NationStates Jolt Archive

That’s right I said it. You’re all a bunch of racists. Well most of you. I’m sure that some of you aren’t (not likely though). However the vast majority of you probably are (99% give or take). Anytime that someone refers to somebody’s racial background that person is a racist. If you refer to someone as being black, Negro, African American, and a whole bunch of other slurs that I probably cant say here, than you are a racist. You are proclaiming that different breeds of people are actually a different race. And that’s just wrong. All humans evolved from the same animal. By adapting to regional differences people have developed some genetic differences. However those differenced are not enough to prevent people of one breed reproducing with people of another breed. People all have common ancestors and are able to interbreed with each other. Therefore dividing them into breeds and not races.

Races have completely different ancestors yet are still able to reproduce through some miracle of genetics. You see elves are a race, humans are a race, Klingons are a race and so forth. We call them humanoid, because they look almost human. Most importantly though, they can interbreed with each other successfully. Well I know that humans can breed with elves and Klingons, but I’m not sure about elves and Klingons together. Perhaps I should do an experiment. I might need plenty of alcohol though.

The current terms we use to describe people based on skin color is based on the false assumption that they are a different race. Perhaps it is time to come up with new names that actually describe a persons breed. That way we can remove the race card in an area where it doesn’t belong.

Thank you for your time.
Zygus

whateverrrrr :p

From Dictionary.com:

Race:

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.
6. 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.
7. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
8. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

WTF are you talking about?

Why calling someone of African descent that lives in America an African American is racist is beyond me. I mean, I don't object when someone calls me a European American. Nor do I when someone calls me white.

The current terms we use to describe people based on skin color is based on the false assumption that they are a different race. They are a differant breed/race. They exhibit differant hereditary traits from one another, but yet they can interbreed. They are a race/breed, but not a species. TO claim they are a species is incorrect, but to claim they are a race or breed is not. This goes for every race.

Wow. Race is a socio-political construct. It is a plastic (rather than static) concept that involves grouping individuals based on superficial differences in phenotype (NOT genotype). Classifying people according to race does not make one a racist. In fact, much of the institutional power of modern racism rests upon the assumtion that there are no differences between social groups; which, in practice, allows members of the dominant group to expect members to different groups to think, talk, and act the same way they themselves do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with embracing one's heritage.

Dictionary definition don’t mean crap. The whole thing is full of words whose meaning have overlapped because people don’t know how to use the damn words properly. But because that’s the way that people use them it becomes necessary to change the definition.

I explain perfectly clearly why it’s racist in the eighth sentence of paragraph one. It's racism because you believe that humanity is divided into races. You believe in race.

You all need to stop looking at the words themselves, and try to understand what they're trying to say.

Ah! A brief clarification, if I may. We recently discussed this in Anthropology.

Now, no one will want to debate with you that, say, people from Africa tend to have melanin to spare. Nor do I contest that it's entirely plastic. The word 'racism,' when used at least in anthropological jargon, refers to the mistaken belief that there are distinct sub-species of the human race; in short, that there are differences between those melanin/epicanthic fold deprived and those not beyond, you know... Melanin and epicanthic folds. The belief that there are distinct differences, and that one is superior to another, is 'Racialism.'

I'm not racist, and it's true that it is scientifically impossible to divide humans into seperate races. However, there is genetic (slight, very, very slight, but a difference nonetheless) difference between people that come from a different parts of the world. For example, people from Africa are dark-skinned for camoflouge and heat regulation, while people from Europe are light for handling extreme heat and cold at the same time. These are determined from different alleles that are carried in the DNA, therefore, even though we cannot be divided into races, we can be classified into subgroups. There is a better way to explain, but I'm not a geneticist.

Let me try to provide a clear and concise definition to the term racism: a belief that one is superior to another race. Now given that definition I find it hard to believe that using simple adjectives to describe one's skin color can be described as racism. Now using racial slurs can be construed as providing proof that a person has racist feelings but by simply calling someone black, yellow, red, or white is not racist. That is simply describing what something is, now if that happens to be a person then so be it. How else am I going to make a distinction when I'm talking to a police officer telling him my story when I witnessed a crime. Its going to real hard for the policeman to track someone down if I don't call somebody what they are.

Let me try to provide a clear and concise definition to the term racism: a belief that one is superior to another race. Now given that definition I find it hard to believe that using simple adjectives to describe one's skin color can be described as racism. Now using racial slurs can be construed as providing proof that a person has racist feelings but by simply calling someone black, yellow, red, or white is not racist. That is simply describing what something is, now if that happens to be a person then so be it. How else am I going to make a distinction when I'm talking to a police officer telling him my story when I witnessed a crime. Its going to real hard for the policeman to track someone down if I don't call somebody what they are.

Agreed. But don't let commonsense get in the way of a good rant. I am sure the OP feels much better after getting that off his/her chest.

Fact: Forensic scientists can tell the race of a person based on facial features in the skull.

Fact: The average white has a larger brain than the average black.

There's a lot more than skin color involved in race.

I'm a dago wop myself.

EAT ME!

There are many different races of people on the Earth. Calling a race by its accepted name is not really racism. Dogs have different races too, except the differences between their races are far more pronounced than with humans.

Humans as a whole suck.

You don't see too many people referring to the different colorations of humans as breeds, do you?

It's called the Human Race for a reason...frankly, I'm a mutt. Native american, part French Creole (which would be black and french if ya didn't know dat) German (Arian *G*) and a wee bit of Scotch...I'm sure there's a few others in there that aren't talked about openly, but who the hell cares. I'm human, damn it.

Humans as a whole suck.



Speciesist? ;)

Know what I never understood? "Yellow." Or "red" really. I've never met anyone who's skin was red (not counting drunk people or sunburned people), nor have I met anyone who's skin was yellow. Yet, I've met many asians and native americans :p. How is this possible?

Oh, and the word "caucasian" is by far one of the stupidest words ever. I'm white. I'm a whitey. A white boy. I've never heard of "Caucasia," and I'm pretty sure I'm not from there.

Definition of Caucasian:

1. Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use.
2. Of or relating to the Caucasus region or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
3. Of or relating to a group of three language families spoken in the region of the Caucasus mountains, including Chechen, Abkhaz, and the Kartvelian languages.

(source: www.dictionary.com)

So Caucasian is an outdated anthropological term with a broad meaning but also relates to people from the Caucasus region.

It seems to have been narrowed to mean white skinned people over time.

I actually believe that the saying African American is racist. Why? Because not all Americans that came from Africa are black.

As for racism, I don't mean to sound like a little Hitler, but it's safe to assume that races have different physical features, so why would it not be safe to assume that races have different mental features as well? Let's face it. No one/thing/race/company/[fill in blank] is equal. If that was true, we'd all be the exact same.

Going by what Zygus is saying, if I call someone a girl or a boy or a man or a woman or male or female, does that mean I'm a sexist? It's a fact that people of African descent have darker skin than those of European descent. I believe that as long as you don't discriminate because of that simple fact then you're not a racist.

well if you took all the time to make this post it brings be to beleive you are having problems with racism yourself and need to convince yourself you are not racist by calling others racist...but thats just me.

well if you took all the time to make this post it brings be to beleive you are having problems with racism yourself and need to convince yourself you are not racist by calling others racist...but thats just me.

I've come to accept that I'm racist.

I do not preach hate, and I fully support equal opportunities for all people.

Deep down inside though, I don't like black people.

I think a lot of people have that, even very intelligent people. Society and culture creates it.

Every black person I went to school with went to uni and have good jobs now, while I'm still looking for one (and I went to uni too). Meh. I good for them. I'm white, if y'all is wondering.

I think there is some confusion between race and species going on here...

For example, dogs. There are spaniels, there are dalmations, and there are *shudders* poodles. There are all capable of breeding with each other (although I've never seen the product of a dalmation-poodle cross-breed before... I imagine poomation is an accurate description based on what I can see :D), yet we still use those 'offensive' terms to describe the different 'varieties'. This is not racist. What WOULD be racist, is saying that spaniels are better than poodles, and so poodles should bow down to spaniels. Or even worse, that spaniels are better than poodles, and so spaniels should kick the crap out of poodles.

You should be proud of your race, its culture, and its achievements. Not classify its name as offensive and forbid anyone talk about it ever again...

A race is like black or white or Chinese, while as a species, we are all human, and also unique as individuals.

While there are quite a few Americans in the world, I doubt that they qualify as their own race :) There's a description for the white spectrum of the human race which is Caucasian. Europeans and many (or typical) Americans are in that one, as are most russians. Then there is African and Asian and probably some more.

Denying that race exists is a funny modern reaction to an egalitarian-leaning society rooted in competitive meritocracy. We don't refer to animals as having races because they do not have cultures. A race is a group of people tied together genetically due to a common cultural situation wherein the alternating social behavior of individuals reached a confluence to their ecological impact only by it's particular reach, that set forth a progeny resultant upon those factors. Genotype gives rise to phenotype, you cannot say phenotype is false simply because it's cosmetic, it is objectively cosmetic and has a function based on genes. But genotype is controlled by race too. It's been shown in academic science that certain chemicals effect different races differently, weight issues with certain diets, alcoholism and tolerance to certain substances all have varying propensity in the different races. It's simply not politically correct to delve into or bring up because of a global society so quick to call favoritism, that even science is stifled in these areas. The man in the entire genetic spectrum of a mammal is 99% a Monkey, within the human spectrum a man is similar to a man of the furtherest race apart from his own at only 97%. It sounds close, but the differences are enough to effect the visual phenotype to such a degree that man has known about races for millions of years before the discovery of genetics, and this phenotype alone that gave our first look into this phenomenon is only an extremely minor area of what permutations have occured or could possibly occur through human genetic changes.

We don't refer to animals as having races ...

No. We talk about species of animals. Is that being speciesist?

We don't refer to animals as having races because they do not have cultures.

Actually we do:
Scientists sometimes will talk about "races" or "tribes" of one species. Human Beings are a species but there are many races of humans. The same is true for birds. When you go birding you may notice that some birds, such as the Yellow-rumped Warbler, look different in the East than the same species does in the West. Different races of the same species often are separated geographically.

http://www.birder.com/birding/backyard/frametaxonomy.html

And the OP fails to distinguish between distinguishing race (based on phenotypes) and Racism (the ideology that one phenotype is supperior)

Biologically all humans are one race. We are all homo sapiens sapiens. The other human race homo sapiens neandertalensis is exstinct.
But anyway. There are different nationalities, languages, cultures, e.g. Man kind is not a homogenous block. There are different groups, different characteristics. It is very foolish to deny that.
They belong to our identity, to our heritage.
That doesn´t make somebody a racists. A racists is a person who claims that his group, class, nationality, religion or whatever is superior and other groups are inferior.

Homo sapien is a species...

I'm not going to say that 'we are all the same underneath' and that 'our differences are skin-deep'. They aren't, we aren't.
However I've been led to believe that:
-Italians have something in common with some Africans,
-Central Europeans have something in common with northern Indians and Arabs.
-There probably are other differences which we don't see, which I we know about and haven't been discovered.

Italians have some resistence to Malaria, which is also shared by many Africans. Considering that Italy and Africa are one short sea-hop away from each other, some crossing, at some time, is quite likely.
If they are different 'races' wouldn't they be wholey different?

Another, fairly significant, cross 'race' trait is the ability to metabolise some of the chemicals making up milk (I think it is called lactose). Children loose their ability to process lactose at a certain age, unless that child is from either northern India, Arabia, or central Europe. In that case the ability to process lactose is retained for the rest of his or her life, meaning drinking milk and dairy farming is a possible way to survive.
If you look at the areas, from West to East, on a globe, you will see that the three regions are next to each other, in a line. You could even debate where one begins and the other ends and how relevant they are anyway.

You could make up a race based on the unique ability to metabolise lactose. This puts English, French, German, Dutch,Greeks, etc -and possibly Italians too- in the same category as Saudi Arabians, Pakestanis and many Indians, not mention countries like Turkey, Iraq and Iran, in the middle.

So I don't believe in appearance quite so much as I used to, even though I'm very attached to my visual 'racial' bias. Call me racist, its not that unfair. I just have to remind myself sometimes that seeing isn't everything.
What if we descriminated over things like smell instead? Perhaps that is the way dogs 'see' it. They all look very different, but they probably smell the same.

A Racist :D

@Ghargonia

Homo sapien is a species...

Yes it is. And biological the race is a further division of one specy.
Homo sapiens is the specy and it has had two races:
Homo sapiens sapiens - that are we - and homo sapiens neandertalensis - which is exstinct since about 30000 years. If you don´t believe me ask a biologists.

What I wanted to stress by referring to this fact is the statement of another person about the relativity of such divisions. The word race for example is used in a biology science in a different way than in sociology. The definition differs.
By the way: somebody wrote here something about a German race??? What´s that actually. I would refer to that rather as a nationality.

Deep down inside, even if we never admit it, even to ourselves, everybody is more comfortable around people similar to themselves (racially, sexual orientation, physical disabilities etc.) than they are with others...

Does this make people bigots? Not necessarily, it's how we act on these impulses that matters...

Isn't it interesting how when people use the term "racist" they are generally an "African-American" referring to a white person. Where the hell are all of the racist asian/hispanic/arabic/black people? Surely just one race cannot be the only set of people guilty of being racist!

Well most of you. I’m sure that some of you aren’t (not likely though).

You sure that something that isn't likely is true?

Well, in that case, Iraq had a plan to invade the continental United States, petroleum DOES taste like chocolate milk to cariboo, driving an SUV actually heals the environment, and I'm actually writing this from a military outpost in Burma.

I guess that would mean that the entire affirmative action system, the NAACP, the Rainbow Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc is racist as they refer to people being Black, African-American, and People of Colour. The census is obviously racist as it has a section requesting ethnic and/or racial origin as well.

I find this entire assertation that by referring to somebody by what they are is somehow racist to be ludicrous.

Oh, and by the way, I am a German-American, more specifically, a Danziger-American, and quite proud of it. Somebody referring to me in such a fashion does not degrade or humiliate me in any way.

I knew this would happen. Nobody here can get past the use of the words “race,” “racism,” and “racist.” Therefore you’re all going in the complete opposite direction that I was going with my original post. My use of said words is not to distinguish one “race” above another. My use of the words are simply to state that believing that one race is divided into other sub races, instead of looking at them as being divided into breeds, as racism. Repeat, it has nothing to do with the tradition sense of the above mentioned words. I’m simply stating that you think humans are divided into races.

The word race implies a different evolutionary background having completely different ancestors. I also thought by throwing Klingons in there you would be able to further figure out the direction I was going. But I guess not. I just think that a better term for dividing people up of the same species, instead of race, would be by dividing them into breeds. We don’t refer to other breeds of animals as being races do we? Than why should we make any special consideration for humans?

@Ghargonia



Yes it is. And biological the race is a further division of one specy.
Homo sapiens is the specy and it has had two races:
Homo sapiens sapiens - that are we - and homo sapiens neandertalensis - which is exstinct since about 30000 years. If you don´t believe me ask a biologists.

What I wanted to stress by referring to this fact is the statement of another person about the relativity of such divisions. The word race for example is used in a biology science in a different way than in sociology. The definition differs.
By the way: somebody wrote here something about a German race??? What´s that actually. I would refer to that rather as a nationality.

No that's species & sub-species. A 'race,' as I was duely corrected upon near the end of the last page, is synonymous with 'tribe' or culture grouping that is bound by circumstances of linage homogenization. This is how every aspect of academic establishment classifies it. It's propaganda re-visionism based solely on semantics such as it is a "human race" and therefore cannot contain races. Whereas "Human Race" is in fact the linguistic error, just as people were pronouncing "neanderthal" wrong in such mass, that a large group of the scientific & archeological community agreed to remove the 'h' from all future instances where the word had it's occurrences to help counter-act that common fallacy.

The word race implies a different evolutionary background having completely different ancestors. .

No it doesn't. If you gained this mental association of the word it isn't in line with the definition.

I just think that a better term for dividing people up of the same species, instead of race, would be by dividing them into breeds.

Then invent your own language, because that's not how it is in English. In some Germanic & Scandinavian languages 'Blood-type' is called 'Blood-group,' but you don't see people saying that blood should be classified into groups & not types or that classifying them by types is wrong. The word developed it's meaning and use differently. Language, if you don't know, is a medium by which to communicate meaning, this happens by the common usage of terms, if one word in one language has a root in another language but the words end up having separate meanings in each language; doesn't make either word wrong, it is consensus and understanding that gives word any meaning; this is by common & established usage. Outside of which words mean nothing.

Dictionary definition don’t mean crap. The whole thing is full of words whose meaning have overlapped because people don’t know how to use the damn words properly. But because that’s the way that people use them it becomes necessary to change the definition.

I explain perfectly clearly why it’s racist in the eighth sentence of paragraph one. It's racism because you believe that humanity is divided into races. You believe in race.

You all need to stop looking at the words themselves, and try to understand what they're trying to say.

And yet you would simply "solve" racism by calling people of different physically ethnic characteristics people of different "breeds". Well since you believe in "breeds" I guess that makes you... a breedist?

Do you really think using the word "breed" will create less ethnic injustice? It is by far a cruder word, used to describe the act of propagation and as well the act of taking animals and making them propagate with the mates that you have chosen for them. "Race" implies place of hereditary origin. "Breed" implies ascestory, eugenics, and people-as-herd.

If "racism" means "believing that races exist" then I am a racist. But I am not a racist. This entire thread has been predicated on what you said about dictionary definitions not meaning crap. Well, if by "crap" you mean "what Zygus wants them to mean", you are correct. You are taking a known word, applying your own caprecious and non-standard definition to it, and acting like you've made a point. Frankly it's pretty stupid.



- Druthulhu

I just think that a better term for dividing people up of the same species, instead of race, would be by dividing them into breeds. We don’t refer to other breeds of animals as being races do we? Than why should we make any special consideration for humans?

Dogs don't have destinct cultures and languages wheras different 'breeds' of humans do. Breed also implies creation, that you have been created to do something rather then born out of the love between two people.

Racsim:
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

to say that someone is of say Chinese decent is not discriminating against them or saying you are superior because of your ethnic makeup it is to mearly state a fact that tells people about them and can give far more information about a person then you would tyhink is possible from a single word.

Can we agree that "race" has more than one meaning, depending on context, just like the word man or people?

Just a random point.
People have mentioned that we are distinguishing between people based on their phenotype. But, if genotypes were taken into account, then it would be rascist to refer to a primate as a 'monkey' or 'ape', because we share somewhere around 99% of our genome with them.
While we're at it, we share 50% of our genes with a banana tree.
I do not believe that people as a whole are rascist. We just have an inbuilt need to classify things according to what we see. This is one helluva lot easier than asking everyone in the world to do a personality test, and one of the unfortunate side effects to this is that people are 'pidgeon-holed' (never got that term?) and stereotyped. This is often very unhelpful, as not many people I know fit into their racial stereotype.
I think that racialism is not neccessarily a deliberate discrimination, but just a natural human instinct to react to people 'different' to ourselves. Only difference between rascists and non-rascists is that rascists are down right stupid enough to be unable to control this reaction. and make a snap desicion, whereas non-rascists allow themselves time to get to know the person behind the skin colour (which is what this boils down to) and then make a balanced desicion when they know the person better.

No that's species & sub-species. A 'race,' as I was duely corrected upon near the end of the last page, is synonymous with 'tribe' or culture grouping that is bound by circumstances of linage homogenization. This is how every aspect of academic establishment classifies it. It's propaganda re-visionism based solely on semantics such as it is a "human race" and therefore cannot contain races. Whereas "Human Race" is in fact the linguistic error.
Well it is: it is a specy. However it just contains one sub-specy (or race).
Dogs are having different races. But the differences among humans are biologicaly not beyond the race border.

No it doesn't. If you gained this mental association of the word it isn't in line with the definition.
Actually, yes it does. Although I hate the dictionary it does agree with me in this case, albeit not directly. It does have it's implications. However the very definition of the word "race" is screwy all by itself. At one point stating a large groups, such as the human race. It also divides that race up into other smaller classifications of race. To me that's just like saying that blork is divided into eight blorks. It just doesn't make sense being like that. That's just one reason why I hate the dictionary as it is right now.

Then invent your own language, because that's not how it is in English.

With the English language, many people can't discern the differance between a snake and a serpent, yet there is a great distinction between the two. Yet many people intermix the tow as if they were the same thing. The thesaurus itself doesn't group words that have the same meaning. It groups words with similar meaning. Yet people intermix the words as if they had the same meaning. But in English, no two words have the same meaning. So technically it seems as though you're saying anybody who makes these mistakes aren't speaking English. But then again there is such a word as "dialect."

.
That doesn´t make somebody a racists. A racists is a person who claims that his group, class, nationality, religion or whatever is superior and other groups are inferior.Um, no it doesen't. A racist is specifically someone who discriminates on the grounds of race. It's not a catch-all term for prejuduce.

I just want to say these 2 points on this topic:

1. You can never stamp out racism completely

2. Any attempt will fail

1. She played the violin as a character in the school play.
2. Soldiers used the cart to cart off the dead bodies.
3. Despite the fact that she was run down from her cold, she scored the winning run.
4. The pitcher drank a pitcher of lemonade between innings.
5. Through the house’s window, he saw a word processing window on the display.
6. In his job kneading bread dough, he made a lot of dough.
7. They rolled up the roll of wire for shipping.
8. Pointing his finger, he fingered the suspect.
9. They skinned the mink because she wanted a mink skin for her coat.
10. In a firm voice, the head of the firm read the bad news.
11. The carpenter used a nail to nail the door shut.
12. They built a wall to wall off the unsightly mess.
13. The skunk’s smell smelled awful.
14. The box of papers contained information showing that the criminals were boxed in.
15. Sitting at her lunch table, the congresswoman heard her motion had been tabled.
16. With her hand in a cast, it was hard to hand off the baton.
17. The mouse emerged from his hole, scaring the typist so badly he dropped his mouse.
18. The fence sat hidden behind the fence waiting for the thief to show up.
19. Please give me leave to leave.
20. He got wind of the story when the wind blew the newspaper into his room.
21. Strike the nail with your hammer now; strike the set later.
22. The judge offered to continue the case in order to allow us to continue negotiating.
23. Good drivers buckle their seat belts just in case their cars buckle in an accident.
24. The NCAA sanctioned the player in the sanctioned event.
25. She stood fast to her principles, ran fast in her race, and refused to eat because she was on a fast.

Dogs don't have destinct cultures and languages wheras different 'breeds' of humans do. Breed also implies creation, that you have been created to do something rather then born out of the love between two people.
None that we can discern yet.

to say that someone is of say Chinese decent is not discriminating against them or saying you are superior because of your ethnic makeup it is to mearly state a fact that tells people about them and can give far more information about a person then you would tyhink is possible from a single word.

You’re just taking what I said too far out of context. I never said anything about people talking about their heritage, such as German, Asian, African, or anything like that as being racism. True I did say African American, but that's because It just doesn't make sense. If somebody whose ancestry traces back to Africa was born in Europe, would you still be calling them African American? It doesn't make much sense to do so now does it? Or how about somebody who just plain lives in Africa. Would they still be called an African American?

*snicker* This is a hell of a thread...

Look at an 'African American'. See them? Now, look at a 'European American. See them? What's the difference? Not much, inside, I'll admit, but by looking, they're two very different creatures. Drastically different: hair, skin coloring, facial structure, etc etc. Like it or not, it's the truth.

A black person's skin is *gasp* Black, or actually not black, but many shades of brown from near-black to shades of caramel to as pale as any white persons. But it's generally accepted by '99%' of people that they're 'black'.

Now, look at the white guy. Once again, not really white, but you get the picture. Can you not tell the difference? I can.

'White' or 'Black' are just ways of describing somone like 'blond haired' or 'fat-assed' or 'empty headed jackass'. If that means I'm a racist then gimme a sheet and a noose, and all of my black friends a Panther uniform because I do make distinctions, so does everyone else. Trying to ignore the fact that we have differences is foolish and naive, but understanding and embracign those differences on the other hand... Is probably a crock of shit, but what do I know?

"You're a Racist, Pants. You should be ashamed of yourself."

Yes, I am. Don't worry, I am.

/7:08am rant. Word.

And yet you would simply "solve" racism
I never said that it would “solve” anything.

'White' or 'Black' are just ways of describing somone like 'blond haired' or 'fat-assed' or 'empty headed jackass'.
Even though most “black” people aren’t black. They have more of a brownish color to them.

http://www.kenanmalik.com/lectures/race_oxford1.html

Excellent read :)

Yeah, like I said above:

A black person's skin is *gasp* Black, or actually not black, but many shades of brown from near-black to shades of caramel to as pale as any white persons. But it's generally accepted by '99%' of people that they're 'black'.

So, we agree here, but I'm a racist because I say 'the black guy' instead of 'That friendly looking cocoa brown colored gentlemen in the kilt'? This makes me a racist pig?

Um, no it doesen't. A racist is specifically someone who discriminates on the grounds of race. It's not a catch-all term for prejuduce.

You are right in some respect. However: since the definitions of the word race differs it has to be interpreted a bit more broader. For example. If someone discriminates against one nationality he would be called a racists as well, wouldn´t he??? Or what other word would you suggests??
One example for the ambigiouty of many words is the word anti-semitism. It is just in the contest of hating jews. However it is referring to a language group: the semitic languages. Hebrew is one of them, but Arabic is a semitic language as well. Therefore Arabs would claim the can´t be anti-semitic because they are semitic themselves. In a way they are right. In another they are wrong because the word is used only to referr to the jews. But it isn´t that accurate actually.
I agree with you that it shouldn´t be used as a catch-all term. However if you use it it has to be defined as the believe that your nationality is above or superior to another nationality or nationalities.

I never said that it would “solve” anything.Then what precisely was the point of your little outburst? Apart from to persuade yourself how you're the only non-racist in the world obviously. Do you feel all special and self righteous now? Still, I suppose arguing semantics is less work then actually attempting to fight racism.

You’re just taking what I said too far out of context.

Kinda funny coming from you. You are kinda saying that everything means what you want it to mean. Find it rather childish. And discussing with you fills no point cuz what i try to say would prolly not mean the same thing as you "make" it mean when you read it so...

Oh, maybe i am a racist, maybe i am not. But i sure as hell isn't a racist cuz i have used the word ******.

You are right in some respect. However: since the definitions of the word race differs it has to be interpreted a bit more broader. For example. If someone discriminates against one nationality he would be called a racists as well, wouldn´t he??? Or what other word would you suggests??Xenophobe.
One example for the ambigiouty of many words is the word anti-semitism. It is just in the contest of hating jews. However it is referring to a language group: the semitic languages. Hebrew is one of them, but Arabic is a semitic language as well. Therefore Arabs would claim the can´t be anti-semitic because they are semitic themselves. In a way they are right. In another they are wrong because the word is used only to referr to the jews. But it isn´t that accurate actually.That's a bad example. Anti-semitism was actually originally invented by the Nazis as a polite term for hatred of Jews.

@The Holy Word

Zygus is actually right in the biological definition of the word race. There has been another human race: and that was homo sapiens neandertalensis, but it became instinct about 30000 years ago. All currently living humans are homo sapiens sapiens.
Biologically there are no different races.
However: the definition of the word differs in biology and sociology. The reason for that is that in the past it was believed by biologists that they are in bological terms differnet human races (and there were some in the past actually). But they are not there anymore today.

I never said that it would “solve” anything.

So... what exactly is your point here? That by redefining a word you can call everybody who believes that races exist a racist? Good job. Rent a life.

Zygus, are you just trying to annoy people??
Did it occur to you that by taking offense to fairly innocuous terms like "African American" you are being racist yourself? Either that or a nitpicker... I notice you chose not to specify any racist terms against caucasians or people of various other ethnicities in your original post... But who cares about them eh? Also, nice work totally missing the point and content of Pantera's post! You obviously really care about others opinions!
(I wasn't being racist here, merely sarcastic)

And if you dont like the dictionary, dont use it! Easy! Done! Problem solved!
Kolkraben was right in a way.... racism will never be stamped out unless people stop maintaining the problem...INCLUDING those that would label every term 'racist'.

Then what precisely was the point of your little outburst? Apart from to persuade yourself how you're the only non-racist in the world obviously. Do you feel all special and self righteous now? Still, I suppose arguing semantics is less work then actually attempting to fight racism.
So long as people are ATNA, why would you want to fight them? Sure, I can understand those who take action in their words. But most racists, as you call them, are actually harmless, and don’t speak up when the other “race” is around. True, they can still spread their beliefs around, but they do have that right over here.

Alot of the time people use race as a way to describe some one. Using these terms insultingly is racist.

Alot of the time people use race as a way to describe some one. Using these terms insultingly is racist.

Oh but you are missing the point, Dragoneia. We have to say "breed" now instead of "race" or else we are racists. Which is not always a bad thing to be. A lot of good people are racists. Just ask Zygus.

That's a bad example. Anti-semitism was actually originally invented by the Nazis as a polite term for hatred of Jews.

No. It is older: It comes from the 19 th century and was invented by a german scientist to describe the hatred of jews. And since there were now Arabs in Europe at that time, the only semitic people were the jewish people, there wasn´t a problem with that word in that context.
It is by the way not in any form a "polite" word, nor was it intended to be. There is one difference however between Antisemtism and the traditional christian Anti-Judaism. And that is that it is not based on relgion, it is based on the assumption of a jewish nationality or ethnicity or race (however you want to put it). That meant the following: A person is jewish not because he/she believes in that religion but because he/she had jewish ancestors. That was also what the Nuernberg laws of 1935 in Germany have been about. People with two or more jewish grand-parents were stripped of their citizenship. Those with two were classified as "half-jews", those with more than two as "full-jews" regardless of what the religions they currently belonged to or they parents belonged to.

Regarding the word xenophobe. It works in English. But in some other languages you would need much longer words or contructions like - Hater of foreigners or so.
Furthernmore the word is in a way to general. It means: hate of strangers. But people may not hate all foreigners but specific nationalities.

Zygus, are you just trying to annoy people??
Did it occur to you that by taking offense to fairly innocuous terms like "African American" you are being racist yourself? Either that or a nitpicker... I notice you chose not to specify any racist terms against caucasians or people of various other ethnicities in your original post... But who cares about them eh? Also, nice work totally missing the point and content of Pantera's post! You obviously really care about others opinions!
(I wasn't being racist here, merely sarcastic)
Fine, I was just being lazy, but if you want more. The following terms are also racist. "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey"

Happy now?

No, I'm not trying to be annoying. I really thought that people would have gotten the gag when I mentioned Elves and Klingons. But no, everybody got all caught up on a single word. Man you all need to lighten up a little.

Zygus, thank you for bringing this to my attention, i have never really thought about this before and i hope you don't mind if i add to your post.

(taken from the chambers dictionary)

Human: belonging to, realating to, or of the nature of man or mankind; having the qualities of a person or limitations of people

naturally (excluding freak births or accidents) humans have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 arms (etc:) and this to most people can defy what a human is. humans also have certain opinions and feelings that can cause them to show certain emotions such as laughter and crying. THIS DEFYS A HUMAN

so this makes alot of the world of a human nature therefor to divide them using such words as british or spanish is also a racist term and can be counted as unsetting and insulting.

Elves and Klingons don't exist. I expect people were letting that slide because they didn't yet know what a troll you are.

Wow you all are so far out in left field it kills me. Join the rest of the world and wake up.

Wow you all are so far out in left field it kills me. Join the rest of the world and wake up.

So... redifining "racism" as "believing in race" is what... conservative? Moderate? Is that what the rest of the world is doing now? Oh by all means let us jump on board!

Race: desendents of a common ancestor

This, arcorrding to half the world are apes therefor we are all the same, surely you can't divide people by th colour of their skin. Sure, the word ****** is worse than the word black but it is still not acceptable

:headbang:

Elves and Klingons don't exist

well this is obvious, isn't it. Zygus was merly using this as an example. chill over someones mistake.

lol, i am australian. anyone can become an australian. but i can never become japanese :( hehe

Race: desendents of a common ancestor

This, arcorrding to half the world are apes therefor we are all the same, surely you can't divide people by th colour of their skin. Sure, the word ****** is worse than the word black but it is still not acceptable

How about "descendents of a common anscestor OF THE SAME SPECIES" for one? Otherwise, since you appear to be an evolutionist, all life on Earth is one "race", so don't even bother bringing up apes, proffesor.



Now try wrapping your giant squishy frontal lobes around these:



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.
..a) 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.
..b) A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6) A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


Of course Zygus also advocates the eschewal of dictionaries, so I don't expect any of his supporters to change their minds.

Elves and Klingons don't exist. I expect people were letting that slide because they didn't yet know what a troll you are.
No shit they don’t exist, that’s why I used them. I was hoping that by using fictitious creatures, people would have assumed that everything else I was saying was also fictitious. But no, everybody got all caught up un a single word and just couldn’t get past it. No wonder there are so many religious fundamentalists out there. People must have a natural tendency to only look at the literal interpretations of certain aspect of written works.

Is that what the rest of the world is doing now? Oh by all means let us jump on board!

Sorry for quoting from you again but you left me no choice but to class you as one of the stupidist people i know who are still living today! you bloody thick nut!!!!!

Just because the whole world is doing it doesn't mean we need to. I would like to be someone who originates in Australia, not australian

No shit they don’t exist, that’s why I used them. I was hoping that by using fictitious creatures, people would have assumed that everything else I was saying was also fictitious. But no, everybody got all caught up un a single word and just couldn’t get past it. No wonder there are so many religious fundamentalists out there. People must have a natural tendency to only look at the literal interpretations of certain aspect of written works.

So basically all of what you've said is fictitious? The opinions you have proffessed are all just made up for entertainment purposes? Well cool beans, sparky. It's been loads of fun thinking you're a fucktard.

So basically all of what you've said is fictitious? The opinions you have proffessed are all just made up for entertainment purposes? Well cool beans, sparky. It's been loads of fun thinking you're a fucktard.
Anytime slapnuts

what he meant by what i've said is all fictionous is that the cross breeding of fictional characters is fictionous, not the racist part. even i knew that, you really are thick aren't you

Sorry for quoting from you again but you left me no choice but to class you as one of the stupidist people i know who are still living today! you bloody thick nut!!!!!

Just because the whole world is doing it doesn't mean we need to. I would like to be someone who originates in Australia, not australian

Well you're the one who suggested that we all join the real world. Or did you mean to address that to Zygus and his ilk? Gee... you weren't specific. Pretty... stupid?

what he meant by what i've said is all fictionous is that the cross breeding of fictional characters is fictionous, not the racist part. even i knew that, you really are thick aren't you

YEAH!!! That's why the elves and klingons were ignored!!! All I said was that nobody ragged on him because he hadn't earned his troll creds yet!!!

JEEZE, people! KEEP UP!

Well you're the one who suggested that we all join the real world. Or did you mean to address that to Zygus and his ilk? Gee... you weren't specific. Pretty... stupid?

You find one peice of text i said that even suggested we get back to the real world and i will respect what you are saying

Hee hee.

Fucktard...

get with it. And can i say hello to everybody who is reading this part of waht Druth.....thingy is quoting from me....KEEP UP????????? you were the one that suggested that he should be more with the real world...so if people jumped a cliff you would???????????? *lol* i wish u would

Actually this is the only time that anybody has ever considered calling me a troll before. I feel so enthused.
*Evil giggle*
*Takes breath*
*Evil giggle*

could you confirm to druth.........thingy what you meant by people would catch on you were making the fictionous part up as she doen't quite get it...........shame

*waits for druth....thingys next argument*

You're right. How stupid of me. It was Roanokia that brought it up, but I must also confess that s/he said "rest of" instead of "real". It was you that responded to my response to Roanokia, for some reason taking my suggestion that we should take his/er advice as evidence of monumental stupidity.

OK either...

1) you cannot recognize sarcasm; or

2) you totally agree with what Roanokia said, in which case it is prefectly fair to ascribe those words to you.

However since you went on to completely agree with my sentiment, underlying my sarcasm, that we should not "join the rest of the world" if we are adverse to what they are doing, I am left to assume that you are incapable of understanding sarcasm.

If I have concluded wrongly, please feel free to explain how the sarcasm that I used in response to what Roanokia said is any evidence of my stupidity.



- Druthulhu

let me start fresh.........

If a duck and a fish tried to breed then no young would be produced because they are of a different race......this example i used is fictional and will never happen. (but if it did would the young be called a dish?)

could you confirm to druth.........thingy what you meant by people would catch on you were making the fictionous part up as she doen't quite get it...........shame

Zygus said that he had hoped that by his using elves and klingons in an example, everyone would take everything he said as fictional. Perhaps he left out a negative term, and meant that he hoped that we wouldn't. Understand yet?

please can u realise i am only 13 years old and young and niave before i say this. I apologise druth....thingy, now i realise what you were saying.

my deepest apologies

Jordan


p.s i must say that i do find words like british or american racist

let me start fresh.........

If a duck and a fish tried to breed then no young would be produced because they are of a different race......this example i used is fictional and will never happen. (but if it did would the young be called a dish?)

OK ignore what I just said and start fresh...

A duck and a fish are of different species, to say the very least. THAT is why they cannot mate. A spaniel and a terrier are of different breeds. "Breed" is an acceptable term here because they are chattel. They can breed. A pigmey and a samoan are of different races. "Race" is the preferable term here because they are humans, not chattel, and because unless they are slaves they choose who they breed with. They can breed.

Race is not species. Ducks and Fish??? I'm trying real hard to prove myself the stupid one here, but you're not helping...

could you confirm to druth.........thingy what you meant by people would catch on you were making the fictionous part up as she doen't quite get it...........shame
I was just hoping that people wouldn’t take anything I said as being serious because of the obvious farcical implications. And here I stand corrected and on the verge of a potential flame war. All because people chose to ignore the most important part. The part that makes everything I said bend away from reality.

he did use the word everything in the wrong context as he meant a small part he didn't mean. not all...........glad to see we are starting to agree

Sorry... if I had read your last post I would have left out the last part.

Take it from a 40 year old with a science degree... ducks and fish are different species... different genus, in fact, not just different races.

Peace

Well if the elves and the klingons were the most important part, you should have said so!

Zygus.............do you, or do you not find the words british, negro or tibetian racist?

( deepest apologies drut.........thingy)

Zygus.............do you, or do you not find the words british, negro or tibetian racist?

( deepest apologies drut.........thingy)

No worries kid and aoplogies back. Now hush already :-)

and all i can say is that i have been selected to take my chemistry standard grade 2 years early and my physics 1 year early

and all i can say is that i have been selected to take my chemistry standard grade 2 years early and my physics 1 year early

Congratulations!

Well if the elves and the klingons were the most important part, you should have said so!
Because I don't like being too obvious all of the time.

i have no friend and no life :*-(

Zygus.............do you, or do you not find the words british, negro or tibetian racist?

( deepest apologies drut.........thingy)
Nope, I do not.

was that congratulations sarcasm druth..thingy he he he lol

was that congratulations sarcasm druth..thingy he he he lol

Nope :-)

some subject for me to talk about, i'm Fcuking crap at biology

Well if the elves and the klingons were the most important part, you should have said so!Because I don't like being too obvious all of the time.

But THAT was sarcasm.

is it a PHD or a MASTERS you have?

But THAT was sarcasm.
Another thing about reading text. You don't quite get the same feelings that you get from people if you're talking directly too them. Therefore it can be hard to tell sometimes.

i agree, Zygus, do you find the word tibetian racist

Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

is it a PHD or a MASTERS you have?

Nope just a B.S.

Are you kidding, I hardly find anything offensive. I shrug most things off. And if anybody tries offending me, my most common response is to just look confused, shrug my shoulders, and just say "OK."

..wrong username...

Anytime that someone refers to somebody’s racial background that person is a racist. If you refer to someone as being black, Negro, African American, and a whole bunch of other slurs that I probably cant say here, than you are a racist.
Zygus

By that standard, referring to someone as "male" or "female" would make one sexist.

Words themselves aren't racist. Only people can be racist, so you have to look at how the word is intended to make the determination that it was used in a racist manner. If the words themselves connotate racism, you wouldn't hear rappers referring to their comrades as n-----s.

No. It is older: It comes from the 19 th century and was invented by a german scientist to describe the hatred of jews. And since there were now Arabs in Europe at that time, the only semitic people were the jewish people, there wasn´t a problem with that word in that context.
It is by the way not in any form a "polite" word, nor was it intended to be.Looks like we're both wrong. ;) You've got the right century but it was a journalist, not a scientist: "In 1878, the Social Democratic Party was outlawed, and democratic efforts were stifled. In the 1890s, political democracy was blocked by the rising power of German industrialists and diverted by imperialist expansion. This period also coincided with a new cycle of anti-Semitism, with Jews being blamed for manipulating peasants and small businessmen into resisting the traditional social and economic order. Jews were blamed for the severe economic depression of 1873. In the same year, Wilhelm Marr, a journalist who coined the term "anti-Semitism," wrote a pamphlet, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom." It was very successful, going through twelve editions in six years. Using ideas of race and Vilkisch nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the "first major power in the West" in the 19th century. He accused the Jews of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans "beyond salvation." In 1879, he founded the League for Anti-Semitism."-http://www.remember.org/guide/History.root.modern.html

The use of the term "polite" was probably misleading. I didn't mean that it was polite towards Jews. I meant that it was designed to be used in supposed "polite society", by giving a pseudo scientific gloss to a doctrine of hatred.

There is one difference however between Antisemtism and the traditional christian Anti-Judaism. And that is that it is not based on relgion, it is based on the assumption of a jewish nationality or ethnicity or race (however you want to put it). That meant the following: A person is jewish not because he/she believes in that religion but because he/she had jewish ancestors. That was also what the Nuernberg laws of 1935 in Germany have been about. People with two or more jewish grand-parents were stripped of their citizenship. Those with two were classified as "half-jews", those with more than two as "full-jews" regardless of what the religions they currently belonged to or they parents belonged to. I largely agree, I'd merely say that there are certain parallels between the two. In particular the persecution of Jewish converts to Christianity in the later stages of the Inquisition.

Regarding the word xenophobe. It works in English. But in some other languages you would need much longer words or contructions like - Hater of foreigners or so.
Furthernmore the word is in a way to general. It means: hate of strangers. But people may not hate all foreigners but specific nationalities.I accept it's not a perfect fit. But I still believe it's a closer defination then "racist" is.

Oh, and the word "caucasian" is by far one of the stupidest words ever. I'm white. I'm a whitey. A white boy. I've never heard of "Caucasia," and I'm pretty sure I'm not from there.

Caucasian refers to one from the Caucuses, a region in eastern europe from where what we now call caucasians are believed to have originated.

Words themselves aren't racist. Only people can be racist, so you have to look at how the word is intended to make the determination that it was used in a racist manner. If the words themselves connotate racism, you wouldn't hear rappers referring to their comrades as n-----s.
Yep, another good point that I like to make. It’s not the word, it’s how it’s used. It’s not the gun, it’s how it’s used. And so forth.

The Holy Word

I´ve done a bit of research myself. And I have to say that I can´t detract who firstly used that word in this context.
It was already used in an encyclopedia in 1865 however in a different context. It stated that the introduction of the jewish kingdom has been anti-semitic. Later it was replaced by non-semitic.
Anyway. The jewish professor Moritz Steinschneider accused his french colleague Ernest Renan as having a "anti-semitic prejudice" in 1860 already.

The first use in a newspaper was by the "Allgemeinen Zeitung des deutschen Judentums“ (newspaper of the german jews) on September 2, 1879 mentioning the establishment of an anti-semitic newspaper by Marr.
Marr indeed stated that he wanted to start an anti-jewish newspaper. The assumption that he formed this word is mistaken. It can´t even be confirmed that he used that word before the end of September 1879, when he called for the foundation of the anti-semitic league.
The assumption that he invented this term is mistaken. It existed before he used it. However: with the foundation of the anti-semitic league and the anti-semitic historical dispute in 1881 it became more commonly used.
Who really invented it I didn´t found out. But given the facts it must have been before 1860. It is very likely to come from historical-theological writings, where the term semitic is used frequently. Anti-semitism would be therefore the hate of the semites (however actually only the jewish semites or their descendants).

"In 1878, the Social Democratic Party was outlawed, and democratic efforts were stifled." - It was not directly outlawed but all its newspapers banned due to the anti-socialists laws (1878-1890). But the party was able to participate in all elections. After 1890 the arranged themselves pretty well with the political systems of that time and where even supporting the war in 1914.
Well: your source was not very acurate actually.

Very interestingly (I didn´t know that before) the source says - internet encyclopedia in German I´m afraid) that the Nazi chief ideologists Rosenberg initiated a new public wording in the year 1943 in order to avoid the word anti-semitic because he didn´t want to alionate new arab allies. Those were for example the great mufti of Jerusalem or also some muslim clerics in the Balkans, which were occupied that time or - shortly Iran (the land of the arian race which was the translation of the word - however: since they are not arabs they wouldn´t be offended by that anyway), Afghanistan. However this links shows how dangerous islamic extremism is - being it in the Arab world or in the brother muslim world. It has got parallels with national-socialism.


Regarding the history of anti-judaism, anti-semitism there is so much to say. But we all know that it has a long history throught the middle ages, the crusades, the reqonquista of Spain, the claims that jews were guilty of the outbreak of the plague, histories of progroms from Russia to Spain, e.g.
Although that there are some differences between the classical Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism the latter doesn´t come from nowhere. It is a "modern" version of it. It was after all the time of race theories. The time of the evolution theory (Darwin), which was also interpreted or misinterpreted in this political field. The principal of the "survival of the fittest" was used to claim that some groups (nationalities, races) are determined to rule and others to be subordinate to them.
Nothing new actually: just another justification for something indefensible. Anti-Semitism must be seen in that context. Or stated in a more provocative way: it was the secularised version of the classical anti-judaism.

haha if you call the term "African American" a slur, then what on earth do you want us to call African Americans??

That is not enough! Age discrimination HAS to stop. Young, old, middle age are terms that need to be deleted from our vocabulary.

No longer will we, the progressive peoples of the world, tolerate generalizations about these things. It is time for us to eliminate the term “green”. Green needs to be defined as to a specific hue. No longer will we waste precious moments under the assumption that a term such as green may not be offensive to anyone. From now on, one must be exact in their terminology. Is it “green” or perhaps, verdigris? Olive? Grass? Kelly, leaf, chartreuse, linden, tree, Bla, bla, bla…….

so what the bloody hell should I call African-Americans now?

Me: Oh hello my differently-skin-toned pal!
BLACK Friend: wtf...calling me "black" is easier, no?
Me: Oh, but that's racist!
BLACK Friend: ...

[QUOTE=Zygus]I knew this would happen. Nobody here can get past the use of the words “race,” “racism,” and “racist.” Therefore you’re all going in the complete opposite direction that I was going with my original post. My use of said words is not to distinguish one “race” above another. My use of the words are simply to state that believing that one race is divided into other sub races, instead of looking at them as being divided into breeds, as racism. Repeat, it has nothing to do with the tradition sense of the above mentioned words. I’m simply stating that you think humans are divided into races. [QUOTE]

1) Don't you think it's a little arrogant to think you know anything about anyone's views?

2) Never generalize. ;)

3) And an excerpt from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll:


`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Get what I'm saying here?

...I did say African American, but that's because It just doesn't make sense. If somebody whose ancestry traces back to Africa was born in Europe, would you still be calling them African American? It doesn't make much sense to do so now does it? Or how about somebody who just plain lives in Africa. Would they still be called an African American?

Of course it doesn't make sense: you're using the term mistakenly,as you seem wont to do.

Any person who can trace their ancestry to Africa is African. This would include a European-descended person, such as those living in South Africa, African, of course.

Africans are Africans, no matter what their skin color is.

An African-American is generally thought of as a person, of African descent, whose family has lived in America for at least a generation. Granted, the term is usually applied to those people whose ancestors were brought to America during the slave trade some hundreds of years ago.

Obviously, one would not refer to a person of African descent whose ancestry lies in Europe as African-American. This is inaccurate and ignorant. It is as foolish as calling a person living in Nigeria African-American... or a person who lives in Canada an American.

No wonder there are so many religious fundamentalists out there. People must have a natural tendency to only look at the literal interpretations of certain aspect of written works.

1) You like insulting people, don't you? :)
2) Well, yes, when you use WORDS people take them literally...

My use of said words is not to distinguish one “race” above another. My use of the words are simply to state that believing that one race is divided into other sub races, instead of looking at them as being divided into breeds, as racism...The word race implies a different evolutionary background having completely different ancestors.

NO, it doesn't. the word 'race' means 'group' it's a way of deviding people yes, but thats all. if we are going to use the words properly then why did you dismis the dictionary definition given to you before.

what you are trying to do here is argue that we, as a society, differentiate unfairly on the basis of pysical charactoristics, using as your evidence or repeted use of the word 'race' and the general usage of terms such as 'african american' but ignore the accepted meaning behind the words.

'racism' is accepted as being a state of persicution of an individual or group based on there 'racial' (physical and sociological) charactoristics. while i agree there is a cirtain amount of this type of rasism to be found institutionalised in our societies today, people on the whole are not following the SPIRIT of rasim consiously and therefore are not (again on the whole) rasist.

Zygus, you're probably a racist yourself, you dirty moron.

Zygus, you're probably a racist yourself, you dirty moron.

I think his argument is that everyone is a racist because racism is inherently present in our society and culture.

Which, to a part, I must agree with, but I still don't see this as a negative thing.

It is natural to label and classify people, it's how we, as a species, differentiate our social groups, and people are old, young, tall short, tanned, pale, black, white, African American, or green.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a negative or derogatory thing, but given one definition of the word racism (to divide people into races or groups on the basis of racial characteristics) then it COULD be counted as being true.

The more accepted definition (to divide people into races or groups on the basis of racial characteristics then to treat them in an offensive or persecutory way) is what most people are arguing about.

Isn't the use of race as a concept a bit devisive?
Many races that people consider sperate have a lot in common with each other. This gets ignored when two groups named differently.

I made a post, quite a while ago, on how some different 'races' have similarities which aren't immediately apparent.

I think race is symptom of our own superficial judgement of other people.

Look deeper and 'race' is stupid.

Isn't the use of race as a concept a bit devisive?
Many races that people consider sperate have a lot in common with each other. This gets ignored when two groups named differently.

I made a post, quite a while ago, on how some different 'races' have similarities which aren't immediately apparent.

I think race is symptom of our own superficial judgement of other people.

Look deeper and 'race' is stupid.

Arranging anything into groups of similar objects is divisive. That does not necessarily make it wrong or bad.
It is human nature to classify objects into groups because it makes it easier to process things. Just because you recognise there are different races does not make you racist. It is how you interact with the different races that determines if you are racist.
It is not a system of judgement it is a system of classification. If you judge people depending on their race then that is racism if you simply acknowledge different races exist that is not racism.

Hee hee.

Fucktard...

Where exactly did you hear that term? And does it mean what I think that it means?

Wow, lots of talk about mentalities and such.

Quick question: if I find asian girls more physically attractive then white girls on usually a regular basis, does that make me racist?

Wow, lots of talk about mentalities and such.

Quick question: if I find asian girls more physically attractive then white girls on usually a regular basis, does that make me racist?

According to the OP you are racist for acknowledging that Asian girls exist. In my opinion that is not racist, it is your personal choice.

lol...

Ok, I'm not gonna get into mentalities and brains and such because I don't know CRAP about that subject.

But isn't it fairily obvious that there are some physical differences between races? I mean, if there wasn't, then I wouldn't have a preference for women of the asian variety.

Keep in mind that this is strictly on a physical basis. White girls, black girls, WHATEVER arn't "inferior." I just find them less physically attractive.

So, on a purely physical basis, couldn't one argue that there are indeed differences in races?

don't you love the fact that we have so much free time in western society that we can debate about trivial Bullsh**.
we're all trying to be so pc that we're walking on eggshells for no apparent reason. Pcness was introduced as a way of controlling what ppl said which was derogatory and actually spiteful to other people, ie; statements made with the Intention of attacking someone.
as always with society we blew it right out of proportion. now we're attaking those who have no real mean agenda they're just saying things "which might possibly hurt someone if there in such a position to hear what you said even though they probably wouldn't care about it themselves, I care..."
why must we join all of humanity into one Race? why can't they be seperated races and we name them? if i call out "you F***ing Englishman!" thats an insult to thats person by means of thier nation/race. but should that punish Josh here from saying "Robert here is an Englishman"? or even, dread the word "African-American" (i'm an Australian, so i expect plenty of hate mail soon... does that make me a racist for a comment about America? cos i said African-American? or because i'm sarcastic? or because i'm a cynic?)
to sum up (cos this has gone on long enough) you may define someone a Racist because they seperate their nation lineage and that of others, but if you say that why is a racist bad then? if there is nothing derogatory about their comment why should we be so scared? if no one is insulted why should they be shhed like some kid in a cinema talking too loud...
humans have become too paranoid because there is simply nothing better to do.
MS1

don't you love the fact that we have so much free time in western society that we can debate about trivial Bullsh**.
we're all trying to be so pc that we're walking on eggshells for no apparent reason. Pcness was introduced as a way of controlling what ppl said which was derogatory and actually spiteful to other people, ie; statements made with the Intention of attacking someone.
as always with society we blew it right out of proportion. now we're attaking those who have no real mean agenda they're just saying things "which might possibly hurt someone if there in such a position to hear what you said even though they probably wouldn't care about it themselves, I care..."
why must we join all of humanity into one Race? why can't they be seperated races and we name them? if i call out "you F***ing Englishman!" thats an insult to thats person by means of thier nation/race. but should that punish Josh here from saying "Robert here is an Englishman"? or even, dread the word "African-American" (i'm an Australian, so i expect plenty of hate mail soon... does that make me a racist for a comment about America? cos i said African-American? or because i'm sarcastic? or because i'm a cynic?)
to sum up (cos this has gone on long enough) you may define someone a Racist because they seperate their nation lineage and that of others, but if you say that why is a racist bad then? if there is nothing derogatory about their comment why should we be so scared? if no one is insulted why should they be shhed like some kid in a cinema talking too loud...
humans have become too paranoid because there is simply nothing better to do.
MS1

I agree with the point you are making.

I don't believe in blondes or brunettes. We're all one people with the same hair. This is a very important point to understand.

I don't believe in blondes or brunettes. We're all one people with the same hair. This is a very important point to understand.

What about bald (sorry follicularly challenged :rolleyes: ) people?

There is no hair. lol

Okay... I skimmed most of this, but never saw this analogy, which is my favorite.

How about we totally forget that humans exist for the moment(go ahead, try it) and imagine this is about... cats.

There is an American Shorthair Tabby over there. There is an Egyptian Mau over there. There is a Siamese between them and sitting in front of you is a Perisan.

All are the same species. All are different breeds, the equivilent to a cat 'race'.

Now back to the humans. There is a white dude over here, a black one there, an asian there and an arab in front of you.

All are the same species. All are different breeds. Different races. The same basic structure, different surfaces along with minor body changes.

That Persian is almost genetically identical to that tabby. That arab is almsot geneticly identical to that white man.

ALMOST. They are different and that difference can't just be ignored. Well... it can, but why?

Am I being a Breedist if I call a Siamese a Siamese instead of just a cat? No. I am describing that cat's breed in one word.

Am I being a racist if I call an Asian an Asian instead of a human? No. I am describing that human's race in one word.

If I use that word as an insult or I make sure that they are excluded or harmed because they are asian THEN I am racist. Otherwise, I'm just providing a harmless description.

So, Zygus, just so I can get a handle on this slightly confusing thread, were you deliberately making a provocative and ludicrous statement at the start of the thread to see what would result? If so, you must be both fascinated and highly amused. If not, then please explain, 'cause I'm a bit lost.

I like the word 'similar'. Every two human beings are similar to each other, in that they are both human, but also both unique individuals. Some groups of humans have greater similarity within the group than with the rest of humanity; the similarity could be skin colour, ability in mathematics, preference for peas over carrots, you name it. Describing the existence of these similarities while offending no-one is very, very difficult. Also, we all have mental bias, i.e. prejudice, which can be deliberate, struggled against, or unconscious.