View Full Version : The Inter-Racial Sex Thread
Del Arroyo
10-17-2005, 18:06
Actually, it might be more appropriate to call this the Inter-Cultural or the Inter-Ethnic Relations Thread, but you're all reading now, so down to business. I know some people have been waiting for a chance to discuss all of this stuff, and even if you weren't feel free to join in now!
But first off, I do have a request for all of you-- try not to get offended! I know this is a tall order for people in an English-Speaking society, but it is so rare that people ever get to really discuss this kind of thing that this could really be an opportunity. And the correllary, of course is try not to be offensive!
So, in short, I would hope that people would use some restraint, but if it were up to me anything short of a call to genocide would be tolerated in this context.
[Remember, people might say things that sound very wrong, but which might just be a miscommunication. They could be ignorant. Or you could be.]
So, I know you all have opinions on this, so have at it! What do you think about people from different backgrounds hooking up? What about yellow-girl-white-boy craze? Or Korean-girl-Japanese-boy? Don't be shy, let's hear it!
DA
solypsist
10-17-2005, 18:09
this should be good.
At the risk being called a nazi, I oppose it. Nothing rational, but I think that races shouldn't mix. It offends me to see it to be honest. A girlfriend of me is dating a marrocan guy, and I have to admit he is a great guy but it still strikes me as an odd thing to do. But I am conciously a hypocrite as there is hardly a flavour I haven't tried. Inevitable thing really.
I think it's the only way for any sanity to be brought to this world. My father is Jewish and my mother is Christian and that same exact arrangement exists in my marriage. My ancestors include Americans who fought in the Pacific, Germans who fought on the Eastern Front and Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Add to this an Irish nobleman who was disowned for marrying a peasant girl and my family is one big giant mismatched conglomerate.
Familiarity breeds understanding. We need more understanding in this world and there's no better way to become familiar with someone than to spend your life with them.
English assassin
10-17-2005, 18:33
this should be good.
Yeah, we should have a sweepstake on how long it lasts before its closed.
As my wife is half Iranian I am all in favour of it. On the other hand I regard my children as entirely English (not that I am opposed to them finding out about their Iranian heritage, far from it. But any child of mine will feel its pulse quickening when it sees a Spitfire or HMS Victory or my name's not Mr English Assassin)
Indeed, I say we need more of it. What is it all about when, in the UK, Asian boys try to beat up asian girls if they so much as look as a white boy (and don't even try to say it doesn't happen, I spent a year at City Uni sharing a flat with, amongst others, an asian girl, and she got massive grief. Even though she actually had an asian boyfriend.)
(Oops. Asian= Indian/pakistani/bangladeshi, in the UK, for US posters)
As my wife is half Iranian I am all in favour of it. rs)
In favour of what then really, you are an example of how it can be (with saying that I thrust you have a productive relationship), but why be im favour of something that really has little to do with that. It should be allowed of course, but it's no utopia. I like to call it the multicult, I am sure you understand why.
It has always been a good thing to mix genes and avoid marriage with your cousin.~:handball:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2005, 18:45
Ethnicity would be, ideally, an irrelevant characteristic.
Inter-marriage and inter-breeding (Hey, I'm Catholic, so we view it as preferable in that sequence) are probably genetically healthier in the long run than would be insularity.
I have long thought that one of the unsung advantages of the USA is that many of us are mutts -- which are often healthier than purebreds.
In short, if you find the person attractive and they you, I would wish you both the best in overcoming any lingering cultural hurdles.
English assassin
10-17-2005, 18:52
In favour of what then really, you are an example of how it can be (with saying that I thrust you have a productive relationship), but why be im favour of something that really has little to do with that. It should be allowed of course, but it's no utopia. I like to call it the multicult, I am sure you understand why.
Not entirely, to be honest, but I'm probably being slow.
I suppose what I was saying is that as I'm in one I'm in favour of inter-racial relationships rather than against them. I don't think they should be made compulsory though.
Except for... NO NO NO, we are NOT going there.
Hey, most of the girls I've gone out with are white, I'm chinese. There simply aren't that many girls of my race that are willing to go out with me :wink: No seriously though, there aren't all that many
The_Doctor
10-17-2005, 18:57
No seriously though, there aren't all that many
So you asked out ~1/2 billion girls and none would go out with you?~:eek:
None of my business what people do with each other. And as long as she's attractive and smart I'll be happy. Races are practially made up anyway. Just go look at the EB forums and the difficulties over who is what race.
I've read that inter-racial breeding can often cause complications at birth, since the shape of the woman's vagina matches the shape of her head, thus members of a different ethnicity may not be most...ahem..compatible. Of course, this didn't seem quite right when I read it, and the source was dubious at best.
As far as inter-racial sex goes, I'm all for it. Heh.
Weebeast
10-17-2005, 19:10
At the risk being called a nazi, I oppose it. Nothing rational, but I think that races shouldn't mix. It offends me to see it to be honest. A girlfriend of me is dating a marrocan guy, and I have to admit he is a great guy but it still strikes me as an odd thing to do. But I am conciously a hypocrite as there is hardly a flavour I haven't tried. Inevitable thing really.
Why races shouldn't mix? It's not that I'm gonna dump my girlfriend but I'm just interested to hear. Last time I talked to a member of white supremacy she/he explained that interracial mating is considered adultery in some version of bible. So lets hear something different.
I wouldn't bother to date a girl at all if our cultures were different or if our routines were different. For example, I can't see myself dating some muslim zealot from Iran who wears scarf (jilbab?) everytime. The thing is, at least in my place, we all do the same stuff, celebrate the same 4th of July, watch the same Conan O'Brien, watch the same Prison Break, etc. I find it hard to understand why one can't hook up with another race if we share lots of things in common.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2005, 19:16
So you asked out ~1/2 billion girls and none would go out with you?~:eek:
Sad, isn't it.
Either he's independently wealthy -- all hail the new China -- or I simply must find out the specs on his amazing cell-phone plan.
doc_bean
10-17-2005, 19:25
I summed up my point in the babe thread (sorry about that mods), race is rather irrelevant to me.
I have long thought that one of the unsung advantages of the USA is that many of us are mutts -- which are often healthier than purebreds.
From a scientific point of view, it is probably a good idea to mix the genes bit. My zoology professor of a few years ago claimed nearly the same thing as you. However, mixing the genes also means you can get 'bad' genes transferring from one population to another (sickle cell amenia, lactose intolerance,...). So it's a bit of give and take.
Culturally, I can see how people don't like mixing races since it clouds the heritage of a population. However, as other posters have stated, it might improve peace and understanding in a multi-cultural society.
I don’t mind inter-cultural-ethnic-religious (hmm) relationships. Love transcends these simplistic imaginary boundaries.
Ser Clegane
10-17-2005, 19:29
No problem at all with it - I know quite a number of "mixed" couple (actually I dislike that term) of various age groups. Sometimes it works out fantastic, sometimes it does not (same as with all couples).
Thanks, Del Arroyo, for making an appropriate opening post for what might be a thread that could easily go out of hands :bow:
Last time I talked to a member of white supremacy
You are not talking to one now.
The Stranger
10-17-2005, 19:39
i actually wanted to start a thread like this
Big_John
10-17-2005, 19:39
as a product of interracial marriage at a few points in my family tree, i can't exactly be against it. however, the best thing would be for every other man to stick to their own race. that way, all of the white/asian/etc ladies would have to come to me to satisfy their.. curiosity. damn tiger woods and his cablanasian charm.. that swedish chick should have had to come to me for her one-stop shopping, nah mean!! :furious3:
as a product of interracial marriage at a few points in my family tree, i can't exactly be against it. however, the best thing would be for every other man to stick to their own race. that way, all of the white/asian/etc ladies would have to come to me to satisfy their.. curiosity. damn tiger woods and his cablanasian charm.. that swedish chick should have had to come to me for her one-stop shopping, nah mean!! :furious3:
~D You take care of her and I will take care of her twin sister ~;) . Funny
thing is that for a long time I thought he might be gay, and then after he
married her he went into a big 'slump'-- I figured she was toooo much for
him to handle-- and golf too.
DemonArchangel
10-17-2005, 19:49
I have an "anything that moves policy" let's just say that.
Beautiful women are beautiful women, no matter what their ethnic makeup is.
So hey, no problem from me.
Kanamori
10-17-2005, 20:05
Although I believe love can happen the same no matter the race of the couple, and I believe that I may be a case, I can't really say I've ever been 'in love', I will say that I have found people of some races tend to be more physically attractive to me than people of other races tend to be.:book: I have no problem with it; I guess I've seen a lot of it, so it's common place.
as long as the girl is hot....bring it! ~;)
Weebeast
10-17-2005, 20:57
You are not talking to one now.
LoL yeah I know, I didn't say you were. I just wanna hear the reason behind your disapproval on interracial-hookups.
Adrian II
10-17-2005, 21:06
My ancestors include Americans who fought in the Pacific, Germans who fought on the Eastern Front and Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Add to this an Irish nobleman who was disowned for marrying a peasant girl and my family is one big giant mismatched conglomerate.I am starting to like them already! ~;)
Familiarity breeds understanding.Nail, head, nuff said. :bow:
Kommodus
10-17-2005, 21:34
I looked at the title of this thread, and thought, "Wow - ironically, this may turn out to be one of the least contentious threads in the backroom." Looks like I was mostly right.
Genetically, consider the reason that incest causes problems: the closer-related two people are, the more likely it is that they'll share the same genetic defects. These defects may not be manifest immediately, since they're usually recessive. However, if a child receives the same genetic defect from both parents, it will be manifest in him/her.
So, genetically, it makes perfect sense for people of different races to mix. There are, of course, other factors to consider, such as culture and faith. For example, two people who come from radically different cultures, or who have radically different views on the world and on God, might find that such differences cause conflict in a marriage arrangement. They might become great friends and even have strong mutual understanding, but marriage is a stretch. I say this as a general principle and not a rule.
I am American (of German/Italian descent) and have a particular weakness for Asian women. I guess it's natural to be attracted to the exotic and the less familiar. So I'd give clear support to marriages that cross ethnic and cultural lines, noting, of course, that each situation must be evaluated independently.
Weebeast
10-17-2005, 21:40
Familiarity breeds understanding.
I agree with that too but this life would be boring without differences. Don't tell me you don't like playing Total War.
BTW, anyone seen Kingdom of Heaven yet? I'm waiting for the DVD. Somebody took it first off the shelf like they know anything about that movie :(. I just wanna see Saladin open a can of whupbutt on those templars.
We are all members of the human race - so it really does not matter to me if the individual comes from Asia, Africa, or South America - if that is the person you want to be with then so be it.
Now if your speaking of Inter-Species relationships - its got to be plutonic or its just wrong.
You know man's best friend is his dog....~D
LeftEyeNine
10-17-2005, 22:43
You know man's best friend is his dog....~D
Ahem..I feel sick..*Gnurll*
Inter-racial mix improves physical perfection, one said. Right or wrong, I do not care. I still dream of the day I land at Tokyo airport ~D
But, NeonGod's warning should be taken into consideration as well.. Compatibility.. Ahem.. I am all-in-1..
Strike For The South
10-17-2005, 22:52
I dont really care. Im all for inter-racil couples but there are still many people aare not. Did you know many southren states didnt resciend there inter-racial marrige laws until the 90s and Alabama didnt do it till 2000:dizzy2:
Race is a false category.
Ethnic/cultural differences are ultimately the concern of the participants and no other.
Kanamori
10-17-2005, 23:20
Race is a false category.
To what extent? I would agree that the question of race is hardly clear, but I would not so far as to say that there are no differences, for we certainly recognize or distinguish between them.
this should be good.
Waiting waitng...finally!
(Should I wait for Papewaio to reply this thread before I do?!)
Soulforged
10-18-2005, 00:58
Ethnic/cultural differences are ultimately the concern of the participants and no other.Maybe just ethnic, for they're proposing differences of procedence and birth.Personally I feel offended by some racist comments in this thread, but it's just me. :rolleyes:
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 01:15
Maybe just ethnic, for they're proposing differences of procedence and birth.Personally I feel offended by some racist comments in this thread, but it's just me. :rolleyes:
where~:confused:
Soulforged
10-18-2005, 01:18
where~:confused:
I cannot give names Strike, but look and you shall find my friend.
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 01:20
I really dont see anytihng racist IMO. People may be oppesed to it or not like it that alone does not make them a racist just there opinion.~:cheers:
Divinus Arma
10-18-2005, 01:35
Hmmm. This topic is a very serious one. Not much joking in "races should breed within their own".
Here is my objective opinion:
I have no problem with race. Skin means nothing to me so far as humanity is concerned. I have a problem with culture.
I think it is becasue I have an ethnocentric cultural heirarchy perspective.
I view some cultures as better than others. As long as the other ethnic group adopts the superior culture and similar existential perspective, I am okay with it.
My heirarchy is based upon my perspective of traditionally influenced individual character and social values. Kind of like this:
Towards the top:
(1 tie) American Educated Republicanism.
(1 tie) British Educated.
(1 tie) Americanized Educated Japanese.
(2) Europe proper, educated.
(3) Japanese.
Towards the bottom:
(crap) White Trash
(crappier) Illegal Immigrants
(Crappiest) Black Urban Culture
I have little logic to explain these perspectives.
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 01:36
(crap) White Trash
.
:dizzy2: ~:eek: :furious3: ~;)
Del Arroyo
10-18-2005, 01:43
Geez, you all are being pretty timid. To all of you who said "fine by me"-- I know you've got more to say than that!
I've gotta get out all I have on the topic pretty much now, because tomorrow I am outta here (army and all that jazz), so here are some discussion questions and a few of my own thoughts.
And what about mail order brides? Is that a-ok or perhaps too much for some of you?
And what about young American girls going to Cancun or Tijuana and having a fun time with the Mexican guys? Or White waitresses in the US who date Mexican kitchen workers? It's not a question of approve or disapprove, what do you think about it?
And if you have cross-cultural experience, what are some observations you've made, or opinions you've formed, on general attributes of and differences between different groups?
Let's try and step away from over-generalized principles here, this yea or nay stuff, and get into some details and specific situations.
[And BTW, "sex" is meant to include hook-ups, dating, marriage, and all things similar, because in the end, it's all sex.]
..
Myself personally, I have some mixed perspectives and opinions on the subject. My first girlfriend was from Venezuela, so there you go. ~D There are a couple of interesting points to be made here. First off, the personal impact that it had on me was immense-- it got me started learning Spanish and turned my perspective international. Before this point in my life I had never had any specific interest in languages or travel.
We can generally consider this to be good-- I believe it has made me a stronger person than I would have been otherwise. But on the downside, perhaps I have become too restless. I think that this experience more chose my destiny than fulfilled it.
The other interesting point here starts with the racial make-up of the girl herself-- she probably was a mix of at least Spanish, African, Indian and Italian, and in Venezuela this is normal. In fact in today's Venezuela there are very few if any color-based contentions (though there is plenty of class warfare). There are hold-out neighborhoods (especially in smaller coastal villages) which remain pure direct-descendancy African, and they are among the poorest-- but these exist largely for the same reason that insulated communities of rich Jews exist worldwide.
So we can see that inter-marriage can be great for society-- and, using other examples, we can see that long-term it is really the only way to tie the different parts of a nation together. We can also see that, for the individual, it can bring a broadening of horizons, and many long-term advantages-- as can be seen by the lack of vigor in insulated Venezuelan black communities and the lack of funk in insulated Jewish communities.
..
[A quick counterargument, though, would be the desire to preserve certain specialized traits-- the easiest example is probably the Machu Pichu guides in Peru and their amazing lungs.]
..
I do think there is more than one side to the die. In my case for instance, nearly all of the women I've been involved with have spoken Spanish as a first language, and this has at times made me wonder if I'm not just unworthy and taking the easy way out. ~;) There are certain parts of Latin America where being blond is a pretty quick ticket, and in most others it can get you a good foot in the door.
But I can say a few things in my defense-- first of all, I am still very young, so who can tell? ~;) Also, the times I've been in Latin America have in many ways been the best times I've had so far-- I was always traveling or working a steady job-- so the factors of personal situation and a clear sense of purpose may have been more important in bringing out those, um, opportunities ~:cool:
Also, I have ultimately grown to be pretty turned-off by the "omigosh omigosh I've gotta have a blond boyfriend!!!!" types. Gets pretty old. Also can get you burned. It's something I screen for ~:cool:
But to cut to the chase, I sometimes wonder if perhaps it would be better, or more proper, or something (???) for me to find a good old American girl. ~:confused: Even in my hometown, I find myself more intrigued by the foreign girls, though this may have more to do with what we share-- my cross-cultural perspective has become important to me, and a girl from another country can't help but have some of that in her. ~;)
I also wonder if eventually like the fifieth foreign rich little daddy's-girl is going to get old :dizzy2:
..
Also, I can say that honestly some of the behavior I've witnessed from American girls in Mexico, both spring-breakers and my fellow English teachers, disgusts me. And while the sluttiness of it is an important factor, I am able to recognize that another big part of it is that they are being sleeping with Mexicans.
It's not rational. It's a sort of disturbed, angry feeling way down in the gut, like something tribal or animal. Really it's the exact same sensation as jealousy ~D It's worse if the Mexican in question is apparently "unworthy", just the same as you feel madder if your girlfriend runs off with some two-bit punk vs. a man you could compare to yourself. ~;)
Sometimes I think that on a primal level, we guys can choose only one of two ways to interact with a girl we like-- lust or anger. We get angry if she doesn't sleep with us, but we also get angry when she does sleep with other guys. :dizzy2:
We're different from mere apes only in our suppression of these feelings ~D
..
Anyway, perhaps that was all a bit long, but heck-- break it into sections! Read one today, one tomorrow, and one the day after that-- cuz I sure won't be here. I'm gone, baby. Adios! ~:wave:
(Well maybe I'll be back here once more tonight.)
DA
Byzantine Prince
10-18-2005, 01:54
Race is a false category.
Ethnic/cultural differences are ultimately the concern of the participants and no other.
So is everything that we deal with.
Race is as false as other categories. The differences that exist between 'races' might be small, but they obviously exist. I believe ethnologists and scientists have tried to slander the concept of race completely, and that is simple erroneous. Race is no more false then putting anything into a category, while the fact is that every person can be chategorized as a distinct race.
ICantSpellDawg
10-18-2005, 01:58
I think marriage/relationships between the "races" lead to the most beautiful children, new perceptions of reality and a greater dialogue between culture. In short, I believe that it is our future. I tend only to date girls who are NOT Northern European (at least for the past 4 years). The current girl that I am seeing IS northern European (Irish/German) but I prefer other types.
ICantSpellDawg
10-18-2005, 02:00
So is everything that we deal with.
Race is as false as other categories. The differences that exist between 'races' might be small, but they obviously exist. I believe ethnologists and scientists have tried to slander the concept of race completely, and that is simple erroneous. Race is no more false then putting anything into a category, while the fact is that every person can be chategorized as a distinct race.
I basically agree with BP here. I believe that "Race" in humans is as real as "Race" in fruits and animals. I also beleive that as cultures tend to meet and mix more and more, the grey area between distinct races is growing.
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 02:06
@ DA the question was about race not steryotypes~;) and yes if my sister went out with a mexican or black who acted ghetto and liked the hippity hop here is what I would do. I would sit him down with my 4 other brothers (all of us will have blunt objects of course) and give him a good run through of the ground rules anything her hand touches we cut it off~:cheers: . Now the question would be would I do this with a smaller white or asian guy probably not. EXP. My nextdoor neighboor is white he is also a preacher. His daughters first real boyfriend was a mexican one of bes friends to. He would not let them do anything so it sorta killed the relationship. So 3 months goes by and along comes asian man and the guy really dosent care. Many people down here still look down upon "race-mixers".The blacks and mexicans seem to have it the wrost where as the indians or the asians seem to have it to a lesser degree. Why? becuase in all honesty its not the race its streotypes and culture. There are a few nutcases out there who still beleive white is right (We keep them around for an ole timey feel~;) )
Big_John
10-18-2005, 02:06
honestly, Del, all you're going to get out of me is a "yea". i could not care less who other people like to do. young girls in cancun? go crazy. white waitresses and mexican kitchen workers? go crazy. white men in japan with an asian fetish? go crazy. black men with blondes? go crazy. it really doesn't concern me in the least. i just don't have this kind of tribal, us and them gut reaction you seem to have when you see white women with mexicans.
i can't understand what you want more than that. it's not timidity, it's simply how i feel about it. as i said earlier, i'm the product of interracial pairing at a few points in my family tree. also, i've had 'interracial' relationships. for me, it's an individual matter. if you are comfortable with a certain type of person, do it. if not, don't. some people might have trouble fitting into a particular 'culture', but this is completely extraneous to the question, as far as i'm concerned.
mail order brides are kind of sad, that is, i feel sort of sorry for both parties, but there's nothing wrong with the practice, imo. but i'm not sure what that even has to do with the topic.
Race is a false category.
To what extent? I would agree that the question of race is hardly clear, but I would not so far as to say that there are no differences, for we certainly recognize or distinguish between them.
Difference does not a race make. Race to be a legitimate category must include standards exclusive to the group labeled. This is not possible.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-18-2005, 02:19
The hottest girl in my school is part Italian-American and part Korean. I'm A-OK with "intermarriage" and agree that race is a fabrication.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-18-2005, 02:19
Im all for it. Variety is the spice of life. I prefer oriental women personaly.
Besides this is what mixed marriages lead to.
http://vienvoir.free.fr/stars/Mariah%20Carey.jpg
http://www.skylinepictures.com/Longordo_New_York_ny43_large.jpg
And thats just a couple of recent New York examples.~D
Race is a false category.
Ethnic/cultural differences are ultimately the concern of the participants and no other.
So is everything that we deal with.
You are conflating contrived with false. They are not the same. Further, there are things that are neither contrived nor false. Finally, not all things are only participant specific concerns. The second two points should be clear enough if you think about them a little.
Tachikaze
10-18-2005, 02:23
I basically agree with BP here. I believe that "Race" in humans is as real as "Race" in fruits and animals. I also beleive that as cultures tend to meet and mix more and more, the grey area between distinct races is growing.
Different animals and fruits can't interbreed; they are different species. All humans belong to one species.
Why is race imaginary? This is why.
Are white Brits and white French of the same race?
how about Brits and Iranians?
Brits and Iraqis?
Brits and northern Indians?
Brits and southern Indians?
Brits and Berbers?
Berbers and Eqyptians?
Egyptians and Kenyans?
Kenyans and Nigerians?
Nigerians and Congolese Pygmies?
Nigerians, Congolese Pygmies, and Khoisan?
What race are Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix (white father, black mother)? What about their children (white and black women)?
If you travel across Asia from east to west, when does an Asiatic race end a European race begin?
What characteristics determine race, eyes? hair? build? skin color? If you have all these the same as your neighbor, except hair, are you another race? How about two different characteristics? At what point are you "different"?
I hope there is continual interbreeding until everyone fits into an unbroken line that fades from one end to the other. This is actually the true situation, but people have clumped together from different regions.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 02:59
i don't follow this 'race is imaginary' tangent. "race" is just a simple cladistical view of humans. in the same way that one can speak of breeds of cats or dogs, one can speak of breeds of humans (i.e. races). the lines of demarcation are arbitrary, certainly, but this does not invalidate the ability to distinguished between shared ancestries.
Crazed Rabbit
10-18-2005, 03:03
I've got no problem with it. Whatever floats your boat.
And what about young American girls going to Cancun or Tijuana and having a fun time with the Mexican guys? Or White waitresses in the US who date Mexican kitchen workers? It's not a question of approve or disapprove, what do you think about it?
I'm against the American girls in Cancun reason for the same reason I'm against the American girls on spring break in Florida - it's the depravity of the acts, not the skin color of who they're committing the acts with.
And if waitresses want to date kitchen guys, who am I to say no? (after all, I worked as a kitchen guy for a bit).
Crazed Rabbit
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 03:29
Strictly speaking, w/ Aristotles categorical idea, Pindar is correct. I would say though that subsets can be made for races. Although they are neither entirely clear, nor are they exclusive, they are convenient when talking about a person.
Devastatin Dave
10-18-2005, 03:52
Darker the berry, sweeter tha juice as they say. If you go through life just eating vanilla ice cream, then Baskin-Robbins is gonna close down.
Seriously, there is no "pure-breed" or anything. It makes alot more since having an inter-racial relationship than a homosexual one. Its atleast natural.
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 03:55
I'm wondering if this post is going to have a long life?~D
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 04:34
So is everything that we deal with.
Race is as false as other categories. The differences that exist between 'races' might be small, but they obviously exist. I believe ethnologists and scientists have tried to slander the concept of race completely, and that is simple erroneous. Race is no more false then putting anything into a category, while the fact is that every person can be chategorized as a distinct race.
Cats and dogs are separate races because they cannot breed offspring.
Some animals are closely related but not of the same race can produce sterile offspring. Tigers and Lions for instance.
Humans are a single race because we all have viable non-sterile offspring.
The idea that we are a different race is as sensible as stating that a white horse is a different race to a brown horse.
====
As for myself I have:
Welsh, Swedish, Irish, English, Scottish, French and possibly Italian. I was born in Fiji to parents who themselves where born in Wales and New Zealand. My wife is Taiwanese. So our son is the first one in our extended family to be born in Australia and is essentially European + Chinese in ethnic origin. Culturally he will be Australian with a firm foundational knowledge of his ancestral cultural ties.
My wife and I have similar families and education backgrounds. We also have similar but not identical tastes in food, humour, movies and recreational activities. I would say we have different ethnic backgrounds but similar family and cultural attitudes.
Byzantine Prince
10-18-2005, 04:48
Difference does not a race make. Race to be a legitimate category must include standards exclusive to the group labeled. This is not possible.
Why does it have to have 'exclusive' standards? Hardly anything we categorize has these exclusive standards. To say that exclusivity in terms of race is impossible is erroneous for several reasons. Genetics being a huge part of that, it is undenyable that certain populations cary with them exclusive features that are not only external(how naive some people are), but also internal.
Different animals and fruits can't interbreed; they are different species.
Well actually several animals can interbreed and so can fruit. You do know what a donkey is right? Breeding is mostly not possible between species because of technical difficulties not because it's actually impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 05:01
I think you are confusing donkeys with mules and hinnies which are bred from a donkey and a horse.
Male mules are sterile while some female mules are sometimes fertile.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 05:03
Cats and dogs are separate races because they cannot breed offspring.
Some animals are closely related but not of the same race can produce sterile offspring. Tigers and Lions for instance.
Humans are a single race because we all have viable non-sterile offspring.
The idea that we are a different race is as sensible as stating that a white horse is a different race to a brown horse.
you are using the term "race" synonymously with "species". that is not the correct usage. because humans can produce viable offspring with each other, we are of one species, not of one race.
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 05:04
I lost a race today:embarassed:
LeftEyeNine
10-18-2005, 05:17
I lost a race today
"How a productive discussion can be outweighed with 5 words and a smiley for dummies" book, Page 1
My 2 cents;
Whether truly pure or mixed up, the term "race" will never disappear. Characterization is a fundamental of the humankind and race is a cornerstone of it. Deny it, but better start believing it.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 05:18
you are using the term "race" synonymously with "species". that is not the correct usage. because humans can produce viable offspring with each other, we are of one species, not of one race.
Considering the majority of variation of genes occurs within a 'race' population and not between populations it makes the term 'race' redundant and not of use.
There is something like a 90% variation of genes in race groups compared with a 10% between.
What does this mean? It means two people of different race groups may have a closer gene set then two people of the same racial group.
The largest difference is in skin colour. But this has been shown to be due to several convergent adaptations. In other words over generations in harsh sun those with darker skin survive better. It is not caused by a single gene set. But several different ones. Aborogines and Africans both have dark skin but are no more closely related to each other then other groups, nor do the genes that cause the dark skin the same sets.
Soulforged
10-18-2005, 05:33
I really dont see anytihng racist IMO. People may be oppesed to it or not like it that alone does not make them a racist just there opinion.~:cheers:
If that's your opinion then fine by me gringo, with all due respect and talking about ethnicities.~D To me the topic supposes racism in it's very essence, and I don't see the point of DA on asking this, but let's see how much this one lasts...
Out of topic: Could anyone with knowledge of french translate the sentence of Voltaire to the french, the one in my signature. Even best if some of the french patrons here know the exact wording of the frase. Thanks.
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 05:36
If that's your opinion then fine by me gringo, with all due respect and talking about ethnicities.~D To me the topic supposes racism in it's very essence, and I don't see the point of DA on asking this, but let's see how much this one lasts...
.
Are we talking the websters definition of racism? If we are then yes that is what this thread is. If however we are talking about prejudece that my mexican friend is another bag of cats
Del Arroyo
10-18-2005, 05:48
A quick comment: Race = Ethnicity + Culture. It is more convenient than using either ethnicity or culture, because those two can mix and match, while race describes the product of those mixings.
If you can make a reference and people understand what you mean, then that reference is valid. End of tangent.
Also, if you embark on a semantical detour which adds nothing to understanding, then you are the one who must seek more correct understanding. :bow:
All this "there is no race" stuff is pure nonsensical ivory-tower bullslip. :bow:
(IMHO) :bow:
DA
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 05:52
A quick comment: Race = Ethnicity + Culture.
How so a white guy who grows up in a northern city is going to be diffrent than a country boy but they are still the same race. Right?.
Some definitions of "RACE"(from dictionary .com)
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3,A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
I think as long as the relationship works out ok, there is no problem with who is marrying who, who is having babies with who. The problems are most likely to occur when two have differences that they cannot come to an agreement with, e.g; food, traditions, life style etc, the problem doesn't occur by RACE, rather than the differences between two people.
Individuals differences rather than race differences.
Del Arroyo
10-18-2005, 05:58
How so a white guy who grows up in a northern city is going to be diffrent than a country boy but they are still the same race. Right?.
Heck I dunno. No system of categories is perfect for this question. Race is the most commonly used (consciously or not) with reference to reproduction.
For all I care Northerners might as well be a separate race than Southerners. The culture is definitely different, and some of the bloodlines are. What's really to be hoped is that people will read between the lines, understand the meaning, and not get hung up on semantics.
DA
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 05:59
Heck I dunno. No system of categories is perfect for this question. Race is the most commonly used (consciously or not) with reference to reproduction.
For all I care Northerners might as well be a separate race than Southerners. The culture is definitely different, and some of the bloodlines are. What's really to be hoped is that people will read between the lines, understand the meaning, and not get hung up on semantics.
DA
ok~:cheers:
Big_John
10-18-2005, 06:00
Considering the majority of variation of genes occurs within a 'race' population and not between populations it makes the term 'race' redundant and not of use.then don't use it. ~;)
There is something like a 90% variation of genes in race groups compared with a 10% between.
What does this mean? It means two people of different race groups may have a closer gene set then two people of the same racial group.where do those numbers come from? how are you defining "race group"? you're pointing out a possible exception to a general rule. while important to note, this does not invalidate the biological foundation behind the terminology in question, imo. "race" is simply a measure of common ancestry. it is arbitrary, but it is a statistically definable quality. it's plain cladistics, nothing more or less.
The largest difference is in skin colour.what? between who? i'm not sure what you mean here.
But this has been shown to be due to several convergent adaptations. In other words over generations in harsh sun those with darker skin survive better. It is not caused by a single gene set. But several different ones. Aborogines and Africans both have dark skin but are no more closely related to each other then other groups, nor do the genes that cause the dark skin the same sets.this is a side discussion. i'm not sure i see it's relevance to our discussion. you are making an argument analogous to saying: just because both birds and bats can fly, does not mean that they are related. while this is quite true, it is not a point of contention.
aboriginal australians and nubian africans share some traits, but they generally differ from each other in significant ways. i, for one, can distinguish between the average nubian and the average aboriginal australian at a glance. i am not exhibiting a superior acuity in doing so, most people could tell those two groups apart from each other.
the question is, 'what is the relationship between social racial groupings and genetic populations'. you seem to be arguing that there is very little and that differences are only "skin deep". even if this is the case at the outset, if evolution works, eventually populations are going to work those traits (selected for by the environments) into the genetic make up, unless there is frequent breeding across the biological boundaries between populations. but if that is the case, what accounts for the phenotypic variety in the human species?
Del Arroyo
10-18-2005, 06:36
<------- (What Big John just said. That's what I meant. ~;) )
.
.
.
honestly, Del, all you're going to get out of me is a "yea". i could not care less who other people like to do. young girls in cancun? go crazy. white waitresses and mexican kitchen workers? go crazy. white men in japan with an asian fetish? go crazy. black men with blondes? go crazy. it really doesn't concern me in the least. i just don't have this kind of tribal, us and them gut reaction you seem to have when you see white women with mexicans.
i can't understand what you want more than that. it's not timidity, it's simply how i feel about it. as i said earlier, i'm the product of interracial pairing at a few points in my family tree. also, i've had 'interracial' relationships. for me, it's an individual matter. if you are comfortable with a certain type of person, do it. if not, don't. some people might have trouble fitting into a particular 'culture', but this is completely extraneous to the question, as far as i'm concerned.
mail order brides are kind of sad, that is, i feel sort of sorry for both parties, but there's nothing wrong with the practice, imo. but i'm not sure what that even has to do with the topic.
Well, honestly, BigJohn, just because you could care less about what other people do doesn't mean you have no opinions or observations. Personally, I'm interested in why people make the choices they make, and why one person makes a different choice than the next guy, and how those choices work out for them-- could be just me though.
For instance, if someone told me they wanted to be a Unitarian Minister, I would definitely care, and want to know-- but it doesn't mean I'd give them a hard time about it. ~;)
I'm not trying to talk about right or wrong-- I'm trying to see if we can all paint a picture.
But if you do not wish to share anything more, then of course that's fine.
And I'm not saying that I dislike white girls who go with Mexicans or the Mexicans they go with. These people are my friends. All of them. ~:grouphug: I'm fine with it-- but that doesn't mean I have no further opinion.
..
My big thing is that many people seem to have a wall they put up, externally or internally, whenever this issue comes up. I believe that this makes THEM poorer for lacking understanding of themselves, and the WORLD poorer for lacking exchange of ideas and improved understanding.
some people might have trouble fitting into a particular 'culture', but this is completely extraneous to the question, as far as i'm concerned.
Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing which would be very relevant and informative! ~D
DA
Tachikaze
10-18-2005, 06:49
My argument is not that the term race has no use, but that it is no more real than saying the sun "goes down" at sunset.
If for no other reason, race is useful because other people use it. They use it to classify, so we must respond to the classifications society imposes.
For instance, if I need to define "hate crimes", I must mention race as one of the motivators, because race is perceived by the perpetrator. Racial terms are very useful in socio-political discussions.
I listed a bunch of questions in Post #53. Start answering the more challenging ones and you can make your point about the reality of race.
I am American and married to a woman born and raised in Japan. I find her to share more characteristics and values with me than most of the Americans I've met. I don't think of her as a different race, although many people would say she was "of Asian stock" while I'm "of Eurpoean stock".
The skin color issue is really silly. Europeans are considered of one race, but have skin tones that vary a lot more than my wife's and mine differ. Many northern Indians have very dark skin, as dark as many sub-Saharan Africans, but are considered part of the "Indo-Aryan" race along with Europeans.
The classification of all east Asians into one race, while "Hispanics" are often given their own classification is equally absurd. The variations among east Asians are enormous.
It's been pointed out that, if a being visited from outer space, they would be more likely to distinquish Earthlings by height and weight than skin color and eye shape.
Franconicus
10-18-2005, 07:01
Interacial Sex - great!
Look at the Germans. They did nothing else and so this great new race was formed. We have Celtic, Germanian, Roman, Scandinavian, Slawian, Hun, Hungarian, Scythian, Turkish, .... blood. ~:grouphug: That made us the strongest nation of the world ~:cool:
Big_John
10-18-2005, 07:30
Well, honestly, BigJohn, just because you could care less about what other people do doesn't mean you have no opinions or observations.for me, it pretty much does. i don't care enough about the issue to really make many observations of the sex lives of other people. and i stand by my opinion (essentially, "yea") as complete. i'm not building any walls around the subject; it's not important enough to me for me to bother doing so.
Personally, I'm interested in why people make the choices they make, and why one person makes a different choice than the next guy, and how those choices work out for them-- could be just me though.ok, sorry if my complete opinion doesn't get it done for you. ~;)
For instance, if someone told me they wanted to be a Unitarian Minister, I would definitely care, and want to know-- but it doesn't mean I'd give them a hard time about it. ~;)i think you may have taken my turn of phrase in the wrong way. when i said "honestly", i meant to convey that what i was saying was my honest opinion. i wasn't trying to be confrontational via idiom. similarly, "i can't understand what you want more than that" was meant to convey that i considered my input to be complete, and that i did not think that your classification of uninvolved responses as "timid" was accurate.
I'm not trying to talk about right or wrong-- I'm trying to see if we can all paint a picture. that would make for one ugly picture... ~:handball:
And I'm not saying that I dislike white girls who go with Mexicans or the Mexicans they go with. These people are my friends. All of them. ~:grouphug: I'm fine with it-- but that doesn't mean I have no further opinion.so how do you feel about your reaction?
Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing which would be very relevant and informative! ~Dadmittedly i pushed the 'cross-cultural' aspect of this thread to the wayside in my posts, sorry. to that aspect, i'm a very flexible person in terms of my habits and behavior. it's easy for me to fit into diverse cultural situations. however, behaviors common to some cultures i find off-putting. for example, when in college, i "dated" two japanese girls (international students) and i found their submissiveness to be a deal-breaker in terms of a relationship. however, from two teenage girls in a foreign land, i can't really comment on how much my experience was related to their "culture" and how much was simply circumstance.
Zalmoxis
10-18-2005, 07:36
Altough I accept any inter racial relationships, I believe races should be carried on.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 08:06
The problem with race groups is that groups blend from one to the other. As mentioned take a look at Europe going to Asia. At one end they look European at the other end East Asian... there is a whole continent worth of blending in between.
The gene variation between groups is far outweighed by the gene variation within a group.
Say a group A has genes for a postion 1-10 and the other group B 2-11.
If you are in group A you will have choices for the position 1 - 10. While if you are in B gene choices of 2-11. There is an approx 10% variation between the groups and approc 90% variation within a group when comparing gene sets.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 08:07
I listed a bunch of questions in Post #53. Start answering the more challenging ones and you can make your point about the reality of race.ok. but i warn you, you won't be happy with my answers...
Different animals and fruits can't interbreed; they are different species. All humans belong to one species.of course.
Why is race imaginary? This is why.
Are white Brits and white French of the same race?
how about Brits and Iranians?
Brits and Iraqis?
Brits and northern Indians?
Brits and southern Indians?
Brits and Berbers?
Berbers and Eqyptians?
Egyptians and Kenyans?
Kenyans and Nigerians?
Nigerians and Congolese Pygmies?
Nigerians, Congolese Pygmies, and Khoisan?
...
If you travel across Asia from east to west, when does an Asiatic race end a European race begin?if one has a baseline for the discussion, these are simple questions. race is a relatively arbitrary classification scheme. it is limited by the extent to which common ancestry can be quantified. if one wants to take a lumper's view of race, there are 4 or 5 major races of humans: caucasiod, negroid, mongoloid, australoid and capoid (e.g. khoisan). if one want's to be pickier about it, you can break those categories down further. therefor the answers to your questions are entirely dependant on the scheme one adopts. if, for example, you adopt the scheme that there is only one race, then the answer to all of the above questions is "yes".
that there can be different correct responses to the same question does not invalidate the foundation of the question. it simply indicates that the context of the question is maleable. if that is what you mean to imply with the proposition that "race is imaginary" then i concur. and in that case you would agree that other categories like species and phyla are 'imaginary' too?
What race are Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix (white father, black mother)? What about their children (white and black women)?biologically, such people are "mixed", a combination of races, sharing some characters of both, and lacking some characters of each.
What characteristics determine race, eyes? hair? build? skin color? If you have all these the same as your neighbor, except hair, are you another race? How about two different characteristics? At what point are you "different"?again, race is a category that can be defined with varying resolution. the basis of the classification, though, is common ancestry. if one wants to push back the baseline far enough, all humans are of one race (i.e. there are no races). in that case nothing determines race as race included in that scheme.
if one wants to bring the baseline up through history, one can begin to examine what features people of common ancestries share more frequently with each other than with other humans. however, none of these phenotypic characters (hair color, build, etc) determine race, they are simply indicators of likely racial affinity. biologically, race is determined by analysis of relative common ancestry.
Mouzafphaerre
10-18-2005, 08:19
.
The only inferior race, therefore the only one I woun't crossbreed, is the devolving tailless primate pissing on the streets. GAH!
.
Tachikaze
10-18-2005, 08:46
You debate fairly.
caucasiod, negroid, mongoloid, australoid and capoid (e.g. khoisan)
If it weren't such a time-intensive task, I would ask you to slip various populations into these five categories.
To give you an idea of the difficulty. Here are a handful.
Where do Indians fall into that scheme? Many northern Indians immigrated from the Caucasus Mountain region, yet, the Dravidians of the south are indigenous to the subcontinent into prehistory. Of which race are the Dravidians? Nepalese?
Are Hungarians and Turks Mongoloid or Caucasoid?
Of what race are the people of Madagascar?
I suppose all of the Pacific (except Australia and New Guinea, perhaps), all of eastern former Soviet Union, China, Tibet, Indochina, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Burma, and all of North and South America are Mongoloid. That's an awful lot of different ancestry and phenotypes. Does it make sense to associate Tibetans or Malaysians more closely with Quechua (Incas) than Armenians? With all these Mongoloids lumped together over three continents and much of an ocean, does it make sense to separate the Khoisan from their continental neighbors, the Negroids?
I wonder if Cambodians or Indonesians or Aztecs had made the classifications, would they have made the same divisions? I'll bet Eurpopeans came up with this scheme.
thrashaholic
10-18-2005, 08:49
I must say, I'm against it, particularly on the relatively grand scale it's happenning nowadays (relative to any time in the past), but I am also aware that it is inevitable with globalisation etc.
First of all, I find it quite unbelievable and offensive that some people here are equating breeding with someone of one's own race with breeding with one's cousin. If intra-racial was genetically that 'bad' how come all the races have survived as long as they have? Also, if mr. Papewaio's statistic about genetic differences between and within races is correct (although I'm highly dubious about the logic behind it), then surely inter-racial breeding is more like a relationship with one's cousin than the other way round.
The races exist for a reason, people evolved to better survive in the climates they had migrated to. For example: white people have white skin because it is better at producing vitamin D in the low sunlight of cloudy Europe, they also have prominant noses as a throw-back to the Ice Ages when the prominant nose was needed to keep cold air away from the brain and to warm it up before it entered the lungs (some say that many of the unique features of causaian peoples are actually from neanderthal genes, which is interesting if true); Oriental people have thinner eyes to prtect then from the glare of the sun in the steppe, where they developed, and flatter faces to once again protect from the glare and also the wind. If artificial vitamin D wasn't put into food in the West many more non-whites would suffer the horrors of rickets than do now, whites in places where there is significantly higher sunlight than in Europe suffer more frequently from skin cancer. Races adapted to climate, and inter-racial procreation seriously threatens that specialisation, which could potentially be quite danderous in the long run.
Another potential danger, which has already been raised, is the introduction of genetic diseases and defects into populations that otherwise wouldn't suffer it: sickle-cell etc. If you and your cousin are genetically perfect, why risk the possiblity of spoiling that be breeding with someone else?
The cultural implications of inter-racial breeding must also be examined: a child will consider themselves to be of the race that their facial characteristics and skin colour (the major determinants of perception of race) best fit. This invariably means in a caucasoid-negroid relationship, the offspring will consider themselves negroid as negroid features are generally dominant, which of course has far reaching consquences in cultural and societal terms.
That brings me on neatly to my next objection: a lot of features that identify the races (particularly whites) are recessive, meaning that in successive inter-racial relationships, largely due to the perceptions of the offspring and thus their future choices of partner, they are likely to disappear detracting from the diversity we have today. As a white, it pains me that, in the future, many of the unique features of the whites, ie blue-eyes, hair colour other than black, a skin colour other than a shade of brown, will disappear forever, never to be recovered.
InsaneApache
10-18-2005, 08:53
OK lets see now. I believe I am 3/4 Anglo-Saxon, with a pinch of Spanish (great-grandmother) and Scottish (her husband)
I have, before I was married, been out with a coloured girl, I think she may well have been mixed race, I can't remember it ever coming up in conversation, it was'n't that important to me.
My Dad married an African-American a couple of years ago, and I can attest to the theory that familiarity does indeed breed understanding. She has told me things that have happened to her that, quite frankly, I have found disgusting.
When they married, Pops was all for moving to the USA so she could be near her family. She was'n't having any of it. Sitting him down she explained to him some of the problems that they would/could encounter living in the southern United States. Now Pater is an ex-bootneck (that's a Royal Marine guys) and no softie, but swinging from a tree by his neck with rocks in his pockets, whilst men dressed in bedsheets ran around burning crosses did'n't exactley appeal to him. Now she loves the UK. I know, weird isn't it? but she actually says that she feels safe here. Never been abused or jostled off the pavement, or told that she was a 'nigger' ....
Talks with her unearth all sorts of low level racism that would just fly over my head. As an Englishman, born free and proud, it is a real eye opener to hear some of these tales. It has indeed been an education. I get on very, very well with her. She only being 10 years or so older than 'moi' we find a lot in common. She even showed me a few tricks with smoking pot, and I've smoked the stuff for 30 years ~:eek: just goes to show you can teach an old dog new tricks, it just depends on the dog ~;)
In conclusion, I have to say, it is a good thing. She makes my Dad happy, and that makes me happy. Oh...and btw we have agreed within the family that she is now an 'honorary' Englishwoman....she is literally tickled pink about it. ~D
It's an antiquated system, yes. To answer most of your questions, a great deal of ethnic and cultural groups blur the lines between these five distinctions, inefficient and incomplete as the groups may be.
Indians are Caucasoid, like most Indo-Europeans.
Personally, a find these terms generally meaningless, and prefer to use narrower terms for describing one's ancestry. "Whites" and "Blacks" as terms mean nothing to me. German and Zulu do.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 08:56
Im all for it. Variety is the spice of life. I prefer oriental women personaly.
Besides this is what mixed marriages lead to.
http://vienvoir.free.fr/stars/Mariah%20Carey.jpg
you make a strong argument gawain. i would add yamila to reasons why mixing up the gene pools is good for the planet..
https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/156/ydcov134mx.th.jpg (https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/156/ydcov134mx.jpg) https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3657/05yrahi071yu.th.jpg (https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3657/05yrahi071yu.jpg) https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1692/05yrahi011ef.th.jpg (https://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1692/05yrahi011ef.jpg)
... maybe this thread will take a sudden and exciting new turn... :tiny:
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 09:06
Can anyone name the benefit of having Sickle Cell? Bzzzzzz Thats your clue.
Genes are genes. Recessive or dominant does not determine if they become more or less popular. It is the end result of the group of genes.
Also genetic disorders are more likely to occur due to inbreeding. The classic case is the amount of people in the Russian Royal line whose blood could not clot.
The reason is that most genetic disorders are recessive and hence require two of the same gene (or at least loci on the genes) to have the recessive quality become apparent.
Also which race are Celtics? Saxons? Normans? etc? There is plenty of variation between Welsh.
Heck my brother is a light hazel eyed, red head stocky bloke the other a sky blue eyed blond lanky individual. I myself have 'dark hazel' eyes (tawny inner iris on top of dark blue/green) and dark brown hair. While our sister has brown eyes and brown hair. Variation within one family that goes beyond the norm, but proves that genes are not as homogenous with a group as we readily think.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 09:12
Can anyone name the benefit of having Sickle Cell? Bzzzzzz Thats your clue.yes.. but you just gave it away! what's the fun in displaying one's knowledge of trivia when there are clues? :cry:
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 09:32
You have to tailor your statements to your audience... and I only gave away the vector not the pathogen.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 09:39
A quick comment: Race = Ethnicity + Culture. It is more convenient than using either ethnicity or culture, because those two can mix and match, while race describes the product of those mixings.
If you can make a reference and people understand what you mean, then that reference is valid. End of tangent.
That definition fo race = ethnicity + culture is more in line with the way people think and shows that we are more inclined to think of race along social lines then (just) genetic.
All this "there is no race" stuff is pure nonsensical ivory-tower bullslip. :bow:
(IMHO) :bow:
DA
Not Ivory Tower, just iff someone tries and argues that there are significant differences between races it is far more of a cultural then a genetic difference.
PanzerJaeger
10-18-2005, 10:18
Back in the days when certain superior races had cultures worth preserving and isolating from less advanced ones I suppose I would support keeping some races pure. However, those times are long gone and these days every culture is tainted so I say to the unwashed masses, "have fun.." :shrug:
Del Arroyo
10-18-2005, 10:24
that would make for one ugly picture... ~:handball:
Ugly-- how? I believe you are being exceedingly closed-minded on this topic.
And Papewaio-- when did I ever mention genetics! You're right-- I didn't!
"Race" was never intended (by me) to be used as anything more than a descriptive expedient!
And that's it! Bye folks!
DA
The choices are an illusion as it always has been. It's the gametes that make the choice. People's "racial" choices are superficial at best. There are really no bad choices for reproduction (unless of course if the person is sterile/impotent or a close relative etc etc.)
Anyone attracted to monkeys or goats?
doc_bean
10-18-2005, 12:47
On a quick sidenote, a lot of people mentioned Mexicans as a different race, however iirc Mexicans (as well as most Latin Americans) are mostly of European ancestry. They might not be a 'pure' race, but i doubt many of those still walk around across the ocean.
Surely, Pygmees should be enough to end the discussion whether there are races or not. The term 'race' is very diffuse, but that doesn`t mean that races don`t exist.
I read an interesting article(magazine) where it was said that it was much easier for doctors to treat their pasients if they knew what 'race' they belonged to. Different races reacts different to the same medicine. Also different races has greater/smaller chances to suffer certain illnesses.
Sjakihata
10-18-2005, 15:23
the more and colourful the merrier ~:cool:
yesdachi
10-18-2005, 16:30
Heck my brother is a light hazel eyed, red head stocky bloke the other a sky blue eyed blond lanky individual. I myself have 'dark hazel' eyes (tawny inner iris on top of dark blue/green) and dark brown hair. While our sister has brown eyes and brown hair. Variation within one family that goes beyond the norm, but proves that genes are not as homogenous with a group as we readily think.
I am a prime example of the American melting pot. I am very “Irish” looking with the typical red hair and fair completion but I am as much Irish as I am Native American (Pottawatomie), German, & Spanish (from Spain, not Latin America), kind a combination of the oppressed and the oppressors. Anyway, I am one of the few in my family to have red hair and I use to get the question “where did you get that red hair” my reply, and a longstanding family joke was that the milkman brought it, coincidently our milkman had red hair (BTW I grew up on a farm, our milkman didn’t bring milk, he took it away). My reply always raised an eye from the gossipy old women in the neighborhood about my mom’s relationship with the milkman.~D That said, given the variety of appearances in your family… any resemblance between your siblings and your “milkman”? ~;)
On to the Topic. I tend to agree with Gawain, variety is the spice of life. I have dated my share of ladies of all shapes and sizes, colors and cultures and found many of the experiences very present but the one thing I did notice is that it is usually not an issue for the couple dating, if it were, they probably wouldn’t be dating, but for the families. I encountered major resistance from some parents. I have also noticed that it is sometimes difficult for the children of “mixed” marriages to fit into clicks in school or whatever.
I feel I am rather open when it comes to others dating habits but I will admit that sometimes I shake my head wondering why some people date each other. It is usually not an issue of race but of culture, I am not racist but I am openly prejudice against some people.
I say, date/hook-up with/marry whoever you like. But you know the society we live in, so don’t bitch if some people freak out when they see you with your (_insert race here__) new girlfriend or boyfriend.:bow:
solypsist
10-18-2005, 17:55
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=959524&postcount=29
Everyone is encouraged to have and post their opinions, but please let's not be judgemental; it may be misconstrued as hateful.
Back in the days when certain superior races had cultures worth preserving and isolating from less advanced ones I suppose I would support keeping some races pure. However, those times are long gone and these days every culture is tainted so I say to the unwashed masses, "have fun.." :shrug:
/edited to add the msg after the link.
this kind of flaming will not be tolerated.
edited for content and vocabulary
Big_John
10-18-2005, 20:15
uh... yeah.. back on topic..
If it weren't such a time-intensive task, I would ask you to slip various populations into these five categories.
To give you an idea of the difficulty. Here are a handful.
Where do Indians fall into that scheme? Many northern Indians immigrated from the Caucasus Mountain region, yet, the Dravidians of the south are indigenous to the subcontinent into prehistory. Of which race are the Dravidians? Nepalese?
Are Hungarians and Turks Mongoloid or Caucasoid?
Of what race are the people of Madagascar?
I suppose all of the Pacific (except Australia and New Guinea, perhaps), all of eastern former Soviet Union, China, Tibet, Indochina, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Burma, and all of North and South America are Mongoloid. That's an awful lot of different ancestry and phenotypes. Does it make sense to associate Tibetans or Malaysians more closely with Quechua (Incas) than Armenians? With all these Mongoloids lumped together over three continents and much of an ocean, does it make sense to separate the Khoisan from their continental neighbors, the Negroids?it's a good point to bring up. the demographics of human populations certainly do illustrate that, historically, humans are constantly breeding with whoever they come across when they get the chance.
does this propensity to combine gene pools diminish the concept of race? no. does it diminish the expression of races? i think it could, but i don't think that it has yet. some populations have existed in a sufficient state of reproductive isolation long enough o be considered racially distinct, imo. as Viking mentioned, equitorial african pygmies are a good example.
i'm flexible in my definitions and baselines, i don't suscribe specifically to one scheme, though i'm more of a spliter. for example i wouldn't lump han chinese into the same category as iriqouis. that doesn't mean i disregard their shared ancestry, i just wouldn't consider them to be the same 'race' per se. but if some one asked me if han and iriqouis are "mongoloid", i would say yes to both.
I wonder if Cambodians or Indonesians or Aztecs had made the classifications, would they have made the same divisions? I'll bet Eurpopeans came up with this scheme.most humans have a concept of us and them. combine that with the human mind's capacity for breaking things down into categories, and i would say that most peoples will have racial schemes to account for the phenotypic similarities shared amongst certain groups.
Ugly-- how? I believe you are being exceedingly closed-minded on this topic.it was just a joke, ala too many cooks spoil the broth, that sort of thing. i mean, if we all painted a picture, it would be a most chaotic thing. i for one, hate modern visual art. :worried:
this kind of flaming will not be tolerated.
edited for content and vocabulary
I read the comment before you edit it Solypsist.
Is your above link an on purpose bait? To draw such a reaction?
Big_John
10-18-2005, 20:26
take it to the watchtower guys, this thread need not be closed. :brood:
solypsist
10-18-2005, 20:26
No. I think I've let this room express itself with much aplomb. the reason I posted that link is to remind users that borderline racist remarks can make whole groups look bad, and is a good way to misrepresent your club. There are other users who disagree with "mixed relations" but they did it in a mature and nonjudgemental way.
I'd rather not close this thread.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk - I read the comment before you edit it Solypsist.
Is your above link an on purpose bait? To draw such a reaction - so that you can exercise your moderation duties?
~:eek:
Back in the days when certain superior races had cultures worth preserving and isolating from less advanced ones I suppose I would support keeping some races pure. However, those times are long gone and these days every culture is tainted so I say to the unwashed masses, "have fun.." :shrug:
oh you little nazi there *poke* *poke*
what exactly is my germanian genes tainted with would you say? Honestly, I wonder what it is in me that is making me racially weak.
yesdachi
10-18-2005, 20:49
No. I think I've let this room express itself with much aplomb. the reason I posted that link is to remind users that borderline racist remarks can make whole groups look bad, and is a good way to misrepresent your club. There are other users who disagree with "mixed relations" but they did it in a mature and nonjudgemental way.
I'd rather not close this thread.
This may be a good example to remind us all to include the proper amount of information to our posts. We all know how quickly others can misinterpret our words and take action.:bow:
PanzerJaeger
10-18-2005, 21:02
Everyone is encouraged to have and post their opinions, but please let's not be judgemental; it may be misconstrued as hateful.
Excuse me? I do not understand the link and your comments in relation to mine.
oh you little nazi there *poke* *poke*
what exactly is my germanian genes tainted with would you say? Honestly, I wonder what it is in me that is making me racially weak.
You automatically assume I was talking about the German race... well I was. ~D
Most Germans, as with most peoples around the world, are significantly mixed now. Theres positives and negatives to that. German culture has been brought down a bit but other cultures - which I wont name - have benefitted greatly by the introduction of German blood. ~;)
A.Saturnus
10-18-2005, 21:11
that there can be different correct responses to the same question does not invalidate the foundation of the question. it simply indicates that the context of the question is maleable. if that is what you mean to imply with the proposition that "race is imaginary" then i concur. and in that case you would agree that other categories like species and phyla are 'imaginary' too?
Not quite. Species is a more or less biological relevant category. Race is not. You can draw an arbitrary line of just how much common ancestors define a race, but why? You can maybe identify 5 races but what does that tell you? They are defined by superficial attributes. The within-group genetical variance is greater than the between-group variance. It may be usuful for a doctor to know the race of a person, but I assure you it´s more useful to know the blood type. Blood type is a biologically more relevant characteristic than race. Why don´t we define ethnicity by blood type instead of ancestry? I tell you why. The characteristics we use to determine someone´s ethnicity can be seen better. It is cognitive more salient to distinguish people by the colour of their skin than by something invisible than blood type. Whether that makes races 'imaginary' I leave to you, but it should be clear that ethnicity is a sociocultural construct, not a biological one.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 21:23
Whether that makes races 'imaginary' I leave to you, but it should be clear that ethnicity is a sociocultural construct, not a biological one.for reasons i've outlined in this thread, i consider it to be both biological and sociological. there is a biological distinction between an inuit and a bantu, for example. you can regard that as insignificant if you wish, but the distinction is not simply cultural.
Not quite. Species is a more or less biological relevant category. Race is not. You can draw an arbitrary line of just how much common ancestors define a race, but why? You can maybe identify 5 races but what does that tell you? They are defined by superficial attributes. The within-group genetical variance is greater than the between-group variance. It may be usuful for a doctor to know the race of a person, but I assure you it´s more useful to know the blood type. Blood type is a biologically more relevant characteristic than race. Why don´t we define ethnicity by blood type instead of ancestry? I tell you why. The characteristics we use to determine someone´s ethnicity can be seen better. It is cognitive more salient to distinguish people by the colour of their skin than by something invisible than blood type. Whether that makes races 'imaginary' I leave to you, but it should be clear that ethnicity is a sociocultural construct, not a biological one.
I like the Blood type method myself
All you O+ over in the corner.
All you AB- can hang out with us O-, etc.. etc.. A whole new form of identification and prejudice can be developed by the human race.
Big_John
10-18-2005, 21:46
you're such an optimist red. ~D
you're such an optimist red. ~D
Yep - you should see the calls I get for blood donations sometimes. I give once or twice a year to the local blood bank - and they are always happy to see my O negative blood.
Hell I can see it now - all us O negative people raised on blood bank farms to give our monthly pint to the community to keep all you others alive to live your immoral lives of sex and debauchary - :dizzy2:
Kaiser of Arabia
10-18-2005, 21:56
It's...wrong. I'll leave it at that.
yesdachi
10-18-2005, 21:59
I like the Blood type method myself
All you O+ over in the corner.
All you AB- can hang out with us O-, etc.. etc.. A whole new form of identification and prejudice can be developed by the human race.
So her mom said, “I’m:gorgeous: an A+ and my daughter:gbow: is an A+ and I’ll be damned if I let some half breed AB- date my daughter.” And I was like “but were in love:cry2:” and her dad was all “get off of my yard you mongrel:rtwno: ” and then he turned the hose on me.~D
Ser Clegane
10-18-2005, 22:03
and they are always happy to see my O negative blood.
Now that sounds familiar - when I was still at university I lived quite near to the hospital of the university. They asked me very frequently to donate blood and thrombocytes...
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 22:04
I wonder if it is too far, but... Kaiser, aren't you Italian?
Excuse me? I do not understand the link and your comments in relation to mine.
I think Soly is saying that your comments about certain races being "superior" lays you open to being described as a race-hater.
Back in the days when certain superior races had cultures worth preserving and isolating from less advanced ones I suppose I would support keeping some races pure. However, those times are long gone and these days every culture is tainted so I say to the unwashed masses, "have fun... You automatically assume I was talking about the German race... well I was.
PJ, this is racism, pure and unadulterated. The belief that certain races are superior is a textbook definition of racism. You might want to edit or retract those remarks, otherwise people will be able to refer to you as PanzerJager the racist without accusations of being defamatory.
EDIT: I see Ser Clegane has warned you for the offending post before I posted. Nonetheless, I still think it should be retracted.
Now that sounds familiar - when I was still at university I lived quite near to the hospital of the university. They asked me very frequently to donate blood and thrombocytes...
Yep - however I got the 5 year lets wait to see if he croaks from something he might of caught in the Desert or from the Army expermental shot waiver. Now they call and send me cards again.
Now don't get me wrong its important to give blood - but I wish they would not be so vampiristic in doing so.
We want your blood - :vampire: (thanks Big John)
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 22:20
Oh, I wish I had a picture from the old Dracula:balloon2:
Oh, I wish I had a picture from the old Dracula:balloon2:
Something like these?
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1228/Mptv/1228/3405_0047.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0021814
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1198/Mptv/1198/3913-31.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0021814
Big_John
10-18-2005, 22:31
:vampire:
Strike For The South
10-18-2005, 22:37
It's...wrong. I'll leave it at that.
Arent you german and Italian?
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 22:42
Oh, I wish I had a picture from the old Dracula:balloon2: Something like these?
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/122...th_key=0021814
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/119...th_key=0021814
Exactly!~:)
Devastatin Dave
10-18-2005, 22:45
Arent you german and Italian?
Nowa thatza spicey meata balla!!!
**spoken in the worst mixture of german and italian accent**
Kaiser of Arabia
10-18-2005, 22:46
Arent you german and Italian?
I was more talking along the lines of white-black, black-hispanic, hispanic-white, etc.
scooter_the_shooter
10-18-2005, 22:47
I am white and don't ever want to be with a nonwhite woman.
Because I am not attracted at all to the other races. If you are go for it...I wont hold it against you. But I think it's disgusting.(I know that sounds mean but I am sick of being Politically correct)
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 22:48
Still man, it is certainly not an insult in my book, Italians have a history of racial mixing themselves.
Kanamori
10-18-2005, 22:49
Because I am not attracted at all to the other races.
Screw white chix (no not like that perv); Latinas, Indians, Mid-eastern women all the way:bow:
scooter_the_shooter
10-18-2005, 22:54
Go whitey!~D I have nothing against the other races, just not attracted to them.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 23:20
I like the Blood type method myself
All you O+ over in the corner.
All you AB- can hang out with us O-, etc.. etc.. A whole new form of identification and prejudice can be developed by the human race.
Actually Japanese list Blood Type about their movie idols... it is a big thing in Asia.
So they go Height, Weight, Star Sign, Blood type ... if they are a women they add in B-H-W measurements.
Papewaio
10-18-2005, 23:25
I was more talking along the lines of white-black, black-hispanic, hispanic-white, etc.
You do realise that the most different races on the planet could easily be defined as man and woman...
Well if you just like your own kind doesn't that mean you are batting for your own team?
I bet some of your favourite movie/music/sports stars are mixed...
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 00:05
Back in the days when certain superior races had cultures worth preserving and isolating from less advanced ones I suppose I would support keeping some races pure. However, those times are long gone and these days every culture is tainted so I say to the unwashed masses, "have fun.." :shrug:
People thinking that their culture is morally superior due to genes and/or teachings when in fact it is a matter of having superior technology and nothing to do with morality or genes.
Also which race are Celtics? Saxons? Normans? etc? There is plenty of variation between Welsh.
(insert lazy trumpet) Celts were a cultural group. Saxons are German, and Normans are German.
A.Saturnus
10-19-2005, 00:23
for reasons i've outlined in this thread, i consider it to be both biological and sociological. there is a biological distinction between an inuit and a bantu, for example. you can regard that as insignificant if you wish, but the distinction is not simply cultural.
There are biological distinctions between all people that aren´t clones (by definition). What is cultural is to pick these distinctions to make a cognitive distinction.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 00:24
Hence what race are you if you are British???
Devastatin Dave
10-19-2005, 00:54
Hence what race are you if you are British???
French.~D
Big_John
10-19-2005, 01:09
There are biological distinctions between all people that aren´t clones (by definition). What is cultural is to pick these distinctions to make a cognitive distinction.so do you deny that there is any greater biological cohesion amongst a group of people with common ancestry as opposed to another group with a separate common ancestry (e.g. from above, bantus and inuits)?
Byzantine Prince
10-19-2005, 01:21
I Think we are assuming too much by the conception of race. It's there, and it's as real as any other relative category we have made up. Why is it real? Because categories come from our perceptions, therefore if I can think of a category, it exists.
And Saturnus is right, as I have stated previously, everyone is their own biological unit. That's what it comes down to. If I prefer to mate with an asian I'll be damned if I let people convince me it's wrong.
Tachikaze
10-19-2005, 02:34
I Think we are assuming too much by the conception of race. It's there, and it's as real as any other relative category we have made up. Why is it real? Because categories come from our perceptions, therefore if I can think of a category, it exists.
That seems to imply that all categories are equally valid. We can just make them up for our own purposes. Doesn't that make them rather pointless, especially if the categories are arbitrary and personal?
Kagemusha
10-19-2005, 02:42
Well.I dont have much to add in this conversation,but me likes all coloured woman.Well havent actually ever met a green one yet.But im pretty sure i would like women green also.:smitten:
Hence what race are you if you are British???
Be fair - Britain is a political entity not tied to ethnicity.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 02:46
Be fair - Britain is a political entity not tied to ethnicity.
And with careful examination most nations turn out to be a lot more mixed then a first glance reveals...
Of course. The nation-state has very little to do with the ethnic makeup of its citizens.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 02:53
~D Which is a good thing as l love going down to the international food halls. ~D
bmolsson
10-19-2005, 06:46
Inter racial realationships have no problems at all. Inter cultural have a lot of problems.
I dated a black Swedish girl and she was more Swedish than any other girl. Wonderful girl, but she was raised as a Swede since birth more or less.
On the other side, I am married in to an islamic family (2 actually) and that is not always so easy. It requires that you have a lot of patience and a certain independence. I will never be close to the family of my wifes and I have to live with it.
For somebody that have yet to loose their heart and have a choice, go for your on cultural heritage, it saves a lot of problems. If you insist, work on it, it has a price.
If you find a woman of a different race, but with your cultural heritage, grab her, she is a rare gem..... ~;)
Divinus Arma
10-19-2005, 07:19
It disturbs me that this is one of the most popular backrrom threads of all time.
It actually made it to day three!
Tachikaze
10-19-2005, 07:34
This is one of the better threads in a while. I'm enjoying debating with Big John and reading most of the other posts, except perhaps the one that promoted a "master race". That was quite disturbing. But please don't close the thread because of one misled individual.
Ser Clegane
10-19-2005, 08:04
I am white and don't ever want to be with a nonwhite woman.
Because I am not attracted at all to the other races. If you are go for it...I wont hold it against you. But I think it's disgusting.(I know that sounds mean but I am sick of being Politically correct)
How very generous of you,ceasar010 that you "won't hold it against" us. :rolleyes:
What exactly do you think is so "disgusting" about it?
PanzerJaeger
10-19-2005, 08:12
PJ, this is racism, pure and unadulterated. The belief that certain races are superior is a textbook definition of racism. You might want to edit or retract those remarks, otherwise people will be able to refer to you as PanzerJager the racist without accusations of being defamatory
People already refer to me in that manner. :shrug:
I will not retract the statement because the initial thread asked for truthful responses and requested that no one be offended. It is my opinion that some races were superior to others many years ago. Is that even racist, to believe at one point in the past some races were superior to others?
Besides that, I said it was ok by me. It is now somehow racist to be in favor of mixed race couples?
People thinking that their culture is morally superior due to genes and/or teachings when in fact it is a matter of having superior technology and nothing to do with morality or genes.
That, sir, is not a sentence.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 08:21
People think that race X was superior to race Y.
When it is more of a matter skillset X was superior to Y.
People think that a race was superior due to their moral code and/or genes. The superiority was in the knowledge base and the ability to use it.
Romans won because of superior engineering, technology and strategic knowledge.
End of the day Colonial Europe managed to conquer the world not because of superior genes or moral code. The Europeans had better technology.
Some idiots then clung to that idea and actual thought they had superior genes and idealogy. They had their butts handed to them by a conglomerate of races who had superior strategic ability and in the end far better technology.
doc_bean
10-19-2005, 09:19
People thinking that their culture is morally superior due to genes and/or teachings when in fact it is a matter of having superior technology and nothing to do with morality or genes.
Have you ever heard of how Islamic* culture in Africa makes sure certain women are virgins when they get married by sowing them shut ? Do you realize that in most of Africa it is considered okay for a man to cheat on his wife, it might even be encouraged, which contributes to the spread of Aids ?
You seem to think technology is all that matters when calling a culture superior, well it is not. I'm sorry, I will not hold a culture like that in similar regard to my own and anyone who does is just helping those doing the mutilating, the raping and the killing in Africa.
Does this have anything to do with race ? Of course not, but even Panzer talked about culture and not race.
*The kind of Islam that has very little to nothing to do with the Quo'ran (sp?) or actual Islam, besides in name.
I am white and don't ever want to be with a nonwhite woman.
Because I am not attracted at all to the other races. If you are go for it...I wont hold it against you. But I think it's disgusting.(I know that sounds mean but I am sick of being Politically correct)
Wow ~D Disgusting is taking it a bit far, but personally I find white women a lot more attractive too. But every race has it's stunners, some of the maroccan and turkish girls you see here are beautifull.
thrashaholic
10-19-2005, 09:38
Hence what race are you if you are British???
The British, as in Britons, were an Atlantid (or 'Celtic') sub-race of the Caucasoid race.
Nowadays, the 'British' (I use inverted commas because today British refers to the people who live in Britain, not in it's correct usage referring to the Britons only) are largely a mixture of the Atlantid and Nordid sub-races of the Caucasoid sub-race, but are still predominantly Atlantid except on the east coast.
There weren't English, Viking or Norman mass migrations as is commonly thought. In all the cases of invasion in Britain the invaders just replaced the current political elite or set up tiny communities on the coast. The changes caused by those invasions were largely cultural and legal, not ethnic.
this thread as become kinda disturbing.....I see some posts that wouldn´t be out of place in the mouths of some guys that were goosestepping around berlin some 60 years ago.....
it´s a shame we haven´t grown past this allready.....:wall: :no:
To be fair many of them would not be goose-stepping around Berlin. They'd be pedalling around getting slaughtered by Russian tanks, or manning AA guns to much the same effect.
I agree with you that some of the comments are rather disturbing (although in some cases they merely confirm what I already believed) but then the thread did ask for honesty.....
If people are in love why should race be an issue except to the petty minded?
Have you ever heard of how Islamic* culture in Africa makes sure certain women are virgins when they get married by sowing them shut ? Do you realize that in most of Africa it is considered okay for a man to cheat on his wife, it might even be encouraged, which contributes to the spread of Aids ?
You seem to think technology is all that matters when calling a culture superior, well it is not. I'm sorry, I will not hold a culture like that in similar regard to my own and anyone who does is just helping those doing the mutilating, the raping and the killing in Africa.
Does this have anything to do with race ? Of course not, but even Panzer talked about culture and not race.
*The kind of Islam that has very little to nothing to do with the Quo'ran (sp?) or actual Islam, besides in name.
Knowledge and the ability to apply it is not something fundamentalist religions are known for.
From Islamic Fundamentalism to Christian Creationism to Amish. Not all fundamentalism is violent. But the vast majority of them are sub par when it comes to learning, knowledge and technology.
Also fundamentalists might be quite morally nice (some Born agains that I know) but scientifically they are naive/scared to use so instead of using anti-cancer treatments they pray and then bury the dead.
In warfare/colonisation it wasn't the morally nice that won. It was the ones with the best weapons.
====
This was Papewaio btw... wife is logged in and I'm in a rush.
Geoffrey S
10-19-2005, 14:13
Individuals differences rather than race differences.
It's an older post, but one which I can agree with.
Devastatin Dave
10-19-2005, 14:14
My question is what exactly is a "white" chick? Is it a female with hardly any pigment in her skin and doesn't do out in the sun? Seriously, are these white chicks not "tainted" with mongrel blood? Its just funny that most of the "white chicks" I've known over the years are laying in the sun or in a tanning bed trying to darken themselves up. I just don't see such a difference between different skin pigments.
Byzantine Prince
10-19-2005, 14:31
That seems to imply that all categories are equally valid. We can just make them up for our own purposes. Doesn't that make them rather pointless, especially if the categories are arbitrary and personal?
Yes it does make them pointless in some respects. Not every concept we invent needs to be a step to the higher truth, some concepts are just useful as tools, or stepping stones.
The Stranger
10-19-2005, 14:34
this thread as become kinda disturbing.....I see some posts that wouldn´t be out of place in the mouths of some guys that were goosestepping around berlin some 60 years ago.....
it´s a shame we haven´t grown past this allready.....:wall: :no:
i agree...bleugh
The Stranger
10-19-2005, 14:39
I was more talking along the lines of white-black, black-hispanic, hispanic-white, etc.
tellme why.....................why is it wrong for senegalese and a british couple to mix and not for a german and italian
Tachikaze
10-19-2005, 15:00
Have you ever heard of how Islamic* culture in Africa makes sure certain women are virgins when they get married by sowing them shut ? Do you realize that in most of Africa it is considered okay for a man to cheat on his wife, it might even be encouraged, which contributes to the spread of Aids ?
You seem to think technology is all that matters when calling a culture superior, well it is not. I'm sorry, I will not hold a culture like that in similar regard to my own and anyone who does is just helping those doing the mutilating, the raping and the killing in Africa.
Does this have anything to do with race ? Of course not, but even Panzer talked about culture and not race.
*The kind of Islam that has very little to nothing to do with the Quo'ran (sp?) or actual Islam, besides in name.
Then there's the "Final Solution". Should we hold that as an example of Northern European white superiority?
Then there's the "Final Solution". Should we hold that as an example of Northern European white superiority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Adrian II
10-19-2005, 15:07
Then there's the "Final Solution". Should we hold that as an example of Northern European white superiority?We did not adopt nazism, we fought and conquered it. And that was in the past. Our democratic way of life, our technology and our relative internal peace are the envy of the world.
My question is what exactly is a "white" chick? Is it a female with hardly any pigment in her skin and doesn't do out in the sun? Seriously, are these white chicks not "tainted" with mongrel blood? Its just funny that most of the "white chicks" I've known over the years are laying in the sun or in a tanning bed trying to darken themselves up. I just don't see such a difference between different skin pigments.
In my area the 'white' girls want to get darker (tan) and the 'black' girls
want straight hair (weaves, extentions, etc) :dizzy2: crazy world....
Devastatin Dave
10-19-2005, 15:46
That's what I'm saying. Sure there may be some genetic disease that are more prevolant in certain backgrounds, but most of these illness occur in all "races" to some degree. I don't understand the whole "its disgusting" comparrison either. Those saying that its "disgusting" might not realise this but maybe others find them and their significant other disgusting as well. I guess we entitled to our opinions but its all in the eye of the beholder. But its a bit of an overstatement to say that "race-mixing" is disgusting in my opinion when there is no such thing as a perfect couple.
Crazed Rabbit
10-19-2005, 15:58
From Islamic Fundamentalism to Christian Creationism to Amish. Not all fundamentalism is violent.
But all violent fundamentalism is Islamic.
Then there's the "Final Solution". Should we hold that as an example of Northern European white superiority?
As Adrian said, we conquered that. And it was not a widely accepted practice in Europe, it was the creation of one madman.
Crazed Rabbit
Ser Clegane
10-19-2005, 16:08
Those saying that its "disgusting" might not realise this but maybe others find them and their significant other disgusting as well. I guess we entitled to our opinions but its all in the eye of the beholder. But its a bit of an overstatement to say that "race-mixing" is disgusting in my opinion when there is no such thing as a perfect couple.
Well said - "disgusting" might describe couples where one partner abuses the other or the children.
That people might consider a loving and happy couple to be disgusting just because their skin color or the shape of their eyes does not match is completely beyond me...
yesdachi
10-19-2005, 16:44
I did not find PanzerJager’s comments disturbing, but after seeing how many others are having issue with them I decided to review my understanding of racism. In my mind I have always related racism to the hate of other races, DUH right, well here is what I found.
According to just about every online dictionary and encyclopedia I search describe racism as 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. Now if this definition is used as the criteria for qualifying someone as a racist than PJ certainly meets the first part, but the second part is where I am having issue. Someone can’t be called a racist or a race-hater if they don’t make any discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. PJ’s comments don’t meat this second qualifying point. He doesn’t badmouth anyone.
PJ’s comments, at least in this thread are not racist. They may be elitist, egotistic and he may have a superiority complex on a racial/nationality scale but by definition his comments are not racist. Additionally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that someone thinks that their race is the best, it is like having racial/nationalistic pride, and even excessive pride is ok as long as there is no genuine hostility to others.
I guess my point is, knee-jerk “racist” labeling is BS and people who think comments like his are disturbing are too thin skinned.
According to just about every online dictionary and encyclopedia I search describe racism as 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. Now if this definition is used as the criteria for qualifying someone as a racist than PJ certainly meets the first part, but the second part is where I am having issue. Someone can’t be called a racist or a race-hater if they don’t make any discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race. PJ’s comments don’t meat this second qualifying point. He doesn’t badmouth anyone.
No, you're just differentiating between someone acting on their beliefs and someone believing without overt expression. Regardless of whether you act or not, you still retain the beliefs. If you qualify for definition #1, you are a racist. No other qualifications need apply.
TinCow beat me to it - a dictionary enumerates alternative definitions, not multiple conditions for a single definition.
BTW, Fragony, Godwin's Law does not apply to threads in which people start talking about the superiority of the German race and its tainting by inter-racial sex.
If you stay away from other races then you wont have to worry about creating sterile mules.
So by all means chase after any female human that you wish. Just stay away from the sheep.
On a serious note.
Skin color - eye color - eye shape - and hair color could all be used by ignorant people to attempt to make themselves feel better about their own existance. Like I said earlier - if the individual is attractive to you and its a mutual attraction - then one should pursue that course. If you find that your not compatable on a personal level - then one should seperate from the relationship.
I find all people to be interesting and many of them beautiful its the brain of the individual that leads to their personality which is what is the final turn on or turn off of the individual. Not the color of their skin, the shape of their eye, or even their hair color.
Devastatin Dave
10-19-2005, 17:35
Just stay away from the sheep.
Unless you have velcro gloves.~D
AggonyKing
10-19-2005, 18:00
I feel most happy marrying or being with someone of my same culture, but if the right person for me comes from another race, or what ever shape, then fine, I'm ok with it. Of course that means I would have to learn her customs, but so will she.
But all violent fundamentalism is Islamic.
Totally untrue. Would you not call violent anti-abortion activists fundamentalists, especially those who claim that they're doing God's work?
The church burnings of Norway are also a good example of violent fundamentalism.
yesdachi
10-19-2005, 18:35
TinCow beat me to it - a dictionary enumerates alternative definitions, not multiple conditions for a single definition.
In some cases you are correct but in the definition of racist I don’t think you are.
Some words have alternate definitions, like the word “murder” (it’s killing someone and a flock of crows). The two definitions have nothing to do with one another. But with the word “racist” both definitions refer to the same thing, race. IMO logic dictates that both have to apply or there would be separate words for each definition.
If we step away from the dictionary definition and look at the encyclopedia entries you will notice that they suggest some kind of action.
Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation.
The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them.
I may be interpreting the information wrong but it is still my opinion that just saying that ones race is better than another’s is not racist. It’s close and could easily warrant a subtle warning but without some kind of call for negative action it doesn’t justify a “racist” or especially a “race-hater” label.
Big_John
10-19-2005, 18:49
yesdachi, your own quoted encyclopedia entry counters your argument.
Racism has many different definitions. Historically, it has been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation.the "or" is important here, it demonstrates that any of the three definitions above have been used, historically, as complete definitions of racism.
you may be right to differentiate the terms "race-hater" and "racist". but by the simple definitions you have outlined in both the dictionary and encyclopedia quotes, the statement that race A is or was unqualifiedly "superior" to race B is a racist statement.
I may be interpreting the information wrong but it is still my opinion that just saying that ones race is better than another’s is not racist. It’s close and could easily warrant a subtle warning but without some kind of call for negative action it doesn’t justify a “racist” or especially a “race-hater” label.
I agree with you on "race-hater." It is entirely possible for someone to think some races are inferior to others without hating them. However, as for racist you have conveniently ignored the "or" in "and/or" in your quoted definition. If I lust after corpses, I am a necrophiliac. I do not have to actually engage in intercourse with said corpses for me to meet this qualification.
Arg... apologies for the totally redundant post, we were obviously writing at the same time.
Big_John
10-19-2005, 18:56
i was the faster, therefor i am far superior to your peoples! yield unto me your women! :knight:
i was the faster, therefor i am far superior to your peoples! yield unto me your women! :knight:
Well since its a thread about Inter-racial sex - I will send you sheep instead....~:eek: :dizzy2:
Kanamori
10-19-2005, 19:08
It would be easier to claim that connotations of "racist" as being bad are wrong in this case, althougth the argument could be made, I don't think many would buy it.:charge:
Unless you have velcro gloves.~D
I always carrry two pairs just incase.~:cheers:
Big_John
10-19-2005, 19:14
Well since its a thread about Inter-racial sex - I will send you sheep instead....~:eek: :dizzy2:... no, that's ok. um, send them kanamori's way instead, he already has the gloves handy (pun!). :blank2:
Devastatin Dave
10-19-2005, 19:24
I always carrry two pairs just incase.~:cheers:
I've been to Wisconsin, I can understand!!!~D
yesdachi
10-19-2005, 20:40
yesdachi, your own quoted encyclopedia entry counters your argument.
the "or" is important here, it demonstrates that any of the three definitions above have been used, historically, as complete definitions of racism.
you may be right to differentiate the terms "race-hater" and "racist". but by the simple definitions you have outlined in both the dictionary and encyclopedia quotes, the statement that race A is or was unqualifiedly "superior" to race B is a racist statement.
That is why I listed 2 encyclopedia entries and made the comments on the dictionary definition. You shouldn’t dismiss the second entry because you already found the info you like in the first. ~;) And hey, no selective reading, you cant highlight the /or without highlighting the and/. And you can’t ignore that in just about every definition or explanation of the word “racist” there is some kind of call for negative action quantifier. Even if it is at the end of the sentence or in the second part or part of an and/or it is there and it is a part of what makes someone a racist.
Hey Tincow, if you lusted after corpses would they be of your race or of other races?~D
I feel icky saying lust and corpse in the same sentence.
Yesdachi, you are wrong - in everyday language, racism does not require a bad action by the racist. In my own country, the UK, many (most?)people were mildly racist towards people of darker skin colour a few decades ago. They never did any harmful actions against them. Most probably never had any dealings with them at all. But they held prejudiced and negative attitudes towards them based on their skin colour. I take it you are from the US? If so, you had the same thing but probably worse in your recent history. Nowadays, that kind of negative racist attitude is socially unacceptable. For example, it will get people warned in these forums.
Big_John
10-19-2005, 21:42
oh i will debate grammar, yes i will. :stunned:
That is why I listed 2 encyclopedia entries and made the comments on the dictionary definition. You shouldn’t dismiss the second entry because you already found the info you like in the first. ~;) perhaps i shouldn't, but i certainly can. if multiple complete conditions are listed, as long as one is satisfied, i'm done. i highlighted the condition that was unquestionbly satified, therefor, the definition has been met.
And hey, no selective reading, you cant highlight the /or without highlighting the and/.certainly i can. and/or indicates that all conditions may apply to the definition or that any single condition is sufficient.
And you can’t ignore that in just about every definition or explanation of the word “racist” there is some kind of call for negative action quantifier. Even if it is at the end of the sentence or in the second part or part of an and/or it is there and it is a part of what makes someone a racist.see above.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 21:49
We did not adopt nazism, we fought and conquered it. And that was in the past. Our democratic way of life, our technology and our relative internal peace are the envy of the world.
AdrianII that is the most American sounding post I have ever heard you post.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 21:54
But all violent fundamentalism is Islamic.
KKK for starters, IRA for seconds. There are also violent insular cults. WACO, the suicide ones etc. Add to that historical accounts and you can quite quickly see that your statement is not true.
As Adrian said, we conquered that. And it was not a widely accepted practice in Europe, it was the creation of one madman.
Crazed Rabbit
A single madman who had the support of a nation and quite a few others. Nor was it conquered by the mainland Europeans, it was the rest of the world that liberated mainland Europe...
PanzerJaeger
10-19-2005, 21:58
Oh this is ridiculous.
The original thread explicitly asked for honesty and:
But first off, I do have a request for all of you-- try not to get offended!
Now a warning and several posts debating whether I am a race-hater or not later, can anyone tell me who I was racist against? Who did I offend?
What makes this little over-reaction of the thought police even more idiotic is the fact that I stated Im ok with it! Be with whomever you wish, its none of my business. My comments about superior cultures were past tense.. These days I do not believe any race is superior.. yet somehow im still a "race hater" as described by a mod. ~:rolleyes:
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 21:58
Unless you have velcro gloves.~D
The great thing about sheep is they taste good with mint and if they dump you they make great leather jackets. ~;) ~:eek: :dizzy2:
How can you tell a Kiwi is in a shoe store?
He is standing by the Ugh boots with an erection.
Why do women spend so much time buying shoes?
They are checking out the Kiwis.
yesdachi
10-19-2005, 22:00
Yesdachi, you are wrong - in everyday language, racism does not require a bad action by the racist. In my own country, the UK, many (most?)people were mildly racist towards people of darker skin colour a few decades ago. They never did any harmful actions against them. Most probably never had any dealings with them at all. But they held prejudiced and negative attitudes towards them based on their skin colour. I take it you are from the US? If so, you had the same thing but probably worse in your recent history. Nowadays, that kind of negative racist attitude is socially unacceptable. For example, it will get people warned in these forums.
If you are mildly racist towards people of a darker skin color then you are prejudiced against darker skin color not a racist.
Anyhow, I don’t think I am wrong but I will read between the lines and assume that you want to be done with the discussion.
Papewaio
10-19-2005, 22:04
I think there is a difference in pride of culture and hubris of it.
What makes this little over-reaction of the thought police even more idiotic is the fact that I stated Im ok with it! Be with whomever you wish, its none of my business. My comments about superior cultures were past tense.. These days I do not believe any race is superior
PanzerJager, you are not fooling anyone with this. You said the "German race" used to be "superior" but now is not because it is "tainted". I can't recall a more clearly racist argument posted by a member in all my time at the Org. We are not over-reacting. We just understand you perfectly well. Please do not use these forums to peddle this kind of argument. Save it for websites that will tolerate it.
PanzerJaeger
10-19-2005, 22:35
PanzerJager, you are not fooling anyone with this. You said the "German race" used to be "superior" but now is not because it is "tainted".
Notice the use of the past tense. Many years ago there was not as much freedom of mobility so some cultures became more advanced than others. How is it racist to state the obvious?
I can't recall a more clearly racist argument posted by a member in all my time at the Org.
Oh please. Now your trying to suggest Im making an argument. I was answering honestly the question presented in the initial post, as was requested.
We are not over-reacting. We just understand you perfectly well.
Then why can no member of the staff tell me who I was racist against or how I was being racist?
Please do not use these forums to peddle this kind of argument. Save it for websites that will tolerate it.
What argument am I peddling? I just gave my opinion on mixing the races... You bean counters seem to have missed your warning quotas this month. :shame:
Strike For The South
10-19-2005, 23:24
Whoa lighten up fellas. Nothing rasict has been posted on this thread and nothing has been over the top (IMO of course) lets just ligghten up a little bit
Byzantine Prince
10-20-2005, 00:34
I think Panzer's point is that the relation between culture and race used to be stronger in the old days then it is now. This is primarily due to influences of other peoples. I do not agree with him that this is simply a genetical tainting, that is where the racism is located. I don't think Panzer realizes that, or maybe he didn't mean it the way he wrote it. I have problems with the latter as well, so I'm not quick to judge.
Papewaio
10-20-2005, 01:01
Speaking of inter-racial/species mixing please check out our newest member. ~:eek:
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-20-2005, 01:03
~:eek:
Is something going on with Shambles and maybe Beirut?
solypsist
10-20-2005, 01:07
Speaking of inter-racial/species mixing please check out our newest member. ~:eek:
omoshiroi......
https://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4179/clipboard019sa.jpg
Papewaio
10-20-2005, 01:08
Shambles declared that he was going to generate multiple accounts, spam the forums, port scan the members and he started posted x-rated pics into his posts too.
Strike For The South
10-20-2005, 01:08
Shambles declared that he was going to generate multiple accounts, spam the forums, port scan the members and he started posted x-rated pics into his posts too.
um..................why:book: is it becuase Beirut didnt let him make fun of black people?
Devastatin Dave
10-20-2005, 01:55
The great thing about sheep is they taste good with mint and if they dump you they make great leather jackets. ~;) ~:eek: :dizzy2:
How can you tell a Kiwi is in a shoe store?
He is standing by the Ugh boots with an erection.
Why do women spend so much time buying shoes?
They are checking out the Kiwis.
Dear Lord!!!~:cheers:
LOL
Papewaio
10-20-2005, 01:57
um..................why:book: is it becuase Beirut didnt let him make fun of black people?
Apparently.
Devastatin Dave
10-20-2005, 02:01
AdrianII that is the most American sounding post I have ever heard you post.
Man, thems fighten words for Adrian!!!
bmolsson
10-20-2005, 03:33
When it comes to pure sex, I must say I can't really understand some of the guy's here saying that certain races are disgusting. Each race have different attributes what makes them very interesting. You can't always eat fish and chips, believe me, it really gets boring.... ~;)
When it comes to cultural differences, it might sometimes be a bit harder, since there are some weird cultures out there. It has nothing to do with the race though.....
Adrian II
10-20-2005, 03:39
AdrianII that is the most American sounding post I have ever heard you post.http://matousmileys.free.fr/scout.gif
Aurelian
10-20-2005, 06:37
I'm all in favor of inter-racial sex as long as the participants are both attractive and intelligent. Ugly dumb people should not be having sex regardless of race. ~;)
From a purely selfish standpoint, I'm in favor of inter-racial sex because I've always found mixed-race women to be particularly attractive. Mutts are hot.
When you combine un-like DNA, the resultant children are less likely to express weird recessive genes. You often get a genetic golden-mean that is much better looking than the parents.
Of the girls that I've been attracted to, a very high percentage of them have been mixed: Anglo-Filipino, Anglo-Jewish, Anglo-Chinese, Anglo-Vietnamese, Anglo-African, Swedish-Japanese... and whatever mix that hot chick next door might be. ~D
Crazed Rabbit
10-20-2005, 07:01
KKK for starters, IRA for seconds. There are also violent insular cults. WACO, the suicide ones etc. Add to that historical accounts and you can quite quickly see that your statement is not true.
I'm talking about the present.
And I was talking about violent religious fundamentalists.
Crazed Rabbit
Papewaio
10-20-2005, 07:18
So you want to categorically state that the only violent fundamentalists currently in the world are Islamic?
solypsist
10-20-2005, 07:21
I'm talking about the present.
And I was talking about violent religious fundamentalists.
if you were talking about violent religious fundamentalists, you should have been more clear. your original post does not state this.
and even within this new, backpedalling parameter, it's still incorrect. (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)
Tachikaze
10-20-2005, 07:29
Have you ever heard of how Islamic* culture in Africa makes sure certain women are virgins when they get married by sowing them shut ? Do you realize that in most of Africa it is considered okay for a man to cheat on his wife, it might even be encouraged, which contributes to the spread of Aids ?
You seem to think technology is all that matters when calling a culture superior, well it is not. I'm sorry, I will not hold a culture like that in similar regard to my own and anyone who does is just helping those doing the mutilating, the raping and the killing in Africa.
Does this have anything to do with race ? Of course not, but even Panzer talked about culture and not race.
*The kind of Islam that has very little to nothing to do with the Quo'ran (sp?) or actual Islam, besides in name.
We did not adopt nazism, we fought and conquered it. And that was in the past. Our democratic way of life, our technology and our relative internal peace are the envy of the world.
The first quote by doc_bean makes examples of a broad group of people, the Muslims of Africa, and attaches certain behaviors to them that support the notion of inferiority.
In response to the second quote by AdrianII, my later post about the "Final Solution"--which was posed in the form of a question--does the same. Many cultures contain the seeds of horrible behavior. Nazism developed, long before the Twentieth Century, from a long line of aggressive and elitest people who valued power and economic growth over humanity and compassion. These people were the product of their society, just as the Muslims who sew women shut and encourage cheating on wives. If you claim that Nazism was somehow outside Northern European culture and that it did not have significant support from within the populace, I can do the same with the Muslim examples.
If someone is going to cite detestible behaviors as a sign of cultural inferiority, they should expect to defend their notions of which cultures are superior to them.
By the way, I envy the relative peace and maturity of present-day Western Europe, but not the technology. On the democracy issue, I'm still undecided. I do not consider Western Europe superior to other cultures. Sometimes a culture's stengths bring with them its weaknesses.
Tachikaze
10-20-2005, 07:39
Furthermore, I don't consider the 1940s to be really "in the past". In a historical sense, 60 years is not a very long time. Europe is still reacting to the shock of the two World Wars (which I consider one). We'll see how things settle in the future. Hopefully, the attitudes we see today will continue to improve.
I should point out that while I don't conside Europe superior, it's probably my favorite area of the world from a socio-political standpoint. So there's no anti-Eurpopean bias here.
if you were talking about violent religious fundamentalists, you should have been more clear. your original post does not state this.
and even within this new, backpedalling parameter, it's still incorrect. (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/)
Dammit, I got there first and no one noticed.
Ser Clegane
10-20-2005, 08:55
Then why can no member of the staff tell me who I was racist against or how I was being racist?
PJ, I tried to send you a PM to expand on the reasoning for the warning - but your PM-box is full.
PanzerJaeger
10-20-2005, 09:01
Well that answers that. You can try again if you wish at your convenience. Sorry. :humblebow:
Then why can no member of the staff tell me who I was racist against or how I was being racist?
To say that a race is "superior" to another is by definition racist. To put it in the past tense changes nothing of substance, especially when you say the reason the superiority is over is because the superior race has become "tainted". To use the derogatory term "tainted" in connection with races is racist. To talk of a mythical "German race" being the superior race above leaves me in no doubt where you are coming from, PanzerJager.
Everyone else in this thread has managed to avoid being racist and we are in danger of dragging it off topic, so I suggest that if you want to continue this argument you start a new thread in the Watchtower Backroom or communicate with Ser Clegane by PM.
doc_bean
10-20-2005, 12:26
The first quote by doc_bean makes examples of a broad group of people, the Muslims of Africa, and attaches certain behaviors to them that support the notion of inferiority.
Yes, but do realize that I'm talking about the culture and tradition, not the people. They're (mostly) good people caught in a society that has been influenced badly by a few very bad people. In a similar way as Nazism influenced Europe. It didn't happen overnight, it was a slippery slope, and in the end most people were doing things they probably thought of as wrong themselves, but did because they believed it should be done (for whetever reason).
If someone is going to cite detestible behaviors as a sign of cultural inferiority, they should expect to defend their notions of which cultures are superior to them.
All cultures have some good and some bad points, so it perhaps a bit careless of me to just say one culture is better than another. We did beat Nazism though, and I would hope that the people in Africa can stop the negative parts of their culture too.
By the way, I envy the relative peace and maturity of present-day Western Europe, but not the technology. On the democracy issue, I'm still undecided. I do not consider Western Europe superior to other cultures. Sometimes a culture's stengths bring with them its weaknesses.
What is strength is dependant on the situation i guess. I'm still glad I was born in Europe though :bow:
A.Saturnus
10-20-2005, 21:23
so do you deny that there is any greater biological cohesion amongst a group of people with common ancestry as opposed to another group with a separate common ancestry (e.g. from above, bantus and inuits)?
What do you mean with "biological cohesion"?
I´m not saying that ethnicity does not refer to a genetical difference, but not one that would necessarily constitute a biological category. Ethnicity has an effect but it is not a major factor.
For illustration: 10 bantus and 10 inuits have a higher between-groups genetical variance than two groups of 10 random people. But if I might hand pick two groups of 10 people, I could easily make two groups that have a still higher between-groups variance. The most obvious but by far not only possible example is to pick the groups by sex. 10 men and 10 women have a far higher genetical variance than any two ethnical groups. A bantu man is genetically more similar to a inuit man than to a bantu woman and vice versa.
bmolsson
10-21-2005, 03:12
To say that a race is "superior" to another is by definition racist.
There is one thing that makes the whole racist discussion complicated. In fact there are differences between races and there are actually some things some races are superior on compare to others. Of course this is on a totally different level than you are talking about here and have nothing to do with the human value or their social status as humans.
For example, most darker races have a superior ability to handle sun light than lighter races. Skinn cancer is a problem among caucasians living around the equator.
Another example is that the Malay race in South East Asia have a fertility deficiency compare to their Chinese counter part, even when they live in the same area.
I am a very strong believer of equal rights for all humans, regardless race or ethnic background. But I don't think that deny the fact that there are differences will protect these equal rights. Same thing for men and womans. We have to accept the difference in order to be fair and equal towards everyone.
Note: There are no intention to offend or creating any problems. I just feel that its important to remove the missplaced PC we often teach in west. It's better to accept everyone regardless what they are or how they look. ~:grouphug:
Soulforged
10-21-2005, 04:52
Everyone else in this thread has managed to avoid being racist and we are in danger of dragging it off topic, so I suggest that if you want to continue this argument you start a new thread in the Watchtower Backroom or communicate with Ser Clegane by PM.I don't think so. The simple opinion "I don't like it" shows racism. But that's not to be banned, just noticed that Panzer Jagger was not the first one.
Big_John
10-21-2005, 05:37
What do you mean with "biological cohesion"?genetic affinity, biological (genetic) similarity.
I´m not saying that ethnicity does not refer to a genetical difference, but not one that would necessarily constitute a biological category.so then the question is what is the threshold, at what point do biological differences between population groups signify a "biological category"?
Ethnicity has an effect but it is not a major factor.not sure what you mean here.. an effect on/towards what?
For illustration: 10 bantus and 10 inuits have a higher between-groups genetical variance than two groups of 10 random people. But if I might hand pick two groups of 10 people, I could easily make two groups that have a still higher between-groups variance. The most obvious but by far not only possible example is to pick the groups by sex. 10 men and 10 women have a far higher genetical variance than any two ethnical groups. A bantu man is genetically more similar to a inuit man than to a bantu woman and vice versa.this is all true, but says nothing to the question of whether the concept of races is biologically sound.
so far, it sounds like it's just a judgement call. one has to decide whether the biological differences between population groups within a species/ subspecies can be significant enough for meaningful distinction.
for anyone following this tangent, here are some scientific articles on the topic:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/9/1679
http://rosenberglab.bioinformatics.med.umich.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf(might need to "save as")
-comment: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5627/1877b
-response: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5627/1877c
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n3/024642/024642.html
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/12/3/232S
Togakure
10-21-2005, 05:57
I have no problem with "interracial" relationships. Mom was Japanese; Dad is Dutch-Irish American--I'm a product of one. I've had Mexican-American, Greek-American, Italian-American, German-American, Cuban, Japanese-American and Portuguese girlfriends. Toga loves wondrous variety, and supports the "whatever floats your boat" position. ~:grouphug:
PanzerJaeger
10-21-2005, 08:36
Everyone else in this thread has managed to avoid being racist and we are in danger of dragging it off topic, so I suggest that if you want to continue this argument you start a new thread in the Watchtower Backroom or communicate with Ser Clegane by PM.
Not really. If you consider what I said racist how can you ignore some of the other comments in this thread? You expect me to drop the issue after youve invoked such words as "race-hater" when no one else seems to have a problem?
I highly doubt you would have raised an eyebrow had someone besides myself said "The greeks were superior until they were tainted by the people they occupied." Its simply a historical perspective based on facts.
Speaking of facts, if you take off your PC tinted glasses and look at the facts, you will be forced to agree that pre-WW1 germans were superior in standard of living, education, lifespan, wealth, industry, and all other measurements of civilization than many races around the world.
How is it racist to state the obvious? Who was i racist against? I cannot believe the times we are living in. Would I get a warning for saying the Romans were superior to many of the other peoples around them(which i have read countless times on this very board, along with similar statements about the greeks, mongols and japanese).. or do you just not like to hear good things said about Germans? ____ing ridiculous. :dizzy2:
In fact there are differences between races and there are actually some things some races are superior on compare to others.
That may be but it is the blanket, unqualified statement of the superiority of one race over another that is by definition racist. To take an analogy: as a class teacher, you may know that little Jonny's handwriting is better than Sally's or that Sally is a faster runner. But if you start saying that little Jonny is just "superior" to Sally in a blanket, unqualified way, then that is very different because it implies something about the child's intrinsic moral worth or value. From your post, I think we are in complete agreement on all this.
The simple opinion "I don't like it" shows racism.
Well, to my mind, it suggests a degree of prejudice about other races but it is certainly milder than saying particular races are just superior to others.
Ser Clegane
10-21-2005, 08:53
@Panzerjager
Nice attempt to mix up nation/society and race.
I also would like to remind you of the rules regarding foul language laid out in the stickied thread in the Backroom.
Just FYI - Simon and myself are not the only ones who "have a problem" with your statement.
You expect me to drop the issue after youve invoked such words as "race-hater" when no one else seems to have a problem?
I did not say drop the issue. I said take it to the Watchtower or to PM.
BTW, I know several people were angered by your posts but have not posted because they fear they would be too emotional or because they were happy to let Ser Clegane handle it. I am posting because I object to your attempts to play the innocent victim.
I highly doubt you would have raised an eyebrow had someone besides myself said "The greeks were superior until they were tainted by the people they occupied." Its simply a historical perspective based on facts.
"Superior" in what sense? No decent historian is going to use that word in the blanket unqualified way you did. The Ancient Greeks may have been better at philosophy, the Romans superior road-builders. But no self-respecting modern scholar would say the Greeks or the Romans were just "superior" without qualification. It suggests differences in the moral value or worth about the people themselves and that is at the heart of racism.
Speaking of facts, if you take off your PC tinted glasses and look at the facts, you will be forced to agree that pre-WW1 germans were superior in standard of living, education, lifespan, wealth, industry, and all other measurements of civilization than many races around the world.
But again, that does not imply they were "superior". Singaporeans do better in all those dimensions than Britons today, but I would not dream of saying they are "superior" - they may have a superior quality of life, but they themselves are not "superior".
Additionally, bringing race in as the means of classifying people for the purposes of such comparisons is bogus - irrelevant at best, pernicious at worst.
Furthermore, to suggest as you have that German living standards have somehow declined in relative terms because they have been tainted by other races is just bizarre and has nothing to do with "facts".
... or do you just not like to hear good things said about Germans? ____ing ridiculous.
I have the utmost respect for Germans. You were warned by Ser Clegane, who I believe is a German, not by me.
Adrian II
10-21-2005, 14:05
Many cultures contain the seeds of horrible behavior.Minor correction: they all do. Whenever African leaders for instance praise ubuntu, i.e. their 'unique' African sense of solidarity, warmth and togetherness, I always want to remind them of Rwanda in April 1994...
That is why I object to the adage (which I do not put in your mouth) that because of the Holocaust western society is in no way superior to other societies. I think it is superior, not because westerners are somehow superior people, but because western forms of social organisation (democracy, private enterprise, role of technology in society, separation of state and religion) make a better use of the initiative and talent of the individual and at the same time do a better job of controlling or balancing the pernicious urges of the individual than other societies.
I realise this is off-topic, but hopefully not in an offensive way.
The church burnings of Norway are also a good example of violent fundamentalism.
Eh, we are not the only ones burning churches, right? Are we? :help:
thrashaholic
10-21-2005, 19:29
For illustration: 10 bantus and 10 inuits have a higher between-groups genetical variance than two groups of 10 random people. But if I might hand pick two groups of 10 people, I could easily make two groups that have a still higher between-groups variance. The most obvious but by far not only possible example is to pick the groups by sex. 10 men and 10 women have a far higher genetical variance than any two ethnical groups. A bantu man is genetically more similar to a inuit man than to a bantu woman and vice versa.
By my reckoning this is a mathematical impossibility: your belief that variance between groups is less than within groups seems to me to defy logic.
Firstly, to make a comparison between groups, you must acknowledge their existence, which rather undoes your using this assertion to disprove the fact that their are measurable definable differences between the races.
Secondly, to make a comparison between the races, surely one must select a particular individual from each race to represent their entire race's genes, which means your assertion cannot possibly be correct:
Assuming genetic variation for all life is a 'number-line' (a line with n dimensions though, if you can picture that~;) , I must admit I'm having slight difficulties), humans occupy a tiny portion of that 'line' distinct from all other species. Now, all the races occupy their own portion of this portion of the 'line'; there is significant overlap between all of them, but each of the genes that make that race a unique entity, distict from the others, occupies its own bit of the 'line' all to itself. Thus, the difference between races must be greater, because on top of the normal variation common between all humans, is the variation between them and another race, endowed upon them by being a member of a particular race.
To put it another way, if we assume that there are two races of people, people consist of 3 genes, and that all possible genes are:A, B, C, D, E, and F, and that the genes that make their race distinct are X and Y.
If person 1 has genes ABCX,
and person 2 has genes DEFX,
and person 3 has genes ABCY,
and person 4 has genes DEFY,
one cannot say there is more variation within races than between because the variation within would have to be common to all humans, or else it would another variation between the races, thus the only variation between races are those genes that make their race distinct.The two most varied people are 1 and 4, both of whom are of different races, on top of the variation between their pan-racial human genes, they have the variation of their 'race gene'. The DEF/ABC variation cannot be counted as variation within a race, when comparing races, as it common to all races.
In conclusion, I don't think it's correct to count in pan-racial genetic variation when comparing racial variation as races are subject to said variation themselves.
I hope this makes sense, I've tried my best to marshall my ideas in a logical and understandable way. I don't intend it as an attack either (if it reads that way), I'm trying to understand the logic of the above mentioned assertion.
Big_John
10-21-2005, 20:28
By my reckoning this is a mathematical impossibility: your belief that variance between groups is less than within groups seems to me to defy logic.i think you misunderstand. the contention by saturnus, papewaio and others is that the genetic variation within a self-described or classical "race" (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid and maybe capoid) is greater than the variation between the average of any two groups. e.g., the genetic variation between an amazonian indian and a thai or between a dane and an armenian is greater than the genetic variation between the average caucasoid and the average mongoloid. the average here would refer to a hypothetical genome, not necessarily corresponding to an actual individual.
Firstly, to make a comparison between groups, you must acknowledge their existence, which rather undoes your using this assertion to disprove the fact that their are measurable definable differences between the races.it's just a hazard of the discussion; we need a common ground. also, i believe saturnus recognizes "race" in terms of sociocultural distinctions. and i don't believe anyone is arguing that population groups do not exist, simply that they are not biologically distinct enough to merit clades.
In conclusion, I don't think it's correct to count in pan-racial genetic variation when comparing racial variation as races are subject to said variation themselves.i think for that to be true, one must begin with the assumption that biological races exist. regardless, i think saturnus is saying that the pan-racial variation is so much more important than the inter-racial variation that clades or groups based on "race" are insignificant. i don't agree with that, but i think you have misunderstood his position.
then again, i could be the one misunderstanding, i'm neither a biologist nor a statistician. :help:
A.Saturnus
10-21-2005, 21:04
Thanks for clarifying my points!
so then the question is what is the threshold, at what point do biological differences between population groups signify a "biological category"?
Not only threshold but also relevance are the question. As I said, blood types constitute a genetical difference. We could also - if we wanted to - call people with manic depression disposition an ethnicitiy of their own.
not sure what you mean here.. an effect on/towards what?
I mean effect in a statistical sense. A variable can be said to have an effect on another variable if different values on the first variable make different values on the second likely.
so far, it sounds like it's just a judgement call. one has to decide whether the biological differences between population groups within a species/ subspecies can be significant enough for meaningful distinction.
It is a judgement call. But it is not only the question whether there are races or not, but also what would be called a race. It would no doubt be possible to come up with a classification of genetic variability in humans that knowns entirely different categories than the classical races but makes at least as much sense genetically. If you defend the classical races, you have to explain what makes the variability of the skin pigment genes a more important classification cue than others.
A.Saturnus
10-21-2005, 21:23
I hope Big_John already clarified what I said.
Assuming genetic variation for all life is a 'number-line' (a line with n dimensions though, if you can picture that~;) , I must admit I'm having slight difficulties), humans occupy a tiny portion of that 'line' distinct from all other species. Now, all the races occupy their own portion of this portion of the 'line'; there is significant overlap between all of them, but each of the genes that make that race a unique entity, distict from the others, occupies its own bit of the 'line' all to itself. Thus, the difference between races must be greater, because on top of the normal variation common between all humans, is the variation between them and another race, endowed upon them by being a member of a particular race.
In statistics it is usually assumed that variability is not enough for categorisation. Categories are supposed to build clusters. If the overlap between races on the n-dimensional scale is too big, we cannot speak of valid categories. Of course, if there are genes that define a race, these build clusters automatically. Though there are problems with that (see further).
To put it another way, if we assume that there are two races of people, people consist of 3 genes, and that all possible genes are:A, B, C, D, E, and F, and that the genes that make their race distinct are X and Y.
If person 1 has genes ABCX,
and person 2 has genes DEFX,
and person 3 has genes ABCY,
and person 4 has genes DEFY,
That example seems flawed to me. You say people consist of three genes but each of them is shown with four??
Anyway, lets assume that people have four genes, such as you named above. Now, you seem to group person 1 and 2 and person 3 and 4 into distinct races on basis that they have different genes (or rather: alleles) namely X and Y. My objection is not that groups {1,2} and {3,4} do not differ. They obviously do. But my point is that other groups would differ more. In fact {1,3} and {2,4} seem much more logical choices as categories. The same is possible for the traditional races. The genetical differences between races exist, but the traditional races are not a logical choice for categories since other categories would have higher distictiveness.
thrashaholic
10-21-2005, 21:38
i think you misunderstand. the contention by saturnus, papewaio and others is that the genetic variation within a self-described or classical "race" (negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid and maybe capoid) is greater than the variation between the average of any two groups. e.g., the genetic variation between an amazonian indian and a thai or between a dane and an armenian is greater than the genetic variation between the average caucasoid and the average mongoloid. the average here would refer to a hypothetical genome, not necessarily corresponding to an actual individual.
Surely this makes the assertion somewhat redundant, if it relies on averages? This is equivalent to removing the pan-racial differences when making comparisons between them, but including them when making comparisons within, making the statistic not very useful to say the least. If there's so much difference within a racial group, it is no way useful or rational to take an average.
i think saturnus is saying that the pan-racial variation is so much more important than the inter-racial variation that clades or groups based on "race" are insignificant.
Pan-racial variation only appears more important because because it's so much greater.
Arguably it's less important too, as inter-racial variation has a survival purpose based on the climate of the geographical location of that race. Whereas pan-racial varition, because the entire species has it, has no real basis in ability to survive.
Anyway, as BP said earlier, all categories are false; especially when it comes to humans, where so much politics is involved. For example: two supposedly seperate species of ancient human were confirmed as seperate species by the prominance of the nasal bridge and other minute differences in skull shape (the two skulls were also from roughly the same time period). If things like that can suggest different species, then surely, from a logical stand point, the races of today could be defined as seperate species.
thrashaholic
10-21-2005, 21:59
I hope Big_John already clarified what I said.
In statistics it is usually assumed that variability is not enough for categorisation. Categories are supposed to build clusters. If the overlap between races on the n-dimensional scale is too big, we cannot speak of valid categories. Of course, if there are genes that define a race, these build clusters automatically. Though there are problems with that (see further).
That example seems flawed to me. You say people consist of three genes but each of them is shown with four??
Anyway, lets assume that people have four genes, such as you named above. Now, you seem to group person 1 and 2 and person 3 and 4 into distinct races on basis that they have different genes (or rather: alleles) namely X and Y. My objection is not that groups {1,2} and {3,4} do not differ. They obviously do. But my point is that other groups would differ more. In fact {1,3} and {2,4} seem much more logical choices as categories. The same is possible for the traditional races. The genetical differences between races exist, but the traditional races are not a logical choice for categories since other categories would have higher distictiveness.
Saturnus, I think I can see what your getting at, because I think I'm getting at it too: it is the problem of categorisation. It still doesn't excuse the original assertion though: that ' the difference within races is greater than difference between' because mathematically the difference can only be equal or less. Similiar statements could be made about inter-species differences, but, like this one, they're in no way useful.
Oh and the three/four genes thing was a typing error, I was throwing down ideas as quickly as possible and missed that...
EDIT:
Thinking about it some more: even using your new categories of {1,3} and {2,4}, the differences between 1 and 4 are still the greatest, thus we could conclude that the differences between any chosen genetic categories must be greater than the differences within those categories.
Big_John
10-22-2005, 01:17
Thanks for clarifying my points!i try, sometimes. ~;)
Not only threshold but also relevance are the question. As I said, blood types constitute a genetical difference. We could also - if we wanted to - call people with manic depression disposition an ethnicitiy of their own.the difference, as i see it, is that with "race" we are talking about populations with significant shared ancestries. manic depressive people, as a group, would have no shared ancestry except for the very ancient ancestry common to all humans (including non-manic depressive people as well). does a biogeographical group like australoids have a shared ancestry that can be distinguished from other human groups? i think so, though it's an open question as to how significant that distinction is.
It is a judgement call. But it is not only the question whether there are races or not, but also what would be called a race. It would no doubt be possible to come up with a classification of genetic variability in humans that knowns entirely different categories than the classical races but makes at least as much sense genetically.and no one is disputing the creation of such classifications. however, with "race" i am talking specifically about populations with temporally proximate shared ancestries. this entails a consideration of relative geographical distributions, vis a vis mating patterns and environment. as the usage of "race" is poorly constrained, i think my definition is as good as any.
there are geographically-linked genetic clusters within the human species. there are also gradations between those clusters. does the recognition of those gradations diminish the importance of the clusters? i don't think so. there is disagreement about the genotypic support in this argument. however, if the amount of interbreeding between population groups has been historically high enough to destroy genetic distinctions (created by natural selection acting in different environments on potentially heterogenous source genotypes), wouldn't phenotypic differences be similarly 'smoothed out', as is seen in racial mixtures?
Saturnus, what is your take on Fig. 1 in Rosenberg, et al., 2002? (2nd link in post #220)
If you defend the classical races, you have to explain what makes the variability of the skin pigment genes a more important classification cue than others.i don't think melanin levels are either sufficient or necessary as an expression of race, nor more important than other phenotypic markers. if that is a tenet of the classical racial breakdown i mentioned above, i was not aware of that.
PanzerJaeger
10-22-2005, 06:33
Ser Clegane,
Nice attempt to mix up nation/society and race.
Really? Look up race in your dictionary please. :book:
race1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
6. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
7. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
I do not understand how you can give warnings based on presumed racism if you do not understand the definition yourself.
AntiochusIII
10-22-2005, 07:10
Ser Clegane,
Really? Look up race in your dictionary please. :book:
I do not understand how you can give warnings based on presumed racism if you do not understand the definition yourself.Then might I suggest the Byzantine race was superior to all unwashed barbarians, that the Byzantine race was the chosen people, and my rival suggests that the Byzantine race is a race of cheating, backstabbing, plotting bastards?
The Byzantine "race" is sooooooo controversial! Not to mention the fact that the term itself is a later invention...
Which dictionary are you using?
Besides, your original post is extremely offensive. The German race: superior? Tainted? Com'on. Be serious!
Ser Clegane
10-22-2005, 11:30
I do not understand how you can give warnings based on presumed racism if you do not understand the definition yourself.
Actually it seems that you are the one who does not now (or at least pretends to not know) what racism is.
Let's make one point very clear - you are the one who was talking about superior races and how these superior races were tainted (by inter-racial sex as this is the topic of the thread).
No matter how you define racism - this is a racist statement and therefore validates a warning. Fullstop.
To wiggle yourself out of this you created a strawman to point your finger at and to complain that you just make the same kind of statement that others do all the time.
Fact is that (at least to my knowledge - feel free to provide evidence to support your point) nobody in the Monastery threads you are obviously referring to was explicitly talking about "superior races" nor were the "Roman or Mongol fanboys" implying the inferiority of other races by making condescending remarks about "tainting".
By explicitly bringing up the "superior race" and the "hypothesis" of "tainting" via inter-racial sex you clearly infer a superiority based on birth alone not based on achievements by culture, society or a nation as a whole (as people who talk about the superiority of e.g., the Greek culture/society usually do).
It appears to me that you have no problem with making racist remarks - however, when you are called on it you frequently play innocent - seemingly not because you reject racism but because you dislike the negative connotations of being considered racist.
This will be my final reply in this thread regarding the discussion of your warning - if you want to further discuss this issue, use the means that have been laid out in earlier posts instead of using this thread as a vehicle.
scooter_the_shooter
10-22-2005, 13:19
How very generous of you,ceasar010 that you "won't hold it against" us. :rolleyes:
What exactly do you think is so "disgusting" about it?
What I meant was latino and latino good. Black and black good. etc
Black and white = odd. Latino and asian odd. I know it sounds stupid. But it just seems "weird" to me. If other people want to to do that fine. But I never will.
Soulforged
10-22-2005, 18:59
What I meant was latino and latino good. Black and black good. etc
Black and white = odd. Latino and asian odd. I know it sounds stupid. But it just seems "weird" to me. If other people want to to do that fine. But I never will.
Sorry I can't hold back. What an improper, moralist, ignorant and primitive post. But keep going on, you're entitled to your opinion.
Here comes the warning...:eeeek:
And that's what I think that this thread has been wrong from the very beggining...ufff...but... :no:
I will not retract the statement because the initial thread asked for truthful responses and requested that no one be offended. It is my opinion that some races were superior to others many years ago. Is that even racist, to believe at one point in the past some races were superior to others? You should really look for help man. I really believed that the days when someone said he/she was superior, in essence to another were over, but as always someone surprises me. This thread is specially offensive to anyone.
scooter_the_shooter
10-22-2005, 19:13
Don't worry soul I am not racist. If I see an asian and a latino couple I am not going to walk up and say "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU......WHITE POWER~:joker:
If other people want to have a mixed relation ship go ahead I wont stop you. I don't really care. I won't ever because it seems to awkward. I have 1 asian looking friend, And one black friend I'd never consider going out with them though.
I am gonna shut up before I get a warning.
PanzerJaeger
10-22-2005, 19:36
Actually it seems that you are the one who does not now (or at least pretends to not know) what racism is.
Let's make one point very clear - you are the one who was talking about superior races and how these superior races were tainted (by inter-racial sex as this is the topic of the thread).
No matter how you define racism - this is a racist statement and therefore validates a warning. Fullstop.
To wiggle yourself out of this you created a strawman to point your finger at and to complain that you just make the same kind of statement that others do all the time.
Fact is that (at least to my knowledge - feel free to provide evidence to support your point) nobody in the Monastery threads you are obviously referring to was explicitly talking about "superior races" nor were the "Roman or Mongol fanboys" implying the inferiority of other races by making condescending remarks about "tainting".
By explicitly bringing up the "superior race" and the "hypothesis" of "tainting" via inter-racial sex you clearly infer a superiority based on birth alone not based on achievements by culture, society or a nation as a whole (as people who talk about the superiority of e.g., the Greek culture/society usually do).
It appears to me that you have no problem with making racist remarks - however, when you are called on it you frequently play innocent - seemingly not because you reject racism but because you dislike the negative connotations of being considered racist.
This will be my final reply in this thread regarding the discussion of your warning - if you want to further discuss this issue, use the means that have been laid out in earlier posts instead of using this thread as a vehicle.
Ahh the old hit and run. "You are bad because of XYZ, but dont try and argue about it because I wont respond." I figured you were above that.
Ok, heres the reality of the situation.
You saw words such as "superior races" and "tainted" and prematurely issued a warning based on negative conations you attached to those words, instead of asking me to edit my post and make myself clearer.
In my defense I gave you clear facts that show that particular races were superior to others in every measurable way. You have since been unable to dispute those facts. Still the warning stays.
I also demonstrated that you do not know what the definition of race fully entails. From your reaction to the words "superior" and "tainted", I would wager you do not know the actual meanings of those words either - but instead have the same skewed interpretation that you had with the word "race". Still the warning stays.
You did not give me a chance to explain or even edit my post. You cannot dispute the facts presented in my post. You did not know the proper definition of the word "race". Yet, you feel justified in issuing the above mentioned warning and labeling people racist?
Those are the facts. From this point I can only hypothesize.
Because it was me who made the statement and later I gave Germans as an example of what I was talking about, you decided to issue a warning based on preconceived notions you have about me. Thats ok.. mostly my fault anyway.
What is bothersome, however, is when I fully explained the situation and what I was talking about, you still desperately cling to your viewpoint and refuse to acknowledge my explanation.
You continually bring up the words "race", "superior", and "tainted" as if they are bad. I used them accurately to describe the situation between the races before and after the transportation revolution. You, however, have shown you do not know the proper definition of one of those words.. at least.
The warning and the moderator-driven uproar was lousy and has more to do with preconceived notions about myself than what was actually posted.
A.Saturnus
10-22-2005, 19:37
Saturnus, I think I can see what your getting at, because I think I'm getting at it too: it is the problem of categorisation. It still doesn't excuse the original assertion though: that ' the difference within races is greater than difference between' because mathematically the difference can only be equal or less. Similiar statements could be made about inter-species differences, but, like this one, they're in no way useful.
You´re of course right with that. The total amount of difference between any two groups must be greater than the difference within that group. What I mean is the difference between races not attributed to individual differences. Consider the following groups of numbers: {1, 9, 411, 1024} and {2, 9, 411, 1025}. The differences within the groups are quite large, but the two groups look quite similar, don´t you think?
Soulforged
10-22-2005, 20:01
Don't worry soul I am not racist. If I see an asian and a latino couple I am not going to walk up and say "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU......WHITE POWER~:joker: Glad to hear it...However I was refering to the comment, I cannot possibly know a person through a chat room or a forum. Let's say that all goes in tastes, but saying certain race is first a false category and second, making the eternal discrimitative cliche of including all person of a same race (whatever you call it), is not a good actitude (In my opinion). In any case I think that you should say, certain people don't atract me because I don't like their visual configuration...that's natural and acceptable.
You continually bring up the words "race", "superior", and "tainted" as if they are bad. I used them accurately to describe the situation between the races before and after the transportation revolution. You, however, have shown you do not know the proper definition of one of those words.. at least. No you didn't used them accurately, and I hope you don't run too this time. You said tainted, curious, how a race becames tainted?. You said race: What is race? The definitions given by the dictionary are not sufficient. If I go to USA now I'll continue to be a latino, even when I fully adapted myself to the american way of life (whatever that's). If a german goes to France, does he lose the german category? Of course not, because that never existed. You're basing all your incorrect assumptions in a false category as pointed out previously, and still you want to defend your racist comments. The mods were not the only ones offended by them, you see...Even if you want to create an arbitrary category: How that becomes superior to the others? If I born greek in the 3rd century BC, will I be superior to the Persians? What if I born greek in this century? Does the fact of being greek makes someone superior? Of course not. I could live in ancient Greece (or any of the greek states), eat their food, work like they do, preach the same Gods, even walk the same way...And at the same time be an ignorant, a plain stupid person, a ruthless and merciless one, a tyran...
A.Saturnus
10-22-2005, 20:33
the difference, as i see it, is that with "race" we are talking about populations with significant shared ancestries. manic depressive people, as a group, would have no shared ancestry except for the very ancient ancestry common to all humans (including non-manic depressive people as well). does a biogeographical group like australoids have a shared ancestry that can be distinguished from other human groups? i think so, though it's an open question as to how significant that distinction is.
What is non-arbitrary about choosing ancestry as categorisation criterion? People with the same ancestors can be genetically distal. Unless a classification schema is found that can be shown to be clearly superior to others, I don´t see the need for population labels.
there are geographically-linked genetic clusters within the human species. there are also gradations between those clusters. does the recognition of those gradations diminish the importance of the clusters? i don't think so. there is disagreement about the genotypic support in this argument. however, if the amount of interbreeding between population groups has been historically high enough to destroy genetic distinctions (created by natural selection acting in different environments on potentially heterogenous source genotypes), wouldn't phenotypic differences be similarly 'smoothed out', as is seen in racial mixtures?
Saturnus, what is your take on Fig. 1 in Rosenberg, et al., 2002? (2nd link in post #220)
The recognition of gradation diminishes the reality of clusters. The concept of 'cluster' is incompatible with a high amount of gradiation.
That genetic variation correlates with distance is hardly surprising, but that alone doesn´t constitute clusters. Now, Rosenberg et al seems to be evidence for genetical clusters, but the genetical differences between these clusters are undoubtly very small. Just look at Table 1.
Aurelian
10-22-2005, 20:53
If other people want to have a mixed relation ship go ahead I wont stop you. I don't really care. I won't ever because it seems to awkward. I have 1 asian looking friend, And one black friend I'd never consider going out with them though. - Caesar010
So, you're saying you would turn down Salma Hayek?
Or the infinite number of hotties on Univision?
That's just so wrong. ~D
That being said, I think that it's legitimate to have taste preferences when it comes to the ladies. I very rarely find myself attracted to women who are very distinct, racially, from myself. It's not really a "racial" issue I think, but rather one of features and proportions. Studies have shown that people around the world tend to find similar facial proportions 'beautiful', so there appears to be a middle ground of universal human beauty... a zone that we can all appreciate. It may be that human racial groupings, by reinforcing the recessive gene traits in a limited pool of people over time, leads to local beauty standards that are acceptable within the population, but deviate from the shared human middle ground.
As an example, I generally don't find myself attracted to women of West African descent (although Naomi Campbell would do just fine). I have been more attracted, however, to some women of Ethiopian descent, a region where the gene pool between negroid and middle eastern peoples is blurry. Similarly, I have been hugely attracted to several women who were of mixed Anglo-American and African-American descent.
For me, the same is true with Latin American populations. I'm generally not attracted to the Central American women I see here who are of unmixed indigenous descent. However, I find mestizo Latin American women to be some of the most beautiful in the world.
Again, I chalk it up to smoothing out the expression of recessive genes within populations that were relatively isolated over a long period of time.
Ser Clegane
10-22-2005, 22:08
@PJ (and anybody who cares
I laid out my position, you laid out yours. I have seen nothing in your arguments that would change my position - the same is obviously true for you.
I'll leave it to others to form their own view based on what they read in this thread.
My interpretation of racism and the application of forum rules with regard to racist statements remain unchanged.
:bow:
Papewaio
10-23-2005, 06:24
In my defense I gave you clear facts that show that particular races were superior to others in every measurable way. You have since been unable to dispute those facts. Still the warning stays.
You are mixing up the cause for superiority. It was not genes it was memes.
And the memes are better because of mixing not the lack thereof.
Ser Clegane
10-23-2005, 10:54
I also demonstrated that you do not know what the definition of race fully entails. From your reaction to the words "superior" and "tainted", I would wager you do not know the actual meanings of those words either - but instead have the same skewed interpretation that you had with the word "race". Still the warning stays.
Sorry for being a bit persistant, but I cannot resist the urge to follow-up on that one.
Coming from somebody who obviously changes his perception of the meaning of the term "race" depending on which situation he has to wiggle himself out of, this statement really is quite rich.
You might want to take a look at the following threads/statements:
From post #157 of this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=784205&highlight=race#post784205)
Explain to me how the palestinians are a race? I am ethnically German, does that make me a different race than a dutchman?
From posts #41, #63and #74 of this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43766&page=2&highlight=race)
Hmm.. thinking that being palestinian is a race is not moronic?
...
Id like Jag to explain how being palestinian is a race, or apologize to me for calling me a racist.
...
Actually, im having some trouble with your logic. I was a german, now im american. Am i part of the german race or the american race?
From post #95 in this thread
(https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=698361&highlight=race#post698361)
Hey Jag, since your apparently hanging out in here now, why dont you explain your theory on how nationality equates to race.. Are you a member of the english race?
Actually I am kind of looking forward to see you enlightening this forum by also revealing the "actial meaning" of the word "tainted"
Ironside
10-23-2005, 12:48
I'm curious on PJ oppinions on when these superior Germans existed (as Germany as a state didn't exist until 1870:tish IIRC. It's young in any case) and when they were tainted (and by who).
In my defense I gave you clear facts that show that particular races were superior to others in every measurable way. You have since been unable to dispute those facts. Still the warning stays.
And PJ one question.
Would an average German born in a "inferior" (as superior people implies that it exist inferior people) country and grown up with the native culture generetically preform better than a native, in your oppinion? And the opposite ("inferior" born and raised in Germany)?
But all violent fundamentalism is Islamic.
Cristians seems to have been covered, but I can add Hindus on violent religious fundamentalists. Read about the treatment of caste-less people that is trying to improve thier life and what some high caste people do to keep them in place.
On the subject. As long they're hot and got good personality, I'll say go for it. ~;) IMO some races is hotter than other, but that's only personal taste.
Big_John
10-23-2005, 17:50
What is non-arbitrary about choosing ancestry as categorisation criterion? People with the same ancestors can be genetically distal. Unless a classification schema is found that can be shown to be clearly superior to others, I don´t see the need for population labels.lineage is fundamental to the concept of race, which is what we are talking about. ancestry is an integral aspect of natural selection, since it shapes the source genomes.
The recognition of gradation diminishes the reality of clusters.i disagree. in my view, the observed gradations reinforce the idea of historical biogeographical genetic clusters.
The concept of 'cluster' is incompatible with a high amount of gradiation.the greatest gradations exist within "eurasia", between classical caucasoid and mongoloid groups, broadly. so you could argue that those 'races' are not distinct enough to differentiate (as of today). depending on the history of the eurasian region, there may or may not have been past more-coherent caucasoid and mongoloid clusters/'races'.
in any case, the gradations seen radiating from/into relatively more isolated groups (negroid, australoid), are less notable.
That genetic variation correlates with distance is hardly surprising, but that alone doesn´t constitute clusters.it doesn't alone constitute clusters, but it is part of the mechanism that leads to them.
Now, Rosenberg et al seems to be evidence for genetical clusters, but the genetical differences between these clusters are undoubtly very small. Just look at Table 1.5% variance between population groups is a biologically significant figure to me. studies like rosenberg et al support that notion. that a blind statistical analysis can resolve biogeographical genetic groups is very persuasive.
Soulforged
10-23-2005, 23:54
Actually I am kind of looking forward to see you enlightening this forum by also revealing the "actial meaning" of the word "tainted"Yes he didn't answered that question before. I think that the one hitting and running is him. ~:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.