The Race thread. How many races are there REALLY? Does race even exist?
- Thread starter TimeTraveler
- Start date
samcdkey said:
One can be influenced by many things, without knowing the English language. Have you ever heard of "translations"?
samcdkey said:
Oh, I do! But that's why I was asking YOU about the poets. And since you obviously seem to think that you know, why don't you tell us the answers?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
Ghalib lived 200 years ago, he had no real formal education, but he wrote very complex poetry, which could be interpreted in several ways to give completely different meanings; he cannot really be translated since he used specific words to give specific meanings. His poetry is the most famous of all Urdu poetry since he wrote for every mood and occasion in just a few verses and no one has been able to touch him (IMO) though Mir came pretty close. As for other poets there was Rabindranath Tagore who won the Nobel for his Gitanjali. There are many wonderful poets in India from Sarojini Naidu (in Bengali), Kabir, Harivanshrai Bachchan, Gulzar, Sahir Ludhianvi, to name just the tip of the ice berg. We have had incredible musicians, of whom you might have heard of perhaps Ravi Shankar and Zakir Hussain.
There have been philosophers whose work has survived and been respected for 5000 years. The writers of the Vedas, the Puranas; lately we've had Sri Ramakrishna, Vinoba Bhave.
Philosophy, art, literature and music is a part of the Indian culture. It is not well understood in the West, but we have a lot of respect and appreciation for it.
It is only now in the last 50 years since Independence that we are allowing Western influences to creep in. We've never really considered it as other than foreign, since the British did not integrate too well with the Indians, as their predecessors did. And occupation has the effect of making people more resistant to the culture of occupiers. We had a tradition of despising people who aped the British. In fact, till today, if someone makes a comment against Indian culture, we use a common saying, " When the British went, they left this lord behind".
It is rather insular to assume that there is no "culture" in different people; all human beings have the capacity to create marvelous beauty, whether literature, art or music. But some have more pressing priorities like surviving, others live in oppressive regimes which blunt their creativity and still others have simpler lives not yet exposed to the possibilities of progress. But the capacity to create is human. We all have it.
Nice.swivel said:
One wonders if prejudice is a one way streak.
samcdkey
No, the fat, hedonist with the silver spoon up his ass makes the greatest poet.
That or the orangutan.
By the way Indians are part of the Indo-European race.
Just thought I should mention that.
Well then, thank God for that one exception to the rule that is supposed to disprove the rule itself.
I wonder:
If a three legged dog is born, does this means dogs are no longer supposed to be four legged.
I once met an albino black guy.
Does this mean black guys are really white?
You people are funny.
Watch dimwitgigantic and how he saves his preferred dogma from logic and reason.
Okay…now watch how you non-racist, modern, compassionate, enlightened men do it.
Indians (not Amerindians) and Caucasians are linked by linguistics (same Indo-European language origination), skull shape, and facial features. About the only substantial difference is skin coloration. Presumptively they were of the same tribe circa 10,000 years ago. Fraggle Rocker has better information about this than I.
Roman said:
There has been some work done
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1456.html
Baron Max said:
You've revealed your cultural ignorance. You don't know any black poets? Have you listened to rap in your life? I'm not saying it was invented in Africa, but it's todays version of poetry, unless you want to say Eminem invented it.
As far as philosophers and other things of this sort, if any did come from Africa, the cultural ignorance of the average American wouldnt even know about it. Take a few college courses on African philosophy, and do your research on poetry by listening to some music, or by actually looking it up, as there are plenty of poets of even the classical style who are black.
Walter L. Wagner said:
Skullshape? Thats fake science. I don't understand why people want to study shapes of skulls and consider it a science. If you want to do science, genetic test the skeleton, carbon date it, do something scientific besides using your eyes. Look, if I measure the weight of a bone and drop it on the ground and check to hear the differences of the sound, and then claim that the sound of the bones combined with the weight decides, then it would be about as accurate as glancing at the shape of something to figure out what it is.
Did you know that the average height and weight of man has increased? So your bones are bigger than your ancestors were, and this is just due to different eating habits. You have giants, literally people over 6-7 feet tall on this planet, and you have midgets, and both have unique bone structures that don't fit into the limit narrow category.
But yeah, I'm not even going to argue on this subject anymore.
SamCD, I'd suggest you give up this arguement, it's their religious beliefs and we should respect them. If you came up with the science to prove them wrong they'd cite scripture. You cannot change the mind of someone who wants to believe in something.
Roman said:
Science already did. It said we are 5% neanderthal, and that race and appearance have nothing to do with each other. Case closed in my opinion, but if you want to study forever to prove that people who look like you all have the same gene pool go ahead. While you are at it, you can keep fighting for your dream of racial purity, it's already an impossible dream and all the scientists know it, thats why they have given up on it and said we are all the same species/race.
You can go ahead and research for the rest of your life, in the end it won't matter, if humans decide to have designer babies, you'll eventually have no way to know who is what because you only use your eyes to judge anyway.
spidergoat said:
It's always in cycles. Rome and Egypt existed around the same time, and while racists will say Egyptians were white, thats not what I see when I look at the paintings on the walls. Asia and Europe became civilivians, Asia lost out because they isolated themselves culturally behind a wall, and Europe had a more expansive and aggressive culture. The end result is that Asia got left behind. It really has little to do with the people or individuals involved and everything to do with timing, strategy, military strength. The success of European civilization was based almost entirely on military might. The success of American civilization was based almost entirely on military might. If we can come to a consensus about this, then we know that military might is what decides who is civilized and who is barbarian.
This means you can rank civilizations by military might, with America at the top due to it's invincible military strength. As long as America has the strongest military in the world, we will be the superpower and have the strongest economy in the world, the only reason China, Japan, and Europe respect us is because of our military strength. The only reason Africa respects America and Europe is because of military strength. It has nothing to do with intellect, and it certainly has nothing to do with art since language itself was invented in Africa, along with music, etc. Art is one area where I'd say Africa has an advantage, you can see that just by looking at American history, as most of the new music was invented by black people, most of the new words are coming from black people, and so on. It would be crazy to say there are no artists, just turn on the TV and thats all you really see. Then you have fashion, which perhaps you might not be buying, but the youth are buying it.
There are artists in every culture, and the different cultures focus on different things. The main key difference between a civilized culture and an uncivilized culture is that the civilized artists focus on weapons, while the uncivilized artists focus on entertainment.
Do any of you want to admit that you have all been entertained by black artists or am I the only one who has laughed at a good joke or enjoyed music?
Satyr said:
The Egyptians were not negroes.
Yeah, I suppose the Egyptians were really ancient Europeans, even though they reside in Africa and have dark skin and curly hair. Next, I will be told that Jesus is a European, not a Jew.
Answer this question, for all who want to say Egyptians arent black, why should we get all our facts on Egypt from white Egyptologists? Show me an African Egyptologist who says Egyptians aren't black. Why should we get all our information on Egypt from Europeans and expect it to be fair and balanced? This would be like living in China, or Communist Russia, and getting all your information from state owned historians who tell you that all the great civilizations were Asian or Russian, and of course they'd come to these conclusions by studying bones, and looking for specific text to highlight the few who might look Asian or Russian.
If we say it's unfair to do this in China, or Russia, why is it different in Europe and America? Why should we hide the true history? Explain to me why there are no black Egyptologists even though King Tut was proven to be negro/black?
Anyway, to anyone who wants to know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Gyekye
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1100/1241_ch1.pdf
To learn, research the Akan people, also research the Ethiopian people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_people
This is just basic, but if you really want to comment, take a college course. I've taken one, which is why I have enough knowledge to comment. Democracy, along with socialism, was not invented in America, as African tribes had it all along.
Philosophy among these cultures are passed through word of mouth, they arent for you to know, they don't share them with the outside world, and only recently have books been written on it. If you want to learn, there are books now which tell you, but most people will shrug it off and say Europeans wrote it.
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Hmm, isn't that what the racists usually say?
It's interesting, though, ....if someone wants to hate/dislike a group of people, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so without being denigrated for it? We all have different likes and dislikes, why should we "hate" others who have different likes and dislikes than we do?
Or don't y'all advocate freedom of expression anymore? Or do y'all want everyone to be the same ...mindless clones who are exactly like you? Interesting, huh?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
Hate is not the same as dislike. Hate usually involves wiping people out, and erasing all traces of their existance.
TimeTraveler said:
Who said that? Where do you get your definitions? I've never heard that one before ....except from people who claim to "hate" racists! Hmm, perhaps that's something to consider, huh?
TT, it's absolutely silly and ignorant to say what you've said ....please reconsider it, okay?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
hate
3 entries found for hate.
To select an entry, click on it.
Main Entry: 1hate
Pronunciation: 'hAt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kEdos care
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING <had a great hate of hard work>
2 : an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business -- F. L. Paxson>
Do you deny that you want to wipe what you hate out of existance? Are you trying to say the holocaust was a bad thing?
Main Entry: de·test
Pronunciation: di-'test, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle French detester or Latin detestari; Middle French detester, from Latin detestari, literally, to curse while calling a deity to witness, from de- + testari to call to witness -- more at TESTAMENT
1 : to feel intense and often violent antipathy toward
So the word detest, which basically means the same thing as hate, includes violent antipathy.
Do you deny that you wish to destroy that which you hate? The only way you can defend both hatred and racism is if you also defend the holocaust. So if you truly believe in what you say, be brave enough to admit that you actually do want to wipe off the face of the earth those/that which you hate.
I'm not a hater myself, so I cannot honestly understand hate, but to the people who feel it, and no I don't mean intense dislike, I mean limitless hatred, there is no limit, there is no beginning or end, it's like a fire that burns. If you've never wanted to wipe someone off the face of the earth and never wanted to erase someones existance, you've never truly hated, you've disliked.
This is dislike
Main Entry: 2dislike
Function: transitive verb
1 : to regard with dislike : DISAPPROVE
2 archaic : DISPLEASE
3 obsolete : to show aversion to
- dis·lik·er noun
Anyone can dislike everyone, but few can hate anyone, and even fewer can hate everyone. The stronger your hate, the more people/things it will apply to. The stronger your love, the more people/things it will apply to. If you are going to deny that hate leads to genocide it's your choice.
Last edited:
TT, hate and murder are two very different things! Thinking and acting are two very different things.
You can SAY whatever you want ....you can give website info all day, every day, but it doesn't change the facts. Thinking and acting are two different things ....and if you don't know that, then I feel sorry for you.
Baron Max
You can SAY whatever you want ....you can give website info all day, every day, but it doesn't change the facts. Thinking and acting are two different things ....and if you don't know that, then I feel sorry for you.
Baron Max