Racism: To judge someone based solely on their race. Going by the definition everyone is racist. If you don't think you are, then let me ask you this question. Suppose you are on your way to meeting someone and you find out the person is of African descent, rather than European or Asian descent. Would you or would you not assume this person to have a darker skin complexion if asked for your thoughts about it? Certainly and very reasonably anyone would assume the person would have a darker skin complexion. With that said you could easily see how everyone makes harmless judgments based on someone's race. It is the irrational judgments that cause all of the hate and violence we see between different races.
Prejudice: Holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. It is when we combine racism and prejudice that people come to form ignorant ideas about a person or group based solely on their race. I'm sure we have all heard what are basically harmless stereotypes. Things like white people can't dance, or black people are too loud. Now these things may or may not be true, I'm not here to argue about the specifics. What I am arguing is that when we start to use race as a way of judging someone’s character, or to determine how fair we treat them, we can see how the ignorance of men leads to the violence between different races of any kind.
Is it ever reasonable to judge a person's character based on race? Some may argue that over time people have formed what they would like to call reasonable judgments about the character of men based on their race. Examples could be, whites are arrogant, blacks are stupid, or Asians are timid. Most of these preconceived notions have been passed down from generation to generation never being questioned. Simply and undoubtedly they become what are otherwise cold hard facts for a people's culture. In fact most of these judgments stem from our ancestors who needed an excuse to smear, attack, or enslave a certain race of people.
This mode of thinking is absolutely unreasonable for the man who disconnects from his culture and becomes an individual. He knows the only way to know the truth about another man is to know him either through interacting with them or through observing their actions and understanding their motives. Obviously every person is a completely unique composition of mind, body, and consciousness. It should never be regarded as responsible or reasonable to form prejudice about such vast groups of human beings. To say the consequences of this ignorant thinking is damaging would be an understatement.
I live in the most racially segregated area in the USA, area being Detroit, Michigan. The race riots of the 60's and 70's combined with the continued sharp divide of whites and blacks along city borders has turned what was one of the most prominent cities in the country into a place of decay, extreme poverty, and violence. There are efforts being made to revive the city, which has had mild success in the downtown area. Yet these efforts will all be in vein if the racial divide between cities remains. Even as one race leaves the city for the suburbs, the people of the suburbs then spread out even further. Urban sprawl is now rapidly destroying the surrounding environment and eating up land at rate far above the national average. The consequences stemming from racial prejudice are more damaging than one might have imagined to begin with. Just as when a raindrop hits the water it ripples through out the entire body of water. Racial Prejudice continues to cause more damage on an increasingly larger scale.
Racism
Nick, of course what you say is quite logical but unfortunately the meanings attached to certain words play an essential part in forming a human psyche. Other than their direct meanings, see what the words Black and White stand for.
A poem nominated for the best poem of 2005 written by an African kid;
When I born, I black,
When I grow up, I black,
When I go in the sun, I black,
When I cold, I black,
When I scared, I black,
When I sick, I black,
And when I die I black.
And you white fella,
When you born, you pink,
When you grow up, you white,
When you go in the sun, you red,
When you cold, you blue,
When you scared, you yellow,
When you sick, you green,
When you die, you gray,
And you call me colored???
Basically, Black = Evil, White = Good. Sadly, even the so called “blacks†or “dark skinned†people themselves believe to be inferior. Both, the whites as well as the blacks need to be educated.Webster:
Main Entry: 1black
Pronunciation: 'blak
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English blak, from Old English blæc; akin to Old High German blah black, and probably to Latin flagrare to burn, Greek phlegein
1 a : of the color black b (1) : very dark in color <his face was black with rage> (2) : having a very deep or low register <a bass with a black voice> (3) : HEAVY, SERIOUS <the play was a black intrigue>
2 a : having dark skin, hair, and eyes : SWARTHY <the black Irish> b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin <black Americans> (2) : of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>
3 : dressed in black
4 : DIRTY, SOILED <hands black with grime>
5 a : characterized by the absence of light <a black night> b : reflecting or transmitting little or no light <black water> c : served without milk or cream <black coffee>
6 a : thoroughly sinister or evil : WICKED <a black deed> b : indicative of condemnation or discredit <got a black mark for being late>
7 : connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil <black magic>
8 a : very sad, gloomy, or calamitous <black despair> b : marked by the occurrence of disaster <black Friday>
9 : characterized by hostility or angry discontent : SULLEN <black resentment filled his heart>
10 chiefly British : subject to boycott by trade-union members as employing or favoring nonunion workers or as operating under conditions considered unfair by the trade union
11 a of propaganda : conducted so as to appear to originate within an enemy country and designed to weaken enemy morale b : characterized by or connected with the use of black propaganda <black radio>
12 : characterized by grim, distorted, or grotesque satire <black humor>
13 : of or relating to covert intelligence operations <black government programs>
- black·ish /'bla-kish/ adjective
- black·ly adverb
- black·ness noun
Main Entry: 1white
Pronunciation: 'hwIt, 'wIt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): whit·er; whit·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwIt; akin to Old High German hwIz white and probably to Old Church Slavic svetu light, Sanskrit sveta white, bright
1 a : free from color b : of the color of new snow or milk; specifically : of the color white c : light or pallid in color <white hair> <lips white with fear> d : lustrous pale gray : SILVERY; also : made of silver
2 a : being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin b : of, relating to, characteristic of, or consisting of white people or their culture c [from the former stereotypical association of good character with northern European descent] : marked by upright fairness <that's mighty white of you>
3 : free from spot or blemish: as a (1) : free from moral impurity : INNOCENT (2) : marked by the wearing of white by the woman as a symbol of purity <a white wedding> b : unmarked by writing or printing c : not intended to cause harm <a white lie> <white magic> d : FAVORABLE, FORTUNATE <one of the white days of his life -- Sir Walter Scott>
4 a : wearing or habited in white b : marked by the presence of snow : SNOWY <a white Christmas>
5 a : heated to the point of whiteness b : notably ardent : PASSIONATE <white fury>
6 a : conservative or reactionary in political outlook and action b : instigated or carried out by reactionary forces as a counterrevolutionary measure <a white terror>
7 : of, relating to, or constituting a musical tone quality characterized by a controlled pure sound, a lack of warmth and color, and a lack of resonance
8 : consisting of a wide range of frequencies -- used of light, sound, and electromagnetic radiation
- whit·ish /'hwI-tish, 'wI-/ adjective
A poem nominated for the best poem of 2005 written by an African kid;
When I born, I black,
When I grow up, I black,
When I go in the sun, I black,
When I cold, I black,
When I scared, I black,
When I sick, I black,
And when I die I black.
And you white fella,
When you born, you pink,
When you grow up, you white,
When you go in the sun, you red,
When you cold, you blue,
When you scared, you yellow,
When you sick, you green,
When you die, you gray,
And you call me colored???
---------
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
lightsmitten
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:04 am
- Location: Teutondom
- Contact:
Re: Racism
I think a distinciton should be made between racism (essentially an extreme form of xenophobia), and racialism. Racialism is the belief that (a) racial differences are accumulated individual differences which cannot be fully accounted for by nongenetic factors, and (b) this has important impliciations in the formulation of public policy.
I think most instances of racial prejudice would more accurately be termed post-judice: a judgment - either rational or irrational - made after having an experience.user Nick wrote:Prejudice: Holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
See Website below.
The ignorance of our simple minded ancestors may have caused this. I'm sure our ancestors were affraid of the dark, and felt more comfortable in the day time. So when white people saw dark peole for the first time they associated them with the fear they experienced during the night, creating all kinds of ignorant view points of dark-skinned people. Although I remember at a very young age when I was looking through a book and my mother called a dark skinned person black I asked her, "Why are they called black people if they are brown?" This leads me to think that not all racial prejudice if any of it is driven by with the "black/white association" theory you stated.Sapius wrote:Nick, of course what you say is quite logical but unfortunately the meanings attached to certain words play an essential part in forming a human psyche. Other than their direct meanings, see what the words Black and White stand for.
Sadly, even the so called “blacks†or “dark skinned†people themselves believe to be inferior. Both, the whites as well as the blacks need to be educated.
Re: Racism
I made a distinction between racism, which I regarded as the method in which we identify a general popluation by their physical appearance. This is how we distinguish difference races in the first place. And racial prejudice, which I regarded as the ignorant judgement of a man's character based solely on their race. Simply because there is no pure white race, or pure black race. The shade of a person's skin and genetic makeup varys in each individual. You could argue that technically each person is actually their own unique race.lightsmitten wrote:I think a distinciton should be made between racism (essentially an extreme form of xenophobia), and racialism. Racialism is the belief that (a) racial differences are accumulated individual differences which cannot be fully accounted for by nongenetic factors, and (b) this has important impliciations in the formulation of public policy.
I think most instances of racial prejudice would more accurately be termed post-judice: a judgment - either rational or irrational - made after having an experience.user Nick wrote:Prejudice: Holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
Your definitions are wrong....
Your definition of racism is actually the definition of racialism.
Your definition of racial prejudice is actually the definition of racism.
Racial prejudice does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. It just has to be a thing you believe before having any evidence. For example if I were to say "Asians are good at math" that would be just as prejudiced as "white men can't jump"
Your definition of racial prejudice is actually the definition of racism.
Racial prejudice does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. It just has to be a thing you believe before having any evidence. For example if I were to say "Asians are good at math" that would be just as prejudiced as "white men can't jump"
-
lightsmitten
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:04 am
- Location: Teutondom
- Contact:
Re: Racism
Mere identification? But physical appearances can have behavioural and cognitive correlates. For instance, would it be rational to judge that a creature whose physical structure is more resemblent of a crocodile is more likely to be a danger to me than a creature whose physical structure is more resemblent of a chicken? Is it wrong for me to judge an individual cockroach to be less intelligent than a human being based on the physical appearances of both creatures? Or am I irrationally discriminating against the cockroach without judging it on its individual merits?user Nick wrote:I made a distinction between racism, which I regarded as the method in which we identify a general popluation by their physical appearance.
Evolution tells us that when different species and subspecies in the animal kingdom have different physical appearances, such differences are almost always accompanied with different behavioural tendencies. Human subspecies, called races, are no exception, for they evolved under vastly different environments (with relative geographic isolation) and were not subjected to the same selective pressures for tens of thousands of years.
When humans migrated out of Africa into glacial environments, the extreme cold weather subjected them to selective pressures which favoured the development of certain cognitive abilities and increased the demand for parental investment (behaviour genecists call this the K selected evolutionary strategy). They had to be able to construct shelters, build fires, make clothes, plan ahead for food, discover methods for storing food, discover new sources of food, make clothes, invent complex tools for hunting and making clothes, and so on. Those who could not adapt to that environment perished. This is particularly true of the populations which evolved in circumpolar regions (north Asians, north Europeans, and Eskimos). It led to increased brain size and intelligence amongst these races as well as differences in physical appearance (e.g., the epicanthic amongst Asians). Africans, of course, continued to live and evolve in tropical environments
I thus think that judging humans based on their physical appearance, i.e. their race, can sometimes be a very rational thing to do, particularly in the formulation of public policy, as differences in appearance correlate with differences in behaviour and intelligence.
The criteria used for racial classification are genetically based. Genetic distance measures, fed into a procedure called principal component analysis, produce essentially the same racial classifications used traditionally by physical anthropologists.user Nick wrote:You could argue that technically each person is actually their own unique race.
It would also be in accord with scientific evidence. Asians, on the average, are better at mathematics than other races. This has been demonstrated in numerous cross-cultural studies on cognitive abilities. To say that Asians are generally good at maths can easily be post-judice - a judgment made after experience - not prejudice - a judgment made before experience.user Rory wrote:For example if I were to say "Asians are good at math" that would be just as prejudiced as "white men can't jump"
Last edited by lightsmitten on Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
See Website below.
Re: Your definitions are wrong....
Actually I was aware that the defintion I gave to the word racism wasn't exactly what it was in the dictionary. And I did not define the word "racial prejudice", I simply defined prejudice. I had to do this because honestly I never heard of the word racialism before. This is why I compared racism and racial prejudice, rather than racism and racialism. I had to make a distinction somewhere.Rory wrote:Your definition of racism is actually the definition of racialism.
Your definition of racial prejudice is actually the definition of racism.
Racial prejudice does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. It just has to be a thing you believe before having any evidence. For example if I were to say "Asians are good at math" that would be just as prejudiced as "white men can't jump"
Re: Racism
Well, I am talking about human beings, and only human beings. Not how we differntiate between entirely different species. I agree there's theorys out there, which explain how different races evolved, that are very logical and most likely true. Afterall there would not be different races if there wasn't a reason for it, I'm not doubting that. Although, just as you and I have both said, no two human beings are exactly the same. So to lump an entire race into a certain category or level of intelligence would be very irrational. Which is why using this as an excuse for racial prejudice is something which will only serve as a tool for the ignorant and unfair inhibition of people. I especially think that any public policy based on the race of humans serves no good purpose. If you think otherwise, please give an example of where a public policy based on race might do good on serving mankind.lightsmitten wrote:Mere identification? But physical appearances can have behavioural and cognitive correlates. For instance, would it be rational to judge that a creature whose physical structure is more resemblent of a crocodile is more likely to be a danger to me than a creature whose physical structure is more resemblent of a chicken? Is it wrong for me to judge an individual cockroach to be less intelligent than a human being based on the physical appearances of both creatures? Or am I irrationally discriminating against the cockroach without judging it on its individual merits?
Evolution tells us that when different species and subspecies in the animal kingdom have different physical appearances, such differences are almost always accompanied with different behavioural tendencies. Human subspecies, called races, are no exception, for they evolved under vastly different environments (with relative geographic isolation) and were not subjected to the same selective pressures for tens of thousands of years.
When humans migrated out of Africa into glacial environments, the extreme cold weather subjected them to selective pressures which favoured the development of certain cognitive abilities and increased the demand for parental investment (behaviour genecists call this the K selected evolutionary strategy). They had to be able to construct shelters, build fires, make clothes, plan ahead for food, discover methods for storing food, discover new sources of food, make clothes, invent complex tools for hunting and making clothes, and so on. Those who could not adapt to that environment perished. This is particularly true of the populations which evolved in circumpolar regions (north Asians, north Europeans, and Eskimos). It led to increased brain size and intelligence amongst these races as well as differences in physical appearance (e.g., the epicanthic amongst Asians). Africans, of course, continued to live and evolve in tropical environments
I thus think that judging humans based on their physical appearance, i.e. their race, can sometimes be a very rational thing to do, particularly in the formulation of public policy; but it must always be borne in mind that not all individuals cluster around the average for their race in any proclivity and that there will always be exceptions to the rule. Although races do differ on the average in many socioculturally relevant areas, there is considerable overlap and this must always be taken into consideration.
Not really - every definition of race requires an organism to be genetically related to some other organism. It's sort of like arguing that every individual car is it's own brand.The shade of a person's skin and genetic makeup varys in each individual. You could argue that technically each person is actually their own unique race.
Actually I was aware that the defintion I gave to the word racism wasn't exactly what it was in the dictionary.
Your definition was basically analagous with the word discrimination o.o
Pitbulls and poodles may all be one species, though I don't see why it's 'irrational' to notice they're two distinct sub-specific groups (i.e. races) and categorize them.Although, just as you and I have both said, no two human beings are exactly the same. So to lump an entire race into a certain category or level of intelligence would be very irrational.
Which is why using this as an excuse for racial prejudice is something which will only serve as a tool for the ignorant and unfair inhibition of people. I especially think that any public policy based on the race of humans serves no good purpose.
ra·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "racialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-lzm)
n.
1.
1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
Race is frequently used a factor in forming public policy. If prison's didn't take race into account when micromanaging the prison population the frequency of rioting and violent confrontations would skyrocket.
States function best when they consist of and serve the interests of a single people - multicultural polities and a fortiori multi-racial ones can be held together only by prosperity (e.g. America, Czechoslovakia, Austria-Hungary), governmental repression and violence (e.g Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire), or both (e.g. USSR)If you think otherwise, please give an example of where a public policy based on race might do good on serving mankind.
The first model is the weakest since all nations face bad times as well as good. The Austro-Hungarian Empire lost one war and simply ceased to exist - whereas countries like Germany and Poland have faced epic hardships and defeats, been diced up, occupied, (and in Poland's case repeatedly removed from the map entirely) and they remain.
The second model is arguably stronger (since while economic success can't always be produced, violence can) though it is equally doomed to failure. Yugoslavia died without the Tito's secret police and repression of dissent.
The world's only superpower is struggling to make this model work in Iraq. Three countries can live under one name, though only with a Saddam convincing them at knifepoint to do so.
The USSR is the best example of the third model. Once it's prosperity faded, (and the soviet military was to weak to prevent it) it's various people's decided to dissolve the union and adopt smaller governments which could much better serve their ethnic interests.
Diversity offers nothing but the tautological benefit of increasing diversity. It ensures violence, and eventually, inevitably political secession.
In no zoo will you find two subspecies housed in a single living space, because it's cruel and no two subspecies ever live occupy a single territory in nature - yet among Western leftists not only is it percieved as competent to force humans into living like this - it's a moral ideal.
America - like all the other countries on the list - will join the dustbin of history. It will 'collapse' a la the USSR into polities which better represent it's constituent peoples.
Comparing cars and dogs to human beings is superfluous. You can dice up the human species into as many races as you want, we are still each unique individual humans. Not a single one of us are identical. There is also a huge difference between decisions made with public policy and prison policy, another superfluous comparison.La Verdad wrote:Not really - every definition of race requires an organism to be genetically related to some other organism. It's sort of like arguing that every individual car is it's own brand.The shade of a person's skin and genetic makeup varys in each individual. You could argue that technically each person is actually their own unique race.
Actually I was aware that the defintion I gave to the word racism wasn't exactly what it was in the dictionary.
Your definition was basically analagous with the word discrimination o.o
Pitbulls and poodles may all be one species, though I don't see why it's 'irrational' to notice they're two distinct sub-specific groups (i.e. races) and categorize them.Although, just as you and I have both said, no two human beings are exactly the same. So to lump an entire race into a certain category or level of intelligence would be very irrational.
Which is why using this as an excuse for racial prejudice is something which will only serve as a tool for the ignorant and unfair inhibition of people. I especially think that any public policy based on the race of humans serves no good purpose.
ra·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "racialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-lzm)
n.
1.
1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
Race is frequently used a factor in forming public policy. If prison's didn't take race into account when micromanaging the prison population the frequency of rioting and violent confrontations would skyrocket.
Obviously this is a problem that stems deeper than the indifferences between races. This requires one to question human nature as a whole.La Verdad wrote:States function best when they consist of and serve the interests of a single people - multicultural polities and a fortiori multi-racial ones can be held together only by prosperity (e.g. America, Czechoslovakia, Austria-Hungary), governmental repression and violence (e.g Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire), or both (e.g. USSR)If you think otherwise, please give an example of where a public policy based on race might do good on serving mankind.
The first model is the weakest since all nations face bad times as well as good. The Austro-Hungarian Empire lost one war and simply ceased to exist - whereas countries like Germany and Poland have faced epic hardships and defeats, been diced up, occupied, (and in Poland's case repeatedly removed from the map entirely) and they remain.
The second model is arguably stronger (since while economic success can't always be produced, violence can) though it is equally doomed to failure. Yugoslavia died without the Tito's secret police and repression of dissent.
The world's only superpower is struggling to make this model work in Iraq. Three countries can live under one name, though only with a Saddam convincing them at knifepoint to do so.
The USSR is the best example of the third model. Once it's prosperity faded, (and the soviet military was to weak to prevent it) it's various people's decided to dissolve the union and adopt smaller governments which could much better serve their ethnic interests.
Diversity offers nothing but the tautological benefit of increasing diversity. It ensures violence, and eventually, inevitably political secession.
In no zoo will you find two subspecies housed in a single living space, because it's cruel and no two subspecies ever live occupy a single territory in nature - yet among Western leftists not only is it percieved as competent to force humans into living like this - it's a moral ideal.
America - like all the other countries on the list - will join the dustbin of history. It will 'collapse' a la the USSR into polities which better represent it's constituent peoples.
Firstly I'm not comparing human beings to cars, and secondly the pitbulls & poodles comparison is a good one.Comparing cars and dogs to human beings is superfluous. You can dice up the human species into as many races as you want, we are still each unique individual humans. Not a single one of us are identical.
Considering we live in an age where the effects of perscriptions can vary based on the race of the patient (http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2004/11/daw ... ation.html)taking a three monkeys position on the issue of race isn't really the best one available.
As people drawn from the general public are the ones who are affected by prison policy it is an aspect of public policy.There is also a huge difference between decisions made with public policy and prison policy, another superfluous comparison.
It's odd you point out the obscurity of this societal policy and then hardly respond to the observation which followed it which focused on the extremely broad subject of how to best organize human societies.
Yes - human nature as it relates to how peoples of differing phenotypes (and cultures) interact.Obviously this is a problem that stems deeper than the indifferences between races. This requires one to question human nature as a whole.
-
lightsmitten
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:04 am
- Location: Teutondom
- Contact:
My point was that it can be perfectly reasonable to judge groups based on their physical appearance when it correlates with behavioural tendencies. This is the case with different species. It also happens to be the cases with human races, though the differences are obviously not as pronounced. Different physical appearances are almost always accompanied with different behavioural tendencies.user Nick wrote:Well, I am talking about human beings, and only human beings. Not how we differntiate between entirely different species.
Classification does not require a total homogeneity of the individuals falling under a given category. Dogs can be classified by breed, even though every dog is a unique individual which differs from all other dogs. (It is worth noting, in this connexion, that dogs have greater genetic homogeneity than human beings.)user Nick wrote:Although, just as you and I have both said, no two human beings are exactly the same. So to lump an entire race into a certain category or level of intelligence would be very irrational.
Racial classification can also be used as kind of tool to determine the kind of medical treatment an individual may require. Asians, for instance, are more sensitive to medication for schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, etc., and generally require lower dosages. Blacks are more susceptible to prostrate cancer because they have higher levels of testosterone. Because their hearts beat faster than Whites whilst doing moderate exercise, they are more susceptible to hypertension. Blacks are also several times more likely to have AIDS. Knowledge of of an individual's race can be of crucial importance in medical treatment.user Nick wrote:Which is why using this as an excuse for racial prejudice is something which will only serve as a tool for the ignorant and unfair inhibition of people.
It can also be an important consideration in education, because different races have different learning capacities. Race differences in brain chemistry are manifested during problem solving; some races display lower glucose levels while performing the same mental tasks. The average brain size (which is correlated with number of cortical neurons) is also different between races, and brain size is known to have a correlation of .44 with intelligence. Blacks score 15 points lower than Whites on IQ tests, and Asians score 6 points above Whites. The same intelligence differences are also reflected in trans-racial adoption studies. Surely all of this has important implications in education.
I think our immigration policy must take the heredity of immigrants into account. Is it rational to fight academic failure by importing people who have a below average intelligence? Is it rational to fight AIDS by importing people who are far more likely to suffer from viral maladies? Is it rational to fight crime by importing people who are more likely to be criminals? These are perfectly reasonable things to be concerned about.user Nick wrote:If you think otherwise, please give an example of where a public policy based on race might do good on serving mankind.
Last edited by lightsmitten on Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
See Website below.
La Verdad and lightsmitten, I am not denying that there are some significant differences between races, which need to be taken into account in certain instances. In fact I am saying just the opposite, and taking it a step further to point out that there are many significant differences between even the individual. What I am arguing is that a man's character should never be judged prior to knowing or understand him or his motives. There are simply too many factors which shape the character of every individual. Any assumptions you make about a man's character based on race are far more likely to be false, rather than true.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
La Verdad:
I’m not sure I understand what appears to me to be a leap in the completion/flow of your ideas, here. You start by clearly categorising three forms of governing racially diverse publics (despite the ideal lying in serving the interests of a “single peopleâ€) and end only with a statement about the “moral idealism†of leftists.
In your opening statement, how exactly are you defining this abstract notion of a “single people�
In your piece, you say:
.
I’m not sure I understand what appears to me to be a leap in the completion/flow of your ideas, here. You start by clearly categorising three forms of governing racially diverse publics (despite the ideal lying in serving the interests of a “single peopleâ€) and end only with a statement about the “moral idealism†of leftists.
In your opening statement, how exactly are you defining this abstract notion of a “single people�
In your piece, you say:
Very interesting. I never considered the US as leftist before -- especially with Bush at the helm. But I think you’re right; albeit government through violence in the homeland does not manifest on the scale of “knifepoint†as you say it must in Iraq.The world's only superpower is struggling to make this model work in Iraq. Three countries can live under one name, though only with a Saddam convincing them at knifepoint to do so.
.
I don't believe race has an impact on character. Where I think we disagree is in the belief that multicultural societies are viable (or that during their short lifespans they can be as peaceful or economically successful as homogenous societies).La Verdad and lightsmitten, I am not denying that there are some significant differences between races, which need to be taken into account in certain instances. In fact I am saying just the opposite, and taking it a step further to point out that there are many significant differences between even the individual. What I am arguing is that a man's character should never be judged prior to knowing or understand him or his motives. There are simply too many factors which shape the character of every individual. Any assumptions you make about a man's character based on race are far more likely to be false, rather than true.
Part of this notion is abstract, though the greater part of it is not. By "single people" I mean a people with a very large phenotypical similarity.La Verdad:
I’m not sure I understand what appears to me to be a leap in the completion/flow of your ideas, here. You start by clearly categorising three forms of governing racially diverse publics (despite the ideal lying in serving the interests of a “single peopleâ€) and end only with a statement about the “moral idealism†of leftists.
In your opening statement, how exactly are you defining this abstract notion of a “single people�
The second part of this singularity is mental. The Romans considered themselves "The people of the Seven Hills". Although the phenotypic variations between a 'Roman' in Gaul, and a 'Roman' in north Africa must've been considerable, they still viewed themselves as a single nation.
If the proverb goes "When in Rome do as the Romans do", then our attitude runs more along the lines of "When in America, do as you did before you got here."
After 1965 America stopped striving to be a metling pot and became a salad bowl. We stopped caring if the people who came here would acculturate rapidly - or acculturate at all for that matter, and our relaxation of immigration standards reflected that.
I don't think the 2nd ingredient - the mental ingredient - can alone hold a nation together, since it's a just a belief, and building a nation on electrical activity in the brain is buildig a house on sand.
Belief can create countries - as it eventually did with the long delayed and much protested unifications of Italy and Germany - though they will not last without the phenotypic similiarity - so the average man in the street can look upon his neighbor and having an unspoken, unconscious feeling of kinship, of being part of an extended family.
The lack of this feeling helps explain why after the attack on Pearl Harbor people got fake IDs so they could join the army and get revenge, whereas today our government has made pacts with Mexico and Canada ensuring that attempts to flee during a draft will result in deportation back to America.
People will die, suffer, sacrifice for their family - no one is inclined to do the same for a non-filial organization. And that is what America has become - an atomized, historyless, deracinated collection of "Citizens of the World" whose only
real bond to one another is that they pay taxes to the same government and live within the same invisible lines on a map.
As for my ideal of a single nation, the best model in this regard is Japan. They have been able to become as powerful as the modern nations of West without succumbing to the disease of multiculturalism. I'd attribute this to it's being an island - though in our age of cheap and rapid global travel that's not a very important factor (a quick glance at 'Londonistan' will confirm this).
The slave traders made America a multicultural country and I wouldn't consider them leftist. What makes the Western left unique in their support of multiculturalism is their belief that it's somehow inherently moral.In your piece, you say:
The world's only superpower is struggling to make this model work in Iraq. Three countries can live under one name, though only with a Saddam convincing them at knifepoint to do so.
Very interesting. I never considered the US as leftist before -- especially with Bush at the helm.
King George refuses to protect the border, has time and again frustrated civilian efforts to guard it, and is currently constructing a massive North American Super-Corridor...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497
I won't opine what our president's alcohol-addled mind considers ethical, though I'd imagine his efforts to create a Mestizo majority in America have their roots in opportunism and desire for cheap labor, and not a belief that diversity is in and of itself moral.
As the prosperity and European majority in America decline, trends toward violent secession will increase proportionally. Executive power will expand tremendously to counter the rise in crime and sedition, and fail as miserably and reliably as it always has.But I think you’re right; albeit government through violence in the homeland does not manifest on the scale of “knifepoint†as you say it must in Iraq.
The USA is the most diverse country in the world and also the most powerful. What's more impressive is that the USA is so powerful in such a vastly industrialized and developed world. Unlike the empires in the past such as the Roman and Greek Empires, who may have been the most powerful in the world, but there were no other empires or countrys who were on quite par with them at their time. Depending on what you mean by successful, this doesn't exactly support your claim of homogenous race based societies being the better idea.La Verdad wrote:I don't believe race has an impact on character. Where I think we disagree is in the belief that multicultural societies are viable (or that during their short lifespans they can be as peaceful or economically successful as homogenous societies).La Verdad and lightsmitten, I am not denying that there are some significant differences between races, which need to be taken into account in certain instances. In fact I am saying just the opposite, and taking it a step further to point out that there are many significant differences between even the individual. What I am arguing is that a man's character should never be judged prior to knowing or understand him or his motives. There are simply too many factors which shape the character of every individual. Any assumptions you make about a man's character based on race are far more likely to be false, rather than true.
Regardless, we all live in the same planet where different races and cultures will always end up occupying the same area, intentional or not. The real problem isn't that different groups of people can't exist peacefully with eachother directly because of difference in race. It all stems from the ignorance and stupidity developed by homogenous along with mixed races and cultures. If society valued Truth above familiarity (amongst other things) this wouldn't be a problem. This is what I meant when I said in an earlier post: this requires one to question human nature as a whole. If Truth was valued above all by the entire human race, it's incredible how so many problems would cease to exist simply as a side-effect.
The fact that developmental success is so much more widespread today than in ancient times makes the USA relatively less impressive than the classical civilizations. You've got it backwards. 0_0The USA is the most diverse country in the world and also the most powerful. What's more impressive is that the USA is so powerful in such a vastly industrialized and developed world. Unlike the empires in the past such as the Roman and Greek Empires, who may have been the most powerful in the world, but there were no other empires or countrys who were on quite par with them at their time.
America's superpower status was created in an era when it was segregated, decidely racist, and app. 90% white.Depending on what you mean by successful, this doesn't exactly support your claim of homogenous race based societies being the better idea.
If we go by such indices as homicide and rape rates, petty crime rates, suicide rates, frequency of interracial attacks, frequency of school shootings, terrorist attacks, national debt, energy waste/environmental damage - the America of today doesn't fare all that well against the America of yesteryear.
Secondly power must be not only acquired but maintained - America has stopped doing a few fundamental things necessary for success, and started endorsing several politically suicidal principles. One of the more noteworthy being it's pursuit of a new future identity as the Balkans and/or México writ-large.
The ethnic and racial mosaic that was the USSR also was a superpower. It had a massive military, political domination of four major European capitals as well as half of Europe, and the largest contiguous empire humanity had ever seen. To all the world it looked monolithic, and as fixed a part of reality as the Sun in the sky. America in it's current form may also go out with a whimper, and perhaps a bang here and there - though go it certainly will.
Japan - in one of history's sadder ironies has become an excellent model for the West to follow.
It, by contrast has much less crime than America, and the crime it does have is typically of a far less violent nature. Police chases are also a far rarer sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan
It's relatively richer than us, and despite having a population less than half the size of ours yet registers nearly twice as many patents - pretty disturbing considering our economy's strength depends heavily on technical innovation.
And it certainly doesn't have to contemplate many of the more ridiculous horrors posed to Western Europe on a daily basis:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=547552003
No society (and man in general) has ever valued truth very heavily, and probably never will.Regardless, we all live in the same planet where different races and cultures will always end up occupying the same area, intentional or not. The real problem isn't that different groups of people can't exist peacefully with each other directly because of difference in race. It all stems from the ignorance and stupidity developed by homogenous along with mixed races and cultures. If society valued Truth above familiarity (amongst other things) this wouldn't be a problem. This is what I meant when I said in an earlier post: this requires one to question human nature as a whole. If Truth was valued above all by the entire human race, it's incredible how so many problems would cease to exist simply as a side-effect.
Last edited by La Verdad on Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We can debate empirical success all our lives and probably never come to much agreement. Afterall the only real success can be found in Absolute Truth.
I don't think humanity has a chance of ever valuing Truth as a whole unless the entire species becomes discontent. For that to happen some type of cataclysmic event(s) would need to happen. Even if some humans survive it's no guarentee that they would change their evil and selfish ways.No society (and man in general) has never valued truth very heavily, and probably never will.
You might want to look into it a little deeper before holding up Japan as a model to follow; Japan has its own particular brand(s) of insanity.La Verdad wrote:Japan - in one of history's sadder ironies has become an excellent model for the West to follow.
Inventing useless Rube Goldberg-type devices is something of a hobby in Japan.It's relatively richer than us, and despite having a population less than half the size of ours yet registers nearly twice as many patents - pretty disturbing considering our economy's strength depends heavily on technical innovation.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
La Verdad:
If unconsciousness is the world of sensuality and consciousness the world of pure logic/reason, where do you draw the line between the two in “phenotypic similarity�
Might it not be that pure logic and reason rather than phenotypic similarity are in fact behind what you perceive to be Japan’s political success? Though I think that even this romantic ideal of yours manifest in Japan would be doomed eventually to the same inevitable fate within the confines of your theory.
I see the problem as purely an absence of reason. It is enough to look at the inherent ambiguity in the most fundamental yet common words of political rhetoric. For instance:
nationalism: a. The assertion of indigenous culture by an individual, organization or country b. The belief that groups of people are bound together by territorial, cultural and (sometimes) ethnic links. Although nationalism developed in the 19th century and led to the formation of the nations of Germany and Italy, it was the cause of some of the most dramatic events of the 20th century
ethnicity: A sense of being different than other groups because of cultural tradition, ancestry, national origin, history, or religion.
globalism: an outlook or policy which is worldwide in scope (possible result would be higher regard for worldwide issues than for national issues). Sometimes a euphemism for world government
Since when has there been such a thing as a closed system -- a nation that thrives without appropriately addressing worldwide issues and vice versa -- an activity that is not connected to everything else?
And we call that distinction and discernment?
Talk about loaded.
Every now and then, you come across something potentially useful:
globalisation: a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it is often understood to refer almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalisation or free trade.
.
How can you say that? Was not everything you yourself (some of which I consider to be astute observation) just proposed not a “house built on sandâ€? I mean, it’s not as if there could even be such recognition and differentiation without this apparently trivial “electrical activity.â€I don't think the 2nd ingredient - the mental ingredient - can alone hold a nation together, since it's a just a belief, and building a nation on electrical activity in the brain is buildig a house on sand.
If unconsciousness is the world of sensuality and consciousness the world of pure logic/reason, where do you draw the line between the two in “phenotypic similarity�
Might it not be that pure logic and reason rather than phenotypic similarity are in fact behind what you perceive to be Japan’s political success? Though I think that even this romantic ideal of yours manifest in Japan would be doomed eventually to the same inevitable fate within the confines of your theory.
I see the problem as purely an absence of reason. It is enough to look at the inherent ambiguity in the most fundamental yet common words of political rhetoric. For instance:
nationalism: a. The assertion of indigenous culture by an individual, organization or country b. The belief that groups of people are bound together by territorial, cultural and (sometimes) ethnic links. Although nationalism developed in the 19th century and led to the formation of the nations of Germany and Italy, it was the cause of some of the most dramatic events of the 20th century
ethnicity: A sense of being different than other groups because of cultural tradition, ancestry, national origin, history, or religion.
globalism: an outlook or policy which is worldwide in scope (possible result would be higher regard for worldwide issues than for national issues). Sometimes a euphemism for world government
Since when has there been such a thing as a closed system -- a nation that thrives without appropriately addressing worldwide issues and vice versa -- an activity that is not connected to everything else?
And we call that distinction and discernment?
Talk about loaded.
Every now and then, you come across something potentially useful:
globalisation: a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it is often understood to refer almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalisation or free trade.
.
-
Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Lightsmitten wrote:
For instance: what are the chances of a beautiful blonde woman negating the world?
Or an athletic well hung black man?
Sensual superiority seems to be a curse, it is difficult to negate the world when you are born with such extreme adaptations that favor sensual enjoyment.
This is not to say that one should label all beautiful blondes or athletic blacks as inferior or incapable of finding truth, but perhaps it is less likely for certain groups/mutations to break away from the cultural norms and sensual traditions of a society when they have been born with a genetic advantage that favors these sensual pursuits.
I agree, this is why I think some races/mutations as a whole are less likely to break away from the masses and live according to the absolute truth.Different physical appearances are almost always accompanied with different behavioural tendencies.
For instance: what are the chances of a beautiful blonde woman negating the world?
Or an athletic well hung black man?
Sensual superiority seems to be a curse, it is difficult to negate the world when you are born with such extreme adaptations that favor sensual enjoyment.
This is not to say that one should label all beautiful blondes or athletic blacks as inferior or incapable of finding truth, but perhaps it is less likely for certain groups/mutations to break away from the cultural norms and sensual traditions of a society when they have been born with a genetic advantage that favors these sensual pursuits.
I disagree with a lot of what Japan does - their ban on firearms being the most notable flaw that comes to mind - though every society has it's insanities, and fairly often these are things which help keep it running. Just look at Rome, without mass cruxifictions, gladiator games, and large-scale slavery the Romans would probably be as well remembered as the Phoenicians.DHodges:
You might want to look into it a little deeper before holding up Japan as a model to follow; Japan has its own particular brand(s) of insanity.
Wordly wisdom and moral wisdom usually call for entirely opposing paths.
I'd attribute their innovative success primarily to their Keiretsu system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu which allows them to consistently keep one step ahead of Western nations (and in the case of America actually gain supremacy in whole industries) and their society-wide emphasis on the application of Kaizen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KaizenInventing useless Rube Goldberg-type devices is something of a hobby in Japan.It's relatively richer than us, and despite having a population less than half the size of ours yet registers nearly twice as many patents - pretty disturbing considering our economy's strength depends heavily on technical innovation.
I think what Lightsmitten means is that the difference in physical appearance & the difference in behavior have a common genetic root, not that the former creates the latterLightsmitten wrote:
I agree, this is why I think some races/mutations as a whole are less likely to break away from the masses and live according to the absolute truth.Different physical appearances are almost always accompanied with different behavioural tendencies.
For instance: what are the chances of a beautiful blonde woman negating the world?
Or an athletic well hung black man?
Sensual superiority seems to be a curse, it is difficult to negate the world when you are born with such extreme adaptations that favor sensual enjoyment.
This is not to say that one should label all beautiful blondes or athletic blacks as inferior or incapable of finding truth, but perhaps it is less likely for certain groups/mutations to break away from the cultural norms and sensual traditions of a society when they have been born with a genetic advantage that favors these sensual pursuits.
