than the typical genetic difference between the families of different "races".

Generally, though, white Europeans are at the top and black Africans at the bottom regardless of the system chosen. Sure, they differ in minor aspects but the essential hierarchy is maintained and the general traits used to measure it are similar.

Even more radical anthropologists like Rushton who put Orientals at the top still put blacks at the bottom and whites, on average, nearer the top.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure it is. For example:

A rigorous test of matching genetics is the an important part of the standard definition of a species.

The term for "anthropoligists" who arrange the sociological races in a hierarchy, with some at the top and others at the bottom, is not "radical".

A goofier idea masquerading as science would be hard to find.

Don't confuse "African" with "black" - at least, not in the US.

Meanwhile, those could both be true.

More likely, Cavelli's work has been modified a bit in such conclusions (if it ever espoused the like) , by more modern work in genetics.

Hedging your bets, we see: now it's not "whites", but European ones; not blacks, but African ones.

The adoption of societal features of the rich and powerful is no mystery. People who rank people by race in that fashion also tend to wear trousers and drink Coca Cola.

 

So if they can't interbreed successfully their still members of the same species?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is not a counter-argument to my observation that systems of racial classification are in essence all very similar.

Not me.

Go ahead and explain a logical contradiction if you can.

 

Not in general - barring members of the same sex, naturally.

Great emphasis on genetic compatibility and similarity is thereby displayed.

So are systems of cheating at cards, and systems of selling defective merchandise, and systems of creating abhorrence of enemies for the benefit of elites.

It's not a logical contradiction. Measuring genetic distance like that is a tricky business - if you use the genetics for skin color, for example, you might be begging the question. Cavelli used blood groups, which is problematic. But the central problem in the current discussion is that the genetic variation within the sociological "black" race is so large that it raises questions about finding a good distance measurement for the race as a whole, or a good choice for the most indicative genes.

 

Not at all, I'm afraid.

But genetic compatibility never overcomes the procreation gap. I'm struggling to see the practical benefit of your system, it seems something inspired by liberal relativism, a sociological phenomena.

Certainly, by defining humans by genetic similarity it becomes even easier to exclude some groups that were previously included, it all depends upon the algorithm and politics of those deciding. You may find this argument working against you.

I have no idea what you are talking about here except you seem to be going off on an irrational tangent.

It's not a problem at all, your looking at it from the wrong end. Chimpanzees are our closest primate ancestors, amongst them genetic variation is even greater than it is within human populations.

Over time evolution works to decrease genetic variation amongst evolving organisms, creating a natural hierarchy with the most evolved organisms possessing the least genetic variation. It's a natural trade-off, something which inevitably leads to a sorting of those organisms into different types (races) and eventually different species.

The question for you is, are chimpanzees a sociological construct or do they really exist?

 

I'm kind of confused by you all as to the meaning of Racism. Some say it's not genetic, biological or environmental if I'm correct. what is it? Would there be racism if everyone is white or if everyone is black?

 

I'm kind of confused by you all as to the meaning of Racism. Some say it's not genetic, biological or environmental if I'm correct. what is it? Would there be racism if everyone was white or if everyone was black?

 

1) Try not to resurrect defunct threads

2) You will always be confused about the meaning of "racism" if you take what racists say at face value.

Alexander8, above, is not making sense in what he says, only in what he means - which is that the people he has been sociologically conditioned to classify as "black" are therefore a different kind of human being he is justified in calling a "race", about which he is justified in making assumptions based on what he thinks he sees or has heard.

That is the meaning of racism.

The sociological classification criteria vary according to one's society. In Brazil, say, a few years ago, we had some evidence that clothing and other evidence of economic class were important factors in determining one's race (so that pictures of Michael Jordan in his typical suit and surroundings would be classified as pictures of a "white" man, in Brazil, and J-Lo would be classified as a different race in stills taken from the end of the movie "Maid of Honor", compared with stills taken from the beginning of the movie) - so you might rephrase your question, if you were addressing Brazilians a few years ago: would there be racism if everyone wore expensive clothes or if everyone wore rags?

Since Obama (or Jordan himself) , that may have changed somewhat. Like most sociological structures and customs, racial classifications by racists do change over time - it's safe to say that nobody in the US would classify ordinary Irish or Swedish people as "black" any more, the way they did in 1770.

 

humanrace: is defined as: the realism that humans exist and such matterism is variable.
white has been known as caring to end hate' and hasn't anything to do with body color as paper is white and ink is black, may the idiocracy that believes in presumption end.

 

I believe in diffrent races of humanoids and natures for creation, but no one is best.

 

"The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason,it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. it is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition.The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin.It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible."
- Albert Memmi, 2000, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165


"Racists do not believe that they have a right to subjugate, exploit, or try to exterminate another race or races. Rather, racists believe that it is natural and necessary for each race to have its own land, its own nation or territory where the people of that race can live in freedom among their own kind according to the laws of their own culture."

Literally how it was before white people started colonizing.

"All multi-racial societies are unnatural and unethical. They all tend, sooner rather than later, to descend into turmoil, into oppression and exploitation (USA, Serbia, for example)."

I agree with that the USA is oppressive and exploitative - but the US is oppressive not because of multiculturalism, but because of racism.

"Despite the lies of governments, of liberal and marxist sociologists - all Western societies oppress the White people. They have outlawed our laws and customs and which has make it a crime for us to be proud of our culture, our people."

Laws and customs such as slavery.

"We are now effectively second-class citizens in what once were our own lands, it is illegal (in most Western nations) for us to openly have White nationalist political, social and cultural organizations, although it is accepted, and indeed encouraged, for other races to have such organizations...why?"

WHAT THE ACTUAL WHAAAAAA? First of all, Native Americans. They're called "natives" for a reason.
Second, to answer the question, because they're the ones being oppressed by White nationalists.

"In Britain, there are groups like the Black Workers Association, although an association of White Workers would not be allowed. These other races have their own clubs, their own territories, which are tolerated and even encouraged while if Whites try to organize such things then those involved are swiftly arrested and charged with such things as "hate crimes"."

Factually untrue.

"In America and Britain there is now a double standard in respect of Policing with the Police often not interfering if there is trouble, or not arresting suspects, if those involved in such trouble and those suspected of some crime are non-White. For the Police do not want to be called "racist" and now often go out of their way to avoid any conflict with non-Whites even though they are now dealing with Whites more severely."

http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/

Every 28 hours, one black person is shot although underreporting lowers numbers drastically

AT: "In work our jobs and recruitment standards have been lowered, and ethnic quotas introduced, in an attempt be to seen to be racially fair: which in practice means that ordinary white are denied opportunities."

Just the opposite. It's not that your jobs were lowered, but the jobs of minority groups raised, to level the playing field; despite this, there is still a massive bias against black people.

AT: "To continue the work of Nature - to continue the evolution, the development, of races - we must have ethnic nations."

Diversify the gene pool. Evolution.

 

I've often suspected people who are racist are strangely very lame and have to practice extreme cognitive dissonance behind closed doors because its so difficult to get along with anybody regardless of race. There is prejudice in so many forms and reasons between individuals. Racism is very unsophisticated. Its like saying you prefer a jerk because they are of a certain race (if you were honest that couldn't be the case) rather than someone you have affinities with which may not be of your race.

Overall, people are annoying whatever their race, especially once you get to know them. Some you need to run far away from or keep at arms length, no matter their race.

Racism can beget racism as a group as in oppression but when you know individuals, its quite different as every person is unique. There are people of my own race I can't stand for the same annoying qualities or ill reasons you find in any race.

I agree with a comedian who said he never understood racism as there are so many more personal reasons to dislike someone to even get to that point of race as an additional reason. lol

 

All I can say is that I'd feel much more included with a bunch of white folk than any other folk---You see, I have what's commonly refered to as white privilege---if I was thrown in with different cultures or races, Id probably not know what to do or say, you know, cuz of my white privilege. White priv. Aint all bad and isolating though---its taught me some valuable lessons too: if'n a cop says stop, I stop. I don't run and I dont reach and make waistband hand movements----white lifes matter and thanks to my white priv. I know this.....
I also know that birds of a feather flock together---not just in the avian family but with us primates too....We got us here in SF a China town, Lil' Italy, Korea Town, even a Tenderloin...sure there are exceptions but we all love to be comfortable in and among our own skins. Please everyone, put away the race card.

 

The opening post is false.

There is no Racist Club that has a mission statement; the author of the article cannot claim to speak for racists. Racism is the behavior of individuals, and it is the act of defining others in terms of their race - full stop. Doesn't matter whether it's for hate, for love or for some other purpose.

The author is attempting to redefine the term 'racist' in a manner that suits them. They are welcome to say what they believe about their own racist behavior (such as considering themselves to be a "moderate"), but they cannot appropriate an existing word or claim they speak for anyone but themselves.

The rest of the article stems from this fallacy, and needs no further analysis.

 

I think the race issue is overblown by media and perpetuated to keep folks riled up and discontented. The comment concerning white priv. Was my attempt at comedy, because really WP?..is there really any of that around nowadays?---but to be labeled a racist for pointing out that people of same cultures enjoy living in close proximity to one another is just short minded and playing up to the medias nonexsistant race war or race card....whatever stupid idiom is catchphrased. White privilege, give me a break.....