NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask this question because of an interesting post someone made at the bottom of the first page in this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357285).

I essentially agree with the poster that there is no such thing as race in the way we generally think of it. Most people have in their minds a construct that is an amalgam of obvious physical and cultural characteristics that they designate "race". My conclusion from my analysis of this concept is that what many people think of as race is actually "culture", and that they strongly link the culture to physical chracteristics, blending the physiological and social realities, which creates a very complex and unreliable classification system. But now I'm just rambling...

On to the real topic. A person is a racist if they use the classification system I just described. I'm a racist myself by that definition. I use the classification system only infrequently, and when I do it's usually because that is the only way other people will understand a point. I'm trying to rid myself of even that, but social realities make it difficult.

Racism is a meme that plays upon our natural apprehension towards unfamiliarity.

Racism is a meme that plays upon our natural apprehension towards unfamiliarity.

The Stranger as a Social Phenomenon?

The Stranger as a Social Phenomenon?
and who are stranger than the jew and the negro. the white man must defend his great tribe from destruction are the hands of other tribes who would take advantage of his charity and good will.

A person is a racist if they use the classification system I just described. I'm a racist myself by that definition. I use the classification system only infrequently, and when I do it's usually because that is the only way other people will understand a point. I'm trying to rid myself of even that, but social realities make it difficult.

Agreed. :)

and who are stranger than the jew and the negro. the white man must defend his great tribe from destruction are the hands of other tribes who would take advantage of his charity and good will.
I think he just answered the threads main question, by providing an almost clear cut example of "what makes a person a racist"

Many formal and 'informal' experiments have shown beyond doubt that a person of one colour, brought up in a society of another colour does not exhibit any illness of what we're calling racism. Most, if not all the stupid racists on this site have been raised by racist parents. Anyway, racism is directly caused by ignorance.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kentishfire/Racist-sheep.jpg

Yeah, yeah, yeah, race is just a social construct. SURE it is. Take a look at the men's 100m final at the Olympics. Not one person of European origin has even reached the final since 1980. Take a look at the Middleweight to Heavyweight boxing divisions. Blacks overwhelmingly dominate. Physically, blacks are on average stronger, bigger in stature, and faster, than the other major races of mankind.

Take a look at average IQ statistics in the US. Blacks have an IQ about 85. Middle class blacks - the ones who have a college education as the beneficiaries of affirmative action - have children whose average IQ's are only marginally higher. These are supposed to be the kids who would get smarter when removed from poverty. After two or three generations as the beneficiaries of racial quotas, guess what, it never happened. Blacks are, on average, as intellectually incapacitated as ever.

Blacks have the brawn, whites and asians have the brains. There's no such thing as racial equality. It's a testament to the way even science has become politicized and corrupted by the left that racial equality is now conceived as a given by most scientists.

But of course, on the other hand, to discredit the liberal racial-equality science nuts, you can always bring up the fact that the human race shares 98.4% of its DNA with chimps. Oh, and 90% commonality with fruitflies. Almost forgot that one. So the tiny DNA differential between the major races of mankind is clearly very statistically important. It explains why blacks are basically "way-below-par".

Sure, I'm a racist. Yep, I'm a flaming racist. But I'm not racially prejudiced. I, like 99% of the rest of the world, define people, to a very small extent, by the color of their skin and their cultural background. But I certainly don't think any less of them for it. :)

A person would be considered a racist when they judge people on their ethnic background without even talking to them because of maybe a bad experience with someone of the same ethnicity. Many people judge people of a different ethnic background because they feel everyone should be like them. A person who classifies people on this would be considered racists. Say for instance, you hate all mexicans because you had a bad experience with one, then you would be a racist because not all mexicans are bad people. There are bad people in all ethnic backgrounds including the one you belong to.

Race definitley exists, there are genetic differences between Whites and blacks. We are not all equal, humans evolved differently to suit their climates and race is what we get from that.

Race definitley exists, there are genetic differences between Whites and blacks. We are not all equal, humans evolved differently to suit their climates and race is what we get from that.
It really all depends on how you define race. I've never looked it up, so I have no idea what it actually means. But yes, there are certainly differences, and I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge those differences, so long as you don't judge someone as a person by their physical appearance.

I think from my personal perspective, it's a lot of things. I have to fight the impulse to judge people by first glance, especially when their physical appearance is so different from mine, and their perception of me and mine of them is influenced by the subculture we were raised in. I was raised in a place where I really didn't see a black person in the flesh until I was about 13. Before that, they were just people who lived in places far away, and on TV or in the movies. I guess it was partly the difference in appearance and the shock of the outside world intruding on mine that made for a prejudice.

Later, I actually interacted with people of different races from my own, and some of that was botched by my initial ideas, and later by the bad experiences the botched ones produced. It's been a long road to just treating other people as other people, no matter what they look like. Some people just take it further, and never get the idea that there's anything wrong with the way they see things, or try to fix it. I'm not saying my way of dealing with things is perfect yet, but at least I'm willing to try. I'm willing to examine what it is that makes me act or feel a certain way toward somebody. It's when people get together in a group with other people who have decided that racism is okay that they get more entrenched in the belief.

I remember a few years ago at my job a black woman was talking about how strange white guys look when they lose their hair, she said they look really, really ugly, while black guys look cool. If a white woman had made the same comment she maybe would have lost her job, I don't know, but that's another issue.

But this got me to thinking: here was a really ugly black women with really ugly black features - thick lips, wide, broad nose, fuzzy "nappy" hair etc. I mean no one who wasn't black would likely be interested in this person as a woman. And most black guys would probably find her less attractive than a light-skinned black woman.

The point is that if this DNA difference is so small as scientists say it is, and yet it is responsible for such dramatic physical differences between the races (compare Whoopi Goldberg to Drew Barrymore for example), then it is a reasonable conclusion that blacks may have a significant intelligence deficiency compared to other races.

Has it ever occurred to you that she might think you're pretty ugly too? You're setting the situation up with a very subjective point of view. Maybe you're right. Maybe she was talking about something inappropriate for work. Then again, can you say that you've never said anything inappropriate to a co-worker?

As for looks, everyone likes something different. Maybe she was just telling you how she saw it. You can't go on the opinion of one person as representative of everyone else. You can't say that everyone would think she was ugly, either. You can't say that everyone thinks Drew Barrymore is beautiful. I don't, but I don't care if anyone else does or not. That's up to them. If that's what turns them on, great. More power to them.

The point is that if this DNA difference is so small as scientists say it is, and yet it is responsible for such dramatic physical differences between the races (compare Whoopi Goldberg to Drew Barrymore for example), then it is a reasonable conclusion that blacks may have a significant intelligence deficiency compared to other races.
Ummmm... Have you ever met a black person? And you really can't compare Whoopi Goldberg to Drew Barrymore. Rosie O'Donnel, maybe... And why would it be an intelligence deficiency? White people certainly weren't the first to develop civilizations, so why do you assume they're superior?

Yup, and besides, most people agree white women are the most attractive. Imagine a world where every woman looked like an archetypal Nordic goddess.

Yup, and besides, most people agree white women are the most attractive. Imagine a world where every woman looked like an archetypal Nordic goddess.

Most people? The majority of the people in the world are chinese, bub. I'm sure most of them wouldn't agree with you that white women are the most attractive, nor do they wish every woman looked like a Valkyrie. Show me some research to back your generalization up, you facetious so-and-so.

Racism is a point of view, based on ignorance.

You're what, 18? Live a little longer and see the way the system works and lose your naivety.

And yes, I know civilization didn't begin in Europe. But it became more advanced in Europe than in any other continent. Culturally, there was nothing comparible to the European Renaissance anywhere else. Politically, the Europeans have formulated democracy, communism and the crowning glory, fascism. Economically, the Europeans developed capitalism. And scientifically - well, I could go on for ever about how many scientific innovations Europeans or people of European descent are responsible for.

That's not to say that non-European peoples should not be given respect. The Japanese I admire intensely. Especially the Japanese nationalist-militarist government that took Japan into world war two and were the allies of National-Socialist Germany and fascist Italy (the Axis). They were great people. :)

You say you've been to college? You talk about the possibility of black people having a lower IQ? It's spelled "naivete". Are you sure they're the only ones being given mercy degrees?

You say you've been to college? You talk about the possibility of black people having a lower IQ? It's spelled "naivete". Are you sure they're the only ones being given mercy degrees?
ah yes the spelling nazis, one of the few forms of national socialism even i can not stand.

Sorry, man. I just thought that the irony was too tangible to resist making the point. ;)

Yes, I'm sure I've been to college. But you digress. No one spells it it "naivete" in "Amerika". Well, maybe they do where you live. Are you French? They would spell it "naïvté" by the way. ;)


I'll take "Changing the Subject" for $200, Alex.

Most people? The majority of the people in the world are chinese, bub. I'm sure most of them wouldn't agree with you that white women are the most attractive, nor do they wish every woman looked like a Valkyrie. Show me some research to back your generalization up, you facetious so-and-so.


Chinese are 1/6 of the world. Hardly a majority, but indeed the largest single group. However, we must remember China is a collection of dozens of various tribes.

Sorry, man. I just thought that the irony was too tangible to resist making the point. ;)
its okay, you are at least leaning the right way. eventually you may join us in our authoritarian struggle against the chaos that threatens to engulf the world. only threw order can society function, you show a certain inclination(if misguided) towards struggling to maintain that order.

Racism is a point of view, based on ignorance.



Opinion with no facts to back it up. I'd argue anti-racism, racial suicide, racial-self-hatred, is based upon the overwhelming politicizing of science and the overactive guilt complex of white people that manifests itself in the form of racial self-hatred.

Opinion with no facts to back it up. I'd argue anti-racism, racial suicide, racial-self-hatred, is based upon the overwhelming politicizing of science and the overactive guilt complex of white people that manifests itself in the form of racial self-hatred.

there is both the ignorance of the uniformed, and the ignorance of those who accept all information presented to them, by society, the government and public schools as true.

Opinion with no facts to back it up. I'd argue anti-racism, racial suicide, racial-self-hatred, is based upon the overwhelming politicizing of science and the overactive guilt complex of white people that manifests itself in the form of racial self-hatred.

Thats quite posssible, but I dont think the self-loathing is even a concious thought. It would have to completely in the ego, and if not identified as such, how valid could it possibly be in adult white males?

Granted, Im a whitey, but Ive never met any white man who suggested, or admitted to be ashamed of being white.
Ive also never met any other color of person who was shamed to be who they were.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, race is just a social construct. SURE it is. Take a look at the men's 100m final at the Olympics. Not one person of European origin has even reached the final since 1980. Take a look at the Middleweight to Heavyweight boxing divisions. Blacks overwhelmingly dominate. Physically, blacks are on average stronger, bigger in stature, and faster, than the other major races of mankind.

Take a look at average IQ statistics in the US. Blacks have an IQ about 85. Middle class blacks - the ones who have a college education as the beneficiaries of affirmative action - have children whose average IQ's are only marginally higher. These are supposed to be the kids who would get smarter when removed from poverty. After two or three generations as the beneficiaries of racial quotas, guess what, it never happened. Blacks are, on average, as intellectually incapacitated as ever.

Blacks have the brawn, whites and asians have the brains. There's no such thing as racial equality. It's a testament to the way even science has become politicized and corrupted by the left that racial equality is now conceived as a given by most scientists.

But of course, on the other hand, to discredit the liberal racial-equality science nuts, you can always bring up the fact that the human race shares 98.4% of its DNA with chimps. Oh, and 90% commonality with fruitflies. Almost forgot that one. So the tiny DNA differential between the major races of mankind is clearly very statistically important. It explains why blacks are basically "way-below-par".

Iq tests measures nothing mathematical and logical skills, if you say that is the only thing brains of white people are entitled to do, then really black people are intullectually better too. And what of the white children and parents? What did they get? One thing I suspect here would otherwise be the "American TV-syndrome"...

Thats quite posssible, but I dont think the self-loathing is even a concious thought. It would have to completely in the ego, and if not identified as such, how valid could it possibly be in adult white males?

Granted, Im a whitey, but Ive never met any white man who suggested, or admitted to be ashamed of being white.
Ive also never met any other color of person who was shamed to be who they were.
i knew a guy who was puerto rican and jewish. he was proud of being jewish, but ashamed of being puerto rican, he told people we was a north african jew. a bit of a confused soul, but a wizard on the ivories.

i knew a guy who was puerto rican and jewish. he was proud of being jewish, but ashamed of being puerto rican, he told people we was a north african jew. a bit of a confused soul, but a wizard on the ivories.


Im not saying it doesnt happen, Im just implying that I have never met any.
Im sure its far from average.

Im not saying it doesnt happen, Im just implying that I have never met any.
Im sure its far from average.

yeah, he was a complicated person with alot of family baggage. his mother was jewish and had died when he was a child, his father was puerto rican and had converted. to say his father was not a nice man is an understatement, and he had alot to do with his son's confused issues of identity.

You're a racist when you think negroes or asians or whatever are not from the homo sapiens race

BTW Can ethnic-minorities be racists? Or are they just striving for equality?

As I see it, a person who doesn't like people from another racial group is bigoted, biased, prejudiced etc. A racist is a person who ACTS on their own prejudices when dealing with people from a racial group they dont like, this could be verbal or physical violence...bad customer service, denying someone a job on the basis of race, withdrawal, snobbery...etc.

The notion of racial supremacy is itself dodgy ground... Western Civilization stands on the shoulders of several civilizations that went before it. The Greeks formulated democracy. The Babylonians were capitalists, long before Rome rose, let alone the rise of Europe. The Arabs had medicine, mathematics (possibly responsible for base 10 counting ) and optics while Europe technologically REGRESSED following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 7thC. (I blame the Church for that more than anything). Actually religion screwed Arab science too in the end...another story)

The interesting thing about superpowers and "master races" is that one group comes...gets knocked off its little perch and another takes over... Persia, Sparta, Macedonia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rome, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Germany, Japan, USSR, now the US. History is littered with the carcasses of civilizations that rose to the top, only to fall and vanish, now existing only as text book references and the occasional ruin or museum trinket. Europe and the US are powerful now...but that is not going to last. Perhaps the next superpower lies in the east. China, India, if either of those two countries become fully industrialised...well, you know what I mean.

I'm saying a few things... Greatness is transitory, so is racial supremacy, It really doesn't matter that whites may have higher average IQ (of course IQ tests are as subjective as hell) blacks have more muscle. Asians are brainy and Jews apparently avaricious. Because in the end, our day in the sun will be over and another country or racial group will take over the steering wheel...for all of us.... all I can hope for is that if the best of our ideals (justice, advancement, community, tolerance, discovery, compassion etc) can live on with another superpower, then thats good enough for me.

Another act of white courage.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aap/photo06.jpg

Another act of white courage.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aap/photo06.jpg

Way to stay on top of current events.
Lynchings were horrible, no question about it.
Racism is horrible, no question about it.

I think the point of this thread is what can be done to stop racism?

Is reverse descrimination the right way to go about it? Or is it simply racism directed in a different direction?

Is it ok for a person to be bigoted, prejudiced (which I believe we all suffer from, it's the degree that makes the difference) as long as they do not let their pre concieved notions affect their actions?

Those are the questions needing answers.

You're what, 18? Live a little longer and see the way the system works and lose your naivety.

And yes, I know civilization didn't begin in Europe. But it became more advanced in Europe than in any other continent. Culturally, there was nothing comparible to the European Renaissance anywhere else. Politically, the Europeans have formulated democracy, communism and the crowning glory, fascism. Economically, the Europeans developed capitalism. And scientifically - well, I could go on for ever about how many scientific innovations Europeans or people of European descent are responsible for.


Uhhhh, you are aware of that Inferno was just a plain copy by Dante from a Muslim writer?

If you are fascist, then how come you consider communism and anarchism great ideologies constructed by Europeans?

You don't think that Europ's great inventions like flint-lock guns and grape shots are the reasons that the science in Asia stagnated?

And yes, I know civilization didn't begin in Europe. But it became more advanced in Europe than in any other continent. Culturally, there was nothing comparible to the European Renaissance anywhere else. Politically, the Europeans have formulated democracy, communism and the crowning glory, fascism. Economically, the Europeans developed capitalism. And scientifically - well, I could go on for ever about how many scientific innovations Europeans or people of European descent are responsible for.

That's not to say that non-European peoples should not be given respect. The Japanese I admire intensely. Especially the Japanese nationalist-militarist government that took Japan into world war two and were the allies of National-Socialist Germany and fascist Italy (the Axis). They were great people. :)
...so? do you really believe that our culture (capitalism, 'modern science', etc. included) represents the most developped form of human existance?
you know, that's what any great culture believed in their days of glory.

As for racism, it starts in our minds. Of course, it shows in the actions we take, but racist thoughts are in all of us. No 'white' person can truthfully say they are not racist, because that's just the way we were brought up. It's not natural (seen as we have to teach little kids that those strange-looking people don't only look strange but that they indeed are strange.),
but it is embedded in our culture.
We can try our best not to let these thoughts influence our actions, though, since races are, just like racist thoughts, a product of our minds.
It is ridiculous to state that 'blacks' are intellectually inferior or chinese superior for that matter. It is quite possible that asians are more successful in intellectual pursuits, but this is not based on race, but on culture.

First I am “white” (actually kind of pink with a bit of a tan) but growing up about 2/3 of my friends were “black”. It’s kind of funny to see how humans divide themselves up in to smaller and smaller groups based on any supposed differences they can find. I remember one of my friends was very light skinned and he used to make fun of the others who had darker skin saying that he was a “high class black”. The others used to say he was not as good because he wasn’t really black.

It is also easy to forget in reading these and talking about these that all these "racial characteristics" that distinguish us (black athelticism, asian mathematical skills, and white science) are simply generalities. They are true when you look at the average of everyone who can be polled, but say nothing for the individual. There are over 6 billion of us now; that should be more than enough to "beat the odds" and find a Somalian who's a better pianist than a Chinese, or a Korean who can sprint faster than a Kenyan.
Generalities, remember.

Assuming that these generalities are true for every individual of their respective race is when you get started on racial profiling, and "racism."

No one country or one race could ever afford to adopt racism as a long term ideoligical policy. The basic biological paradigm of; diversity leading to prosperity can be applied quite directly to the issue of racism. It is arguable that the rise and subsequent spread of the doctrine of political correctness was more due to a recognition of this principle than purely ethical considerations (ethics and therefore politics derived from them are very crucially subjective, if not to one person but to a culture, it is then not the case that ethics appear and change societies perceptions it is vice versa). The wealth of skills knowlegde and ideas that can be drawn from any culture seen as different to the culture of the race or country in question far outweighs the underlying friction that occurs between discreet cultures. A society that recognises a multitude of races and draws advantages from each will prosper over a country which is falsely assured of it's own superiority and therefore merely wallows in a restricted pool of staganting ideas generated by but one race. In relation to this point the doctrine of political correctness, ie) forced equality is a definate disadvantage. It seeks to allow the resources and potentials of all to be tapped equally but in effect merely makes these potentials more difficult to assess by refusing to allow anybody to talk about different potentials existing at all. This is not to say that certain races have higher or larger potentials than others, different potentials are incommensurable, they are different in nature but not in 'power'.
So to summise, yes there are differences between races (although i would argue that the only relevant factors in these differences are cultural and not genetic) and this is a very usefull and 'positive' thing. However political corretness is neither usefull or 'positive' as it's creation as a knee jerk reaction to a problem has left it flawed and ultimately non-beneficial in relation to the situation it deals with.

Really? Anybody who believes that there are races is a racist? Just like anybody who believes that there are communities is a communist and anyone who believes that there is capital is a capitalist? Am I a telephonist because I believe that there are telephones?

This thread has a high proportion of dumbness. Races exist. There are racial differences. Some races are, on average, better at some things than other races, on average. A racist is someone who believes that a person of one race has more or less of a right to political and economic power, human rights, social respect, corndogs, seats on buses, anything at all, than a person of another race, simply because of their race. That's it.

No one country or one race could ever afford to adopt racism as a long term ideoligical policy. The basic biological paradigm of; diversity leading to prosperity can be applied quite directly to the issue of racism. It is arguable that the rise and subsequent spread of the doctrine of political correctness was more due to a recognition of this principle than purely ethical considerations (ethics and therefore politics derived from them are very crucially subjective, if not to one person but to a culture, it is then not the case that ethics appear and change societies perceptions it is vice versa). The wealth of skills knowlegde and ideas that can be drawn from any culture seen as different to the culture of the race or country in question far outweighs the underlying friction that occurs between discreet cultures. A society that recognises a multitude of races and draws advantages from each will prosper over a country which is falsely assured of it's own superiority and therefore merely wallows in a restricted pool of staganting ideas generated by but one race. In relation to this point the doctrine of political correctness, ie) forced equality is a definate disadvantage. It seeks to allow the resources and potentials of all to be tapped equally but in effect merely makes these potentials more difficult to assess by refusing to allow anybody to talk about different potentials existing at all. This is not to say that certain races have higher or larger potentials than others, different potentials are incommensurable, they are different in nature but not in 'power'.
So to summise, yes there are differences between races (although i would argue that the only relevant factors in these differences are cultural and not genetic) and this is a very usefull and 'positive' thing. However political corretness is neither usefull or 'positive' as it's creation as a knee jerk reaction to a problem has left it flawed and ultimately non-beneficial in relation to the situation it deals with.

Everything above about difference being good is often referred to as "the value of cultural and ethnic diversity". It's a positive thing, and has helped america to be very powerful.

The stuff about political correctnes, though... How can being correct be wrong? And the phrase "political correctness" has been in widespread use in politics and sociology since the 1950s, hardly a knee-jerk reaction. Where it is flawed is in the application of sound principles by scared and ignorant people to situations and in ways in which the usefulness of teaching people not to use the N word does not apply.

Yes you are a racist if you belive in the existence of races, this is one of my points. As stated racism is discrimination between races, catagorisation of people into different races is discrimination even if that discrimination is negligable. Discerning a difference requires you to discriminate between two objects (or groups of objects, such as races) and this can be extended to the treatment of people (arguably again in a very negligable way). If i meet a person on the street and i think of them as being Asian (for example) or say that they are Asain then i am descriminating against then on the basis of their race for i would not refer to a Native American (for example) as Asian. This point in itself if correct by definniation and was not to be seen as a point in its own right, it was linked to the spread and nature of political correctness (and no this concept is not correct merely by virtue of it having the word 'correct' in it, that would just be silly). Political correctness seeks to force eqality where it can never be usefully justified. Equality cannot be proved as comparrison between different races is impossible in any authentic sense, however in the same vein superiority cannot be proved. Appreciaiton of diversity again becomes the central point, a point which Political Corrrectness detracts from as well as damaging key areas of human freedom such as freedom of speech.

No one country or one race could ever afford to adopt racism as a long term ideoligical policy.




Japan, they've always been what your types would call "Xenophobic" and "Racist", look at them today. Japan needs no "Diversity" (Just a codeword for less of the dominant group) and they want none. American whites need no "Diversity" (Just a codeword in this case for less whites) and we want none.

Let's think about the USA since before there was a USA and it was just the colonies, say 1650s-1950, we managed to win two world wars with racist policies as law back at home. I think that your argument goes on the assumption that it actually makes sense without needing real proof. Sorry, you lose.

Sorry i must have missed the part where the quasi_fascist empire that had grown out of feudal Japan and embarked upon a gaint empire bulding venture won the 2nd World War and definately did not collapse due to it's own inherent arrogence that it's people were unstoppable. As for the USA, sorry but you people haven't exited for long enougth as a country for us to decide wether your racism wont destroy you as well. Also, i know it's a bit of a tired comment but it obviouly needs repeating "The US was not the only country involved in the 2nd World War", the Allies won the war and this is a reasonable example of the putting aside of cultural differences in order to jointly tackle a greater threat, ie: to accomplish something more.

Yes you are a racist if you belive in the existence of races, this is one of my points. As stated racism is discrimination between races, catagorisation of people into different races is discrimination even if that discrimination is negligable. .

That's bollocks. Discrimination between races isn't racism. Racism is prejudicial discrimination against people of given races on the grounds of their race.


Discerning a difference requires you to discriminate between two objects (or groups of objects, such as races) and this can be extended to the treatment of people (arguably again in a very negligable way). If i meet a person on the street and i think of them as being Asian (for example) or say that they are Asain then i am descriminating against then on the basis of their race for i would not refer to a Native American (for example) as Asian.

If you meet two people and decide that one of them is asian and one is native american, you are discriminating between them on the basis of race, ie you are noticing that they are different races. But as mentioned above, *between* and *against* aren't the same thing.

In your example you say you are discriminating against the Asian by not refering to a Native American as an Asian. How does it disadvantage the Asian that you wouldn't call a Native American "Asian"? It doesn't disadvantage them at all, and as it doesn't disadvantage them it is discrimination *between* not *against* and therefore it is not racism.

I can tell the difference between a dog and an automobile. Am I doggist because I know that a dog is not an automobile? Do dogs suffer because I don't call them automobiles?




This point in itself if correct by definniation and was not to be seen as a point in its own right, it was linked to the spread and nature of political correctness (and no this concept is not correct merely by virtue of it having the word 'correct' in it, that would just be silly).

I can't pull any sense out of this sentence. Am I tripping?


Political correctness seeks to force eqality where it can never be usefully justified.

No it doesn't. It seeks to promote equal treatment.

Equality cannot be proved as comparrison between different races is impossible in any authentic sense, however in the same vein superiority cannot be proved.

Equality can't be proved because it isn't any kind of scientific fact. Equality is an option, a choice made by society to treat all people equally. Comparison between races is entirely possible in an authentic sense. Witness the following comparison: Black people are darker, on the whole, than white people. The superiority of one race over another also can't be proved because it isn't any kind of scientific fact, it is a measurement against a set of criteria. Whether one race is superior to another is a question of your criteria. By my criteria for superiority in humanity, there can be no superior race.


Appreciaiton of diversity again becomes the central point, a point which Political Corrrectness detracts from as well as damaging key areas of human freedom such as freedom of speech.

Political Correctness itself doesn't detract from appreciation of diversity. Its misapplication can do that. But the point isn't apprecation of diversity, it is that you claim that perception of race is the same as racism which it isn't.

Japan, they've always been what your types would call "Xenophobic" and "Racist", look at them today. Japan needs no "Diversity" (Just a codeword for less of the dominant group) and they want none. American whites need no "Diversity" (Just a codeword in this case for less whites) and we want none.

Diversity isn't a codeword for less of the dominant group. It means, among other things, "less of the dominant group". It isn't code, that's just one of the things it means. Diversity rules. And by "we" do you mean "american whites"? I don't think you've asked all american whites what they want.


Let's think about the USA since before there was a USA and it was just the colonies, say 1650s-1950, we managed to win two world wars with racist policies as law back at home. I think that your argument goes on the assumption that it actually makes sense without needing real proof. Sorry, you lose.

I don't think s/he has proven that a monocultural society will eventually implode, but s/he is absolutely correct in stating that racial and cultural diversity have given america a lot of its power. Winning wars isn't everything. Besides all the obvious nonsense about your wars statement, an awful lot of the american people who worked hard and paid hard to win ww2 were jewish. Are they part of your white america?

Diversity isn't a codeword for less of the dominant group. It means, among other things, "less of the dominant group". It isn't code, that's just one of the things it means. Diversity rules. And by "we" do you mean "american whites"? I don't think you've asked all american whites what they want.



I don't think s/he has proven that a monocultural society will eventually implode, but s/he is absolutely correct in stating that racial and cultural diversity have given america a lot of its power. Winning wars isn't everything. Besides all the obvious nonsense about your wars statement, an awful lot of the american people who worked hard and paid hard to win ww2 were jewish. Are they part of your white america?
Change society for modern culture, people living in Australia for 60,000+ years in the same culture/society, with a single race may point out your error.

Someone who distinguishes between races is not necessarily racist. Racism is when one considers one race superior or inferior to others, or treats members of different races inequally.

Having said that, I large part of what makes people racist is personal experience. It's pretty normal for someone who has mulitple negative experiences with those of a particular race, they tend to judge the whole race by the actions of those few. This is especially true when those negative experiences occur at a young age.

I condemn racism, but am liable to say things that might inaccurately brand me as a racist.

Change society for modern culture, people living in Australia for 60,000+ years in the same culture/society, with a single race may point out your error.

Er, I'm dumb, spell it out for me.

Er, I'm dumb, spell it out for me.
One race, one culture, 60,000 years no implosion, content people. Therefore single culture, single race and stability is not a problem.
However in the 'modern' world expectations are different and contentment is not enough, you must (apparently) have material success.

One race, one culture, 60,000 years no implosion, content people. Therefore single culture, single race and stability is not a problem.
However in the 'modern' world expectations are different and contentment is not enough, you must (apparently) have material success.

I don't think anyonr argued that such a nation would be unstable. Only that it wouldn't get very far. And they didn't. And lo, there nation isn't doing a great job of surviving.

I believe that the treatment of the aboriginal (is that not a good word? it's the only one I know) people by the european people and state of australia is and has been absolutely shameful. However it happened.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, race is just a social construct. SURE it is. Take a look at the men's 100m final at the Olympics. Not one person of European origin has even reached the final since 1980. Take a look at the Middleweight to Heavyweight boxing divisions. Blacks overwhelmingly dominate. Physically, blacks are on average stronger, bigger in stature, and faster, than the other major races of mankind.

Take a look at average IQ statistics in the US. Blacks have an IQ about 85. Middle class blacks - the ones who have a college education as the beneficiaries of affirmative action - have children whose average IQ's are only marginally higher. These are supposed to be the kids who would get smarter when removed from poverty. After two or three generations as the beneficiaries of racial quotas, guess what, it never happened. Blacks are, on average, as intellectually incapacitated as ever.

Blacks have the brawn, whites and asians have the brains. There's no such thing as racial equality. It's a testament to the way even science has become politicized and corrupted by the left that racial equality is now conceived as a given by most scientists.

But of course, on the other hand, to discredit the liberal racial-equality science nuts, you can always bring up the fact that the human race shares 98.4% of its DNA with chimps. Oh, and 90% commonality with fruitflies. Almost forgot that one. So the tiny DNA differential between the major races of mankind is clearly very statistically important. It explains why blacks are basically "way-below-par".

1.) I never implied that there were not general trends that show correlations between various charcteristics and obvious physical features. You, quite frankly, made the assumption that if race is just a social construct then all percieved differences are just delusions. I make no such ridiculous assumptions. There are indeed certain trends that exist and should be acknowledged. The problem comes in when people connect those trends with cultural patterns and/or begin giving them greater significance than they warrant.

2.) "Blacks" are as intellectually incapacitated as ever, eh? *snort* After growing up in an area where "black" persons were the majority, I can say with great confidence that on average they are just as intelligent as anyone else, thank you very much. I doubt that you, with your superior white intellect, would last one minute in one of the verbal dueling sessions that are a cultural trademark of "black" people in the U.S.

and who are stranger than the jew and the negro. the white man must defend his great tribe from destruction are the hands of other tribes who would take advantage of his charity and good will.

ROFLMFAO!! I'm glad to see that you are as amusing as ever! Keep it up!

1.) I never implied that there were not general trends that show correlations between various charcteristics and obvious physical features. You, quite frankly, made the assumption that if race is just a social construct then all percieved differences are just delusions. I make no such ridiculous assumptions. There are indeed certain trends that exist and should be acknowledged. The problem comes in when people connect those trends with cultural patterns and/or begin giving them greater significance than they warrant.

2.) "Blacks" are as intellectually incapacitated as ever, eh? *snort* After growing up in an area where "black" persons were the majority, I can say with great confidence that on average they are just as intelligent as anyone else, thank you very much. I doubt that you, with your superior white intellect, would last one minute in one of the verbal dueling sessions that are a cultural trademark of "black" people in the U.S.

"Race is a social construct" is a really bad argument against racists. There ae some really poisonous moronic racists here, and pretending that there is no such thing as race isn't going to make them go away. There is very little racial purity anywhere anymore. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Is that what you mean?

"Race is a social construct" is a really bad argument against racists.

I don't argue against racists. I argue against racism. :D

There ae some really poisonous moronic racists here, and pretending that there is no such thing as race isn't going to make them go away.

I've been posting on these forums for almost a year now, and consequently am aware of those facts. :)

There is very little racial purity anywhere anymore. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Is that what you mean?

What I mean? I don't recall ever mentioning anything about racial purity...but I do think that breeding across racial lines is advantageous. Is that what you meant? ;)

What I mean? I don't recall ever mentioning anything about racial purity...but I do think that breeding across racial lines is advantageous. Is that what you meant? ;)

if you said what you meant, i wouldn't have to ask you what you meant, cos you'd have said it.

miscegenation rules. racial lines mean there are races. it isn't racist to say that there are races.

if you said what you meant, i wouldn't have to ask you what you meant, cos you'd have said it.

Fair enough.

miscegenation rules. racial lines mean there are races. it isn't racist to say that there are races.

Yes it is, and I've admitted to being racist. I'm not the kind of racist that says, "wyte ppls r teh suxx0rzz" or drags people for miles behind a pickup truck, but I'm a racist nonetheless. Most people think being racist=being hateful or arrogant, but that is simply not the case. Being hateful or arrogant toward others on the basis of race is simply an expression of an inner heirarchy that is racism. And if you have that heirarchy/classification system, you are a racist, even if you don't blatantly act on it.

First racism is defined as discrimination between people on the basis of thier race, now it seems that the goal posts have been moved to limit racism to only negative descrimination based upon race. The example of the Asian and the native american was used to illustrate the former, the 'between' and 'against' argument of course revolves around the latter. But isn't ANY discrimination on basis of race still racism? Calling the Asian an Asian is an example of a neutral discrimination, it has no negative or positive effect. A racially motivated killing would be an example of negative discrimination. Positive descrimination also exists and this is where political correctness undermines itself once more.
Take the MOBO's as an example, this music event brings advantages to the participents who must be of a specific racial descent. There is no direct disadvantage to other races it seems yet is still racism (discrimination). Even under the more strict (and in my opinion ill founded) definition of racism as negative discrimination this positive decrimination can be seen as catagorisable as being racist. One broadly defined race benifits from the MOBO's yet all others do not (directly), this in itself is putting other races to a negative disadvantage relatively merely by not offering them the same opportunity. This is contry to political correctness yet is permitted (and arguably encouraged) by it. We are not arguing here, in practical terms that the MOBO's should be abolished, only that as much money and publicity and effort be sunk into a MOWO and a MOYO (Music Of Yellow Origin).
Also, i agree whole heartedly with the point made that superiority of any race can never be defined (i did in fact say so in the same sentence criticised), it cannot and the equality of all races can also never be defined, so why should we adopt either as a policy. There is no equality or superiority merely difference. As for political corretness forcing eqality upon people i feel this point still stands, i could not describe the behaviour of a group of people in relation to thier race/cultural differences for very long without being chastised by someone preaching political correctness at me, saying we are all equal and no such links can be drawn. My apologies however for my inaccesable sentence of doom (your not tripping, it makes some sense but not much), that was rushed poor use of language as i am typing from work (and therefore supposed to be working , hence the haste). The sentence was meant to say something along the line of; "This is a semantic and side point, let's not get caught up in it my actual point was about political correctness and this point on discrimination was but one part of it. Also just because the word correct features in a term does not make said term correct (this final point was in response to the previous argument that 'political correctness is correct otherwise it would not be called political correctness').
What stands is that we could discuss the issue of race more freely if political correctness did not exist, we would not all descend into an anarchic slagging match as a percieved (it not true) objectivity is required for discussion. Also terms that cause offence should not be banned or curtailed in their use as we were all tought at school that if we merely let the terms have no negative effect on us (ie; just accept them as words which they are) then no offence is taken.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. People rationalizing their prejudices. Wake up people, this is the real world. Whatever your qualified definition of "racism" is you still are, and it's ridiculous.

And I'm a white southern male by the way, in case you were wondering.

Yes, this discussion is a complete tangent

BTW Can ethnic-minorities be racists? Or are they just striving for equality?

Ethnic minorities can indeed be racist. I've been on the receiving end of that, more than once being in a mainly Black section of Cleveland OH and someone yelled "White mother f****r!" for no reason except that I was there. And I know that there is a lot of hostility between the Blacks here in Pittsburgh PA and the Middle East/South Asian people who own many of the small businesses in Black neighborhoods and are seen as exploiters. One immediately thinks of European anti-Semitism minus its religious component.

Sorry I didn't see this post sooner. :)

Really? Anybody who believes that there are races is a racist? Just like anybody who believes that there are communities is a communist and anyone who believes that there is capital is a capitalist? Am I a telephonist because I believe that there are telephones?

Telephones, capital, and communities are not social constructs/classification systems.

This thread has a high proportion of dumbness.

Indeed it does.

Races exist. There are racial differences. Some races are, on average, better at some things than other races, on average.

I myself prefer drag races. They measure full-on acceleration more effectively.

A racist is someone who believes that a person of one race has more or less of a right to political and economic power, human rights, social respect, corndogs, seats on buses, anything at all, than a person of another race, simply because of their race. That's it.

Ah, you refer to the commonly accepted definition of racism. Let's not get stuck on what's commonly accepted shall we? It was at one time commonly accepted that our planet was at the center of the universe.

How do you argue with people who think this is funny?

http://www.resist.com/cartoons/image/jew9.gif

This thread has a high proportion of dumbness. Races exist. There are racial differences. Some races are, on average, better at some things than other races, on average. A racist is someone who believes that a person of one race has more or less of a right to political and economic power, human rights, social respect, corndogs, seats on buses, anything at all, than a person of another race, simply because of their race. That's it.
If race exists then tell me how many there are, and how you categorise them all in an absolute sense. If we find a greater genetic difference between persons A and B than between persons B and C, does that mean that A and B are more racially related than B and C, even though person A is say Chinese and persons B and C are both white Americans?

It is a fact that people categorised as being the same 'race' can be more genetically different to each other than two people classed as being differently 'raced'. Race is indeed a social construct. Basically people made observations then interpreted their observations falsely and from this interpretation arose the concept of 'race'. You can tell race is based on interpretation rather than fact by the manner in which 'race' cannot be absolutely or definitively defined. It's not possible to objectively identify absolute traits that are shared by every single member of what is categorised as a 'race' whilst not been shared by any single non-member of that 'race'.

"Race is a social construct" is a really bad argument against racists. There ae some really poisonous moronic racists here, and pretending that there is no such thing as race isn't going to make them go away. There is very little racial purity anywhere anymore. Which in my opinion is a good thing. Is that what you mean?
Race is a social construct. People classed as being from a particular 'race' dont all share any particular common trait not found outside their 'race', so 'race' is not based on sharing of traits, and people of different races can be more similar to each other genetically than to others within their own 'race' so it's not based on difference, and people of different 'races' can reproduce together so it's not based on biological incompatability, and anyone raised in a culture will be encultured accordingly, so it's not behavioural, so what the heck is race referring to if not shared traits, or points of difference, or biological integratability or behaviour?

it isn't racist to say that there are races
Racist or not, it's false.

and who are stranger than the jew and the negro. the white man must defend his great tribe from destruction are the hands of other tribes who would take advantage of his charity and good will.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This whole racism thing is stupid. How can you seriously believe that you are better than someone simply because of the color of your skin or the shape of your nose? How can you seriously believe that Jews have a genetic tendency towards greed and conspiracy? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds when you make claims like that?

Eh, my school is racist. The hispanics call the blacks n**** the blacks respond, oh it's a racist fun filled fest! And we're friends in the end... eh, and yes white people do get killed in my school, not killed, but mocked.

And yes I am a tad racist... but we all are in a way.

The real problem is that how can you have anti discrimination laws if you can't define what the person is discriminating against? So because someone doessnt give jobs blacks should we introduce a bill called "Anti Discrimination to People Who have a General Tendency to Exhibit a Darker Skin Tone" In order to defend minorities you need to define minorities.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This whole racism thing is stupid. How can you seriously believe that you are better than someone simply because of the color of your skin or the shape of your nose? How can you seriously believe that Jews have a genetic tendency towards greed and conspiracy? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds when you make claims like that?

racialists believe race has a deeper signifigance than simply skin color or the shape of facial features, race also influences personality and behavior. you may believe this is untrue, but please understand the othersides position. attack there beliefs not a paper tiger of you own oversimplifications.

race isn't just genetics its also culture, but the two are wedded together. would a jew still have all the characteristics of his people if raised by gentiles? probably not. would he have some ? probably. would a negro have more? again probably.

Genetics do not influence a 'races' behaviour. Local circumstances do that. Raise anyone in a slum with little or no education and you have a higher instance of crime. Burden a child with its 'race' as unequal to the majority of the society he or she lives in and you breed resentment. There are local heros living in the slums of India and morons in charge of western nations.
Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances.

The real problem is that how can you have anti discrimination laws if you can't define what the person is discriminating against?
And since you cannot define race subjectively and absolutely, race is no help in defining anti discrimination laws.

So because someone doessnt give jobs blacks should we introduce a bill called "Anti Discrimination to People Who have a General Tendency to Exhibit a Darker Skin Tone" In order to defend minorities you need to define minorities.
Why not just introduce a law saying that all people are to be treated according to their merits, (merit having been defined as what one says and does)?
The fact is race does not exist as can be proven by the fact that race cannot be categorically defined, so suggesting we need a concept that does not provide a categorical definition in order to have a categorical definition is nonsensical.

Genetics do not influence a 'races' behaviour. Local circumstances do that. Raise anyone in a slum with little or no education and you have a higher instance of crime. Burden a child with its 'race' as unequal to the majority of the society he or she lives in and you breed resentment. There are local heros living in the slums of India and morons in charge of western nations.
Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances.
i admit race is partially circumstance i.e. culture, but can you prove it is only circumstance, that genetics play no role.

i admit race is partially circumstance i.e. culture, but can you prove it is only circumstance, that genetics play no role
Race is a social construct ergo, no culture, no society, no race.

Japan, they've always been what your types would call "Xenophobic" and "Racist",

Incorrect. What there is of this is largely a result of the isolation imposed by the Tokugawas. And it is quite nearly dissappeared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a job. There is a very large English education business in Japan. The three most common reasons students give for wanting to study English are international business, international travel, and to make foreighn aquaintances.

look at them today.

Failing economy, rising crime rates, significant social problems?

Japan needs no "Diversity" (Just a codeword for less of the dominant group) and they want none.

Incorrect on both accounts. Even the xenophobes realize this.

Foreigners wanted: Make babies in Japan! (http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/waiwai/0406/0630birth.html)
...Borderline xenophobic at the best of times, Shukan Taishu suggests foreigners may be Japan's salvation, but quickly points out that crimes by non-Japanese have already created social frictions now. Even the men's weekly concedes that Japan may be forced to accepts large-scale immigration -- roughly 11 times the existing 2 million non-Japanese residing in the country -- if it wants to keep its economy on track....

American whites need no "Diversity" (Just a codeword in this case for less whites) and we want none.

:confused:

You may not, but you don't speak for the vast majority of Americans of European descent.

Let's think about the USA since before there was a USA and it was just the colonies, say 1650s-1950, we managed to win two world wars with racist policies as law back at home.

:confused: This makes absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea what you were trying to say. Did you mean that we won two-world wars before there was a USA? Did you mean that there was no US but the colonies up until 1950?

I think that your argument goes on the assumption that it actually makes sense without needing real proof. Sorry, you lose.

I have been asking for any valid evidence on these boards for some time, yet the believers in race have yet to present any valid evidence for it's existence.
You are defeated by your own statements.

Race is a social construct ergo, no culture, no society, no race.

that is essentually a circular argument. there is no genetic basis for race because race has no genetic basis.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, race is just a social construct. SURE it is. Take a look at the men's 100m final at the Olympics. Not one person of European origin has even reached the final since 1980. Take a look at the Middleweight to Heavyweight boxing divisions. Blacks overwhelmingly dominate. Physically, blacks are on average stronger, bigger in stature, and faster, than the other major races of mankind.
....
But of course, on the other hand, to discredit the liberal racial-equality science nuts, you can always bring up the fact that the human race shares 98.4% of its DNA with chimps. Oh, and 90% commonality with fruitflies. Almost forgot that one. So the tiny DNA differential between the major races of mankind is clearly very statistically important. It explains why blacks are basically "way-below-par".

Uhm, no.

Why does what you've described happen? Easy: society. African Americans, caucasians, Asians, Mexicans--whatever--they are all brought up on different social scales, social expectations, and, accordingly, grow up into different people. So why do Blacks seem to grow up, as you put it "way-below-par"? Maybe because the Blacks (and I assume you are talking about American African Americans) were brought up as slaves. Look at Africans; those whose countries havn't gone to the sh*ts grow up to be reasonably intelligent. As intelligent as say, the average caucasian. What happened when aperthied ended in South Africa? Suddenly there were some Africans driving BMWs and SUVs.

And to descredit all you conservative racial-inequality Creationists (Isnt stereotyping fun?) human race cannot be defined by looking at ACGTs of DNA. You cannot tell white from black from yellow from green by looking at it.

P.S. you forgot about that tiny 100lb Chinese woman who won the 25k run at the Olympics. WTH was up with that? Using Olympics to defend your point is stupid. The nearly all Black (and hence ultra-athletic?) American basketball team was beat by Lithuania? And who took the gold? Who is our heavyweight weight lifter?

Michael Phelps should be a black man.

that is essentually a circular argument. there is no genetic basis for race because race has no genetic basis.
Actually it is a logical truth since it is a tautology.

Ah, you refer to the commonly accepted definition of racism. Let's not get stuck on what's commonly accepted shall we? It was at one time commonly accepted that our planet was at the center of the universe.

Of course I do. That's how language works. People commonly accept a definition, and they use a word to denote that definition. Thus they can use the word to refer to the thing defined. If you want to not get stuck on commonly accepted definitions, we will likely horse banana thursday my grandma.

I'm using some non commonly accepted definitions in the last sentence, did you spot them?
horse as in "stop"
banana as in "understanding"
thursday as in "what"
my as in "people"
grandma as in "say".

You see definitions are a matter of common acceptance. Facts, like where the centre of the universe is, aren't.

If race exists then tell me how many there are, and how you categorise them all in an absolute sense. If we find a greater genetic difference between persons A and B than between persons B and C, does that mean that A and B are more racially related than B and C, even though person A is say Chinese and persons B and C are both white Americans?

If you find a greater genetic difference between two white americans than between one of them and a chinese, where are you looking? Is the Chinese a white chinese, a black chinese or a yellow chinese? If you were using the word Chinese to refer not the person's nationality but to their ethnicity, then you are describing their race. Not a socially constructed race, but a collection of inherited traits which usually include a yellowish tone to the skin and epicanthic folds.



It is a fact that people categorised as being the same 'race' can be more genetically different to each other than two people classed as being differently 'raced'. Race is indeed a social construct. Basically people made observations then interpreted their observations falsely and from this interpretation arose the concept of 'race'.


"it is a fact that" isn't an argument. Furthermore, genetic difference can be due to all sorts of things, for instance down's syndrome.


You can tell race is based on interpretation rather than fact by the manner in which 'race' cannot be absolutely or definitively defined. It's not possible to objectively identify absolute traits that are shared by every single member of what is categorised as a 'race' whilst not been shared by any single non-member of that 'race'.


So? That doesn't mean that there aren't races.


Race is a social construct. People classed as being from a particular 'race' dont all share any particular common trait not found outside their 'race', so 'race' is not based on sharing of traits, and people of different races can be more similar to each other genetically than to others within their own 'race' so it's not based on difference, and people of different 'races' can reproduce together so it's not based on biological incompatability, and anyone raised in a culture will be encultured accordingly, so it's not behavioural, so what the heck is race referring to if not shared traits, or points of difference, or biological integratability or behaviour?


Racist or not, it's false.

If you want to define "race" as a group of people who all share a single genetic trait that isn't shared by people of any other race, you can define at least 3 races. Yellow peoples have the epicanthic fold. White and Black peoples do not. Black peoples have a level of melanin an order of magnitude higher than white and black peoples. White peoples have neither the melanin nor the epicanthic fold. Mixed race people may have different levels of these traits.

Me, I think your definition of race is bollocks, so I would define a lot more races.

a person is racist when s/he allows this to colour his/her decisions.
it is the same a being sexist. if it affects your decision its sexism.

What would make a person a racist around here?

-Mainly gangs of youths, usually of North-African, Arabic, or Turkish descent, often imitating American "gangsta" or English "Townie" culture. R 'n B, garage, rap, sometimes some really poor arabo-pop or whatever it is they listen to.
-the sight of their mothers... Often (?) "repressed" by our standards
-female beggars with babies or children with them. To be seen in the larger cities. They don't do it for fun, but we can't support them like this. This will encourage more of them to come over.

Too bad the people in charge (and the people in general) are bound by political corectness, and kneejerk anti-racist reactions that cross the limit of common sense. This may have an adverse effect, as it could drive the people who feel hushed or ignored right into the hands of the extremists. It's seen in "black and white" too much (pun not intended).

Of course I do. That's how language works. People commonly accept a definition, and they use a word to denote that definition. Thus they can use the word to refer to the thing defined. If you want to not get stuck on commonly accepted definitions, we will likely horse banana thursday my grandma.

I'm using some non commonly accepted definitions in the last sentence, did you spot them?
horse as in "stop"
banana as in "understanding"
thursday as in "what"
my as in "people"
grandma as in "say".

You see definitions are a matter of common acceptance. Facts, like where the centre of the universe is, aren't.

I'm well aware what words and definitions are and how they're used and that they are largely arbitrary. My problem with your statement was that you appealed to common knowledge. That is what is commonly referred to as a "fallacy". I'm sure a learned person such as yourself is familiar with the commonly accepted definition of that term. :)

If you find a greater genetic difference between two white americans than between one of them and a chinese, where are you looking? Is the Chinese a white chinese, a black chinese or a yellow chinese? If you were using the word Chinese to refer not the person's nationality but to their ethnicity, then you are describing their race. Not a socially constructed race, but a collection of inherited traits which usually include a yellowish tone to the skin and epicanthic folds.
Race and ethnicity are different. Ethnicity is not premised on sharing a bunch of morphological traits with others, but rather on who's one own annestors were, and the relationships they encountered, as well as one's own. Thus ethnicity describes things about a person, such as the ethnicity of their anncestors, the culture they or their anncestors identified and even nationalistic/geographic identification.

So? That doesn't mean that there aren't races.
Race is based on the premise that different 'breeds' of people exist, now if we cant identify these breeds, it's not unreasonable to suggest that this premise is false, and if the premise on which race is based is false, then how can race be true. Scienfically, when we look for objective proof of 'races' according to any rationale definition of the world, we cant find them.

If you want to define "race" as a group of people who all share a single genetic trait that isn't shared by people of any other race, you can define at least 3 races. Yellow peoples have the epicanthic fold. White and Black peoples do not. Black peoples have a level of melanin an order of magnitude higher than white and black peoples. White peoples have neither the melanin nor the epicanthic fold. Mixed race people may have different levels of these traits.

Me, I think your definition of race is bollocks, so I would define a lot more races.
I didnt define it, that is what race means, that is the theory on which race was premised. It was mooted that since people looked and acted so different there must be subspecies or races of humans and that explained why people were not all alike culturally as well as in terms of general morphological traits. As it happens epicanthic folds have been found among many populations, there is no level of melanin that seperates those who would be considered black and those not absolutely. Whatever melanin level you chose some 'non-black' people would be included, or if you went high enough to avoid this some 'black' people would be excluded.

If you want to define "race" as a group of people who all share a single genetic trait that isn't shared by people of any other race, you can define at least 3 races. Yellow peoples have the epicanthic fold. White and Black peoples do not. Black peoples have a level of melanin an order of magnitude higher than white and black peoples. White peoples have neither the melanin nor the epicanthic fold. Mixed race people may have different levels of these traits.

1) That isn't how race is defined by biologists.
2) The traits given as definitions of race are generally not covariant.
3) There are numerous populations* that do not fall under those catagories.
4) The characteristics used to define race are graded, and blend into each other over geographic space. In other words, as one moves from one geographic location to another, there is no observable deifining jump (to use you examples) from one level of melanin to another or in the occurance of the epicanthic fold.

I'm well aware what words and definitions are and how they're used and that they are largely arbitrary. My problem with your statement was that you appealed to common knowledge. That is what is commonly referred to as a "fallacy". I'm sure a learned person such as yourself is familiar with the commonly accepted definition of that term. :)

No, I did not at any time appeal to "common knowledge". I used words with in the way they are used. That's not only a different thing, it is how language works. Your definition of racism isn't like the majority definition, so if you want to define racism in a particular way, go ahead. If you do that and then tell me that your definition of racism is correct, and mine is simply popular, you're absolutely wrong.

Most english speakers throughout the world use the word "racism" when they mean "discrimination against a person on the grounds of race". You apparently use it when you mean "discrimination between two persons on the grounds of race". You are free to do that, but don't expect anyone to understand you when you speak.

No, I did not at any time appeal to "common knowledge". I used words with in the way they are used. That's not only a different thing, it is how language works. Your definition of racism isn't like the majority definition, so if you want to define racism in a particular way, go ahead. If you do that and then tell me that your definition of racism is correct, and mine is simply popular, you're absolutely wrong.

Most english speakers throughout the world use the word "racism" when they mean "discrimination against a person on the grounds of race". You apparently use it when you mean "discrimination between two persons on the grounds of race". You are free to do that, but don't expect anyone to understand you when you speak.

1.) There's this thing commonly known as "sociology". It involves the analysis of social structures. That's where i get my definition of "racism".

2.) "discrimination between two persons on the grounds of race" is not how I define racism. The above definition is simply race-based discrimination. Racism is a belief, not an act.

My real definition of racism: "Viewing the human (homo sapiens sapiens) species as being divided into categories by significant physiological characteristics."

3.) I bolded some of the sentences/phrases in your post. Those phrases constitute obvious Bandwagon/Common Knowledge/Common Practice sort of appeals.