NationStates Jolt Archive

Racism 2.0 is the new term that some antiracist activists are using for the racism that exists today and post-election President Obama.I am a supporter of President Obama, but position this to open discussion.

Racism 1.0 is the traditional white supremacy, and what was seen from many Right wingers and the typical racists.

The antiracist activists position that Racism 2.0 is more subtle. They say that President Obama fits a comfortable demeanour that was more closer to upper middle class whites, more close to a Huxability factor (their words) such as Bill Cosby, and that he comfortably swept many race issues (police discrimination like the shooting of Oscar Grant) under the rug as well as condemned black anger like Reverend Wright even though in some cases it is justified considering the terrible history of the country. It also positions that Obama sold the continued glossed over (mostly white) version of history (this has also been criticized by popular history advocates, saying he glossed over American imperialism and still is of course. Then more contemporary he is not going to investigate what was really done in the war in Iraq).

They propose that many white supporters of President Obama are still in fact uncomfortable, even distrustful of black people, and that President Obama only sets up a new standard which will cause many people still to refuse to accept most African-Americans who speak a different way, and act a different way. Now people will say that a black male needs to "be like Obama" or act a certain way to be acceptable to the mainstream.

Their main point is that of course that the election of President Obama will further delusion whites, and others to ignore the plight of black people as a result of institutional racism, and ignore the generational poverty and segregation of poor black neighborhoods. They of course go into the factors including until recently discriminative housing, and that the segregation of poor black neighborhoods in certain areas leads to poor under-funded schools due to lower tax revenues which is resultant of the lack of capital that poor black families had as compared to white families and that is the result of generational poverty.

They also present several statistics including the social cost to black neighborhoods of 2/3s of prison populations being black, high school graduation statistics at poorly funded schools in majority black areas, still it seems racial discrimination in loan practices (It is apparently statistically measurable that blacks with equal credit to whites were still given subprime loans at high rates while those white were given regular loans. These conclusions were drawn from official statistics from government sources)

Most interestingly it was actually racist rhetoric that trying to give black and other poor inner-city people housing loans was the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. The Act that was often blamed actually only allowed banks (as in the legal institution not the general brand) to grant the loans to poor homeowners, and not the mortgage lenders that were mostly responsible for the subprime crisis.

So they're calling Obama Uncle Tom?

The subprime mortgage crisis is just one weed in a field of weeds. It's nothing more than a footnote. Go deeper in the rabbit hole and you'll find the gargantuan global economic bubble created by assinine monetarist policies emanating from every central bank in the world from US to Europe to Asia.

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement. Relatively low average black intelligence, and societal racism, interact in a vicious psychosocial cycle to keep the black man down.

Ralph Nader was right, Obama is an Uncle Tom. He is a pawn and/or partner of this country's central bankers, militarists, and other fascist elements.

Their not saying President Obama is trying to act that way or being that rude about it. Some are saying that he sets up an unattainable image for most black men, and that it will be wrong if white people expect black men to act like President Obama and that that becomes the only acceptable image of what a black man should be when that is not nearly reasonable considering President Obama is an graduate of Harvard, and obviously had a very different background than most African-Americans. They do go as far as to say though that President Obama reflects a more upper-middle class white culture that is still today the more acceptable culture.

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement.

That is racist. Low average intelligence? Have you ever considered that there are more measures to intelligence than simply literacy or how good of an education someone can display that was supposed to be attained though their schools were poorly funded?

So I suppose most poor white Europeans have a low average intelligence too?

"Racism 1.0 is the traditional white supremacy, and what was seen from many Right wingers and the typical racists."

Thanks for equating conservatism with white supremacy. Do you actually know any right-wingers?

This is exactly like equating progressivism with communist pogroms - untrue and unhelpful.

That is racist. Low average intelligence? Have you ever considered that there are more measures to intelligence than simply literacy or how good of an education someone can display that was supposed to be attained though their schools were poorly funded?
Which measures were you thinking of?

So I suppose most poor white Europeans have a low average intelligence too?

Poor white Europeans don't have a low average intelligence. IQ has an extremely consistent correlation with race, and a small and superficial correlation with socioeconomic status.

I don't consider myself racist btw. I don't think "white people" are any morally superior to "black people" or vice versa, even if there are real and significant differences between cladistic races regarding intelligence.

There is a slight point in this, I remember being lectured on western cultural hegemony put like this:

'When I sat down to dinner as a child, my father sat at the end of the table and my mother would bring in the food, we would then eat with knives and forks, this is not the African way.'

This was from a Nigerian rather than an African American but the point remains somewhat.

Having said that, there are two separate strands here, first is acceptance of cultural diversity overall and the other is the ability of a man who has all the credentials for presidency not being discounted by the colour of his skin.

I would say there's progress on both.

Poor white Europeans don't have a low average intelligence. IQ has an extremely consistent correlation with race, and a small and superficial correlation with socioeconomic status.
And I dont suppose you can back this up with sources, considering its pure bullshit...

I don't consider myself racist btw. I don't think "white people" are any morally superior to "black people" or vice versa, even if there are real and significant differences between cladistic races regarding intelligence.

Yeah, you might not consider yourself racist, but this entire post is Grade A, 100% the definition of Racism...

And I dont suppose you can back this up with sources, considering its pure bullshit...

A study providing strong evidence for racial-biological differences in intelligence-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

I post that particular link because it's a quick and concise read. But besides that, there is a vast sea of research literature published in psychology, neuroscience, and other journals supporting a biological origin of racial differences in intelligence. (not to the exclusion of non-biological factors)

Yeah, you might not consider yourself racist, but this entire post is Grade A, 100% the definition of Racism...
Acknowledging biological basis for racial differences in intellligence is no different than acknowledging biological basis for racial differences in hair color or skin color. There needs not be any racism involved.

A study providing strong evidence for racial-biological differences in intelligence-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study


However, the study can be considered largely invalid due to how it was looking at the effects of parental influence, now well understood to typically exert little effect on a child's IQ.

From your own source my friend, next...

From your own source my friend, next...

That statement isn't actually correct, since the study proves that racial differences persist especially because parental influence does not strongly affect IQ. However in the interest of free speech I did not remove that statement from wikipedia, just as some random person added that unsourced statement which is completely disproven by the entire article and its sources.

That statement isn't actually correct, since the study proves that racial differences persist especially because parental influence does not strongly affect IQ. However in the interest of free speech I did not remove that statement from wikipedia.

Lmao, you claim that the source you use to prove your statement is in fact wrong, wow....

"No, Im right, the Textbook is Wrong!" Wtf...


The belief that you are more intelligent than another person simply because of their race, is the definition of racism...honestly, its not that hard to figure out, lol...

Heh, Uncle Tom is a silly misnomer.

Harriet Beecher Stowe intended the character of Tom to be, although largely passive, a "noble hero."

It was the "Tom Shows", where most people knew the story of Uncle Tom's Cabin from at the time, that people first got the idea of "an Uncle Tom." The reason was that the roles of black characters were, naturally, grossly exaggerated in their clumsiness and stupidity even over the realistically uneducated characters of the novel.

In short, a bunch of hicks in black face playing stupid black people in the 19th century are responsible for the bastardization of Uncle Tom's role into that of an appeaser and pleaser of whites.

Tiger Woods would be a closer description than Uncle Tom. Both he and Obama are publicly "black men" of multicontinental origin who are considered the kind of black guy you only barely mind having at the country club if you're an elitist WASP, like myself (in a totally different way). Other than Fuzzy Zoeller of course. Both stereotypes miss the point of their actual "race" and the magnificence of their achievements.

Lmao, you claim that the source you use to prove your statement is in fact wrong, wow....

"No, Im right, the Textbook is Wrong!" Wtf...

Granted, wikipedia is readily vandalized. Here is essentially the same article hosted at a Univ of California web domain, which is not as easily vandalized:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/PP279_Neisser2.html



The belief that you are more intelligent than another person simply because of their race, is the definition of racism...honestly, its not that hard to figure out, lol...

I never said that anywhere.

.

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement. Relatively low average black intelligence, and societal racism, interact in a vicious psychosocial cycle to keep the black man down.






I never said that anywhere.

Um, lolwut? You wish to retract that statement?

Um, lolwut? You wish to retract that statement?

Your incomprehension is complete. All that means is that if you measure the IQs of all the millions of black people, and take their average, this number would be lower than the average of all IQs of all the millions of white people. I never said, as you falsely claim, that "I have a higher intelligence than another person simply because of his race."

Your incomprehension is complete.

He must be black. Amirite?

All that means is that if you measure the IQs of all the millions of black people, and take their average, this number would be lower than the average of all IQs of all the millions of white people. "

But, the fact that you believe that Blacks would automatically have lower Intelligence than Whites is Racist...How can you not get this? I mean, you do keep repeating it....

Are you a troll? and I bit, what?

He must be black. Amirite?

I dunno.

But, the fact that you believe that Blacks would automatically have lower Intelligence than Whites is Racist...How can you not get this? I mean, you do keep repeating it....

Are you a troll? and I bit, what?

He probably got pissed when Jesse Owens won the gold. :D

But, the fact that you believe that Blacks would automatically have lower Intelligence than Whites is Racist...How can you not get this? I mean, you do keep repeating it....


Just because the population averages are different, doesn't mean a given individual black man must have a lower intelligence than a given individual white man. The math works out, trust me.

trust me.

No.

Just because the population averages are different, doesn't mean a given individual black man must have a lower intelligence than a given individual white man. The math works out, trust me.

Well, then let me ask you this, Why is there a difference in the population averages?

Is it because, A) There is a general Socio-Economic Difference, or B) Their Race has a Lower Intelligence...


If you answered B, you are Racist, its that simple...

Just because the population averages are different, doesn't mean a given individual black man must have a lower intelligence than a given individual white man. The math works out, trust me.

exactly. He's not saying that all black people are dumber than all white people. He's just saying that black people are stupid on average.

Not racist at all.

He probably got pissed when Jesse Owens won the gold. :D

I'm a sports fan, but that is pretty weak...

Racism 1.0 is the traditional white supremacy, and what was seen from many Right wingers and the typical racists.

Despite what you may hear on Air America or NPR, 'racist' does not equal 'right-wing', nor is KKK synonomous with RNC.

They propose that many white supporters of President Obama are still in fact uncomfortable, even distrustful of black people...Their main point is that of course that the election of President Obama will further delusion whites, and others to ignore the plight of black people as a result of institutional racism...

Isn't taking the behavior of a segment of a group and assuming that that is a characteristic of that group as a whole stereotyping and racist in itself?

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement.

This is complete bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ignoring one person's obviously ignorant viewpoint, does anyone else have any relevant ideas on the original post?

Well, then let me ask you this, Why is there a difference in the population averages?

Is it because, A) There is a general Socio-Economic Difference, or B) Their Race has a Lower Intelligence...


If you answered B, you are Racist, its that simple...

A and B both play a role. Biology plays a bigger role than most people think. As someone once said "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

There are hundreds of genes related to brain function. If you accept the theory of evolution, then it's inconceivable there is absolutely identical distribution of alleles across all populations of mankind. On the other hand if you accept creationism it's plausible, and I won't criticize your views on creationism.

*snip*

I didnt ask for another repeat of your original point...

Do you think Blacks are less intelligent than Whites? Yes or No?

I agree that racism has a multitude of gray areas. I would even say that our tendency to think of racism as black and white is in itself racist. I know that I have been both the victim and beneficiary of racism directed toward caucasians in asia. I am also concerned by this glib labelling of a problem that has to be battled every day by each individual.

"Racism 2.0? I think I'll wait for the upgrade."

On the issue of race and intelligence, I offer you the B.I.T.C.H 100 (The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity)

http://www.psychbytes.com/Quizzes/BITCH/Black%20Intelligence%20Test%20of%20Cultural%20Homogeneity.htm

And a brief explanation about it from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity


Enjoy.

I didnt ask for another repeat of your original point...

Yes you did. You asked "Well, then let me ask you this, Why is there a difference in the population averages?"

Do you think Blacks are less intelligent than Whites? Yes or No?

That's such an imprecise question, like do you think the Andes are higher than the Alps. For casual conversational purposes the answer to both questions would be "yes", but this is a dangerous answer because a noneducated person like yourself would not be able to comprehend it.

Y"yes"

that really does say it all.

that really does say it all.

Actually that says nothing.

Actually that says nothing.

other than the fact that you believe blacks are inferior to whites...which says a lot, actually.

That's such an imprecise question, like do you think the Andes are higher than the Alps. Problem is, theres no such thing as "Mountainist", and I notice you didnt answer one way or the other...

Furthermore, there is a simple, and Non-Biased way of measuring the Height of Mountains, whereas there is no such measurement of the Intelligence of a person, even the vaunted "IQ Test" have been proven to be an inaccurate way of testing the "Intelligence" of a person...
From the man who Invented the IQ test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#Binet
The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured. (Binet 1905)

because a noneducated person like yourself would not be able to comprehend it.
First off, I graduated Highschool and Im also attending College at the moment, so "Noneducated" is certainly not true...

But, hey, if Insults are your preferred method of disproving yourself, by all means, lol...

Problem is, theres no such thing as "Mountainist", and I notice you didnt answer one way or the other...

Furthermore, there is a simple, and Non-Biased way of measuring the Height of Mountains, whereas there is no such measurement of the Intelligence of a person, even the vaunted "IQ Test" have been proven to be an inaccurate way of testing the "Intelligence" of a person...
From the man who Invented the IQ test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#Binet


First off, I graduated Highschool and Im also attending College at the moment, so "Noneducated" is certainly not true...

But, hey, if Insults are your preferred method of disproving yourself, by all means, lol...

Here's a question for you Skallvia, since you believe there are no biological differences between white and black people regarding intelligence. Can you show me a source that shows the genetic alleles related to brain function are identically distributed among Africans and Europeans?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll withdraw my claims about intelligence, so you can prove beyond a doubt there are no biological differences in genes governing brain function distributed among different races. We're taking a step back from our discussion about intelligence and just discussing the physical, physiology of the brain.

Perhaps you believe that in humans the spirit, mind, and soul are separate and independent from the physical body, which is plausible I guess.

Here's a question for you Skallvia, since you believe there are no biological differences between white and black people regarding intelligence. Can you show me a source that shows the genetic alleles related to brain function are identically distributed among Africans and Europeans?

One would think that this would be your job to show, as well as demonstrate that this has an effect on intelligence.

however:

Genome projects and other biological studies have found no genetic differences which cause differences in intelligence capacity or differences in neural wiring between humans based on race.

Here's a question for you Skallvia, since you believe there are no biological differences between white and black people regarding intelligence. Can you show me a source that shows the genetic alleles related to brain function are identically distributed among Africans and Europeans?



From the American Association of Physical Anthropologists:

The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.

http://physanth.org/positions/race.html


Enjoy...:salute:

other than the fact that you believe blacks are inferior to whites...which says a lot, actually.

Just because I think blacks as a population are intellectually inferior to whites, doesn't mean I think "blacks are inferior to whites", or that black people should be hated. In fact I think blacks are superior to whites, since I personally have an affinity with "martyrs", and certainly black people have been whaled on by absolutely vile white imperialists throughout history.

Just because I think blacks as a population are intellectually inferior to whites, doesn't mean I think "blacks are inferior to whites", or that black people should be hated. In fact I think blacks are superior to whites, since I personally have an affinity with "martyrs", and certainly black people have been whaled on by absolutely vile white imperialists throughout history.

Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy...

Just because I think blacks as a population are intellectually inferior to whites, doesn't mean I think "blacks are inferior to whites",

Yeah, c'mon guys, just because they're intellectually inferior doesn't make them inferior.

Except when it comes to intelligence. They're inferior there.

Trilateral Commission writes: Can you show me a source that shows the genetic alleles related to brain function are identically distributed among Africans and Europeans?

Now that would be a neat trick for anyone. I don't believe all the alleles mapped to date have been identified yet. Though I would like to suggest to you that, to my knowledge, PET scans of brains in action don't show any racial differentiation in thought power.

From the American Association of Physical Anthropologists:



http://physanth.org/positions/race.html


Enjoy...:salute:
Why are anthropologists commenting on biology?

Why are anthropologists commenting on biology?

"Physical anthropology is a biological science that deals with the adaptations, variability, and evolution of human beings and their living and fossil relatives. Because it studies human biology in the context of human culture and behavior, physical anthropology is also a social science."

I have repeatedly read that genetic tests have PROVEN no difference between the races. There is in fact some kind of more difference between white Americans and Eastern Europeans.

Why are anthropologists commenting on biology?

I was wondering the same about you. What are your credentials?

Yeah, c'mon guys, just because they're intellectually inferior doesn't make them inferior.

Except when it comes to intelligence. They're inferior there.

Oh, don't be so simple. It's like comparing two cars. The first car might have the superior engine, but that doesn't automatically make the first car superior to the second car.

Why are anthropologists commenting on biology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology#The_.22four_field.22_approach
The four fields are:

* Biological or physical anthropology seeks to understand the physical human being through the study of human evolution and adaptability, population genetics, and primatology. Subfields or related fields include paleoanthropology (study of evolutionary history of the human species), anthropometrics, forensic anthropology, osteology, and nutritional anthropology. On the basis of Tinbergen's four questions a framework of reference or "periodic table" of all fields of anthropological research (including humanities) can be established.
* Socio-cultural anthropology is the investigation, often through long term, intensive field studies (including participant-observation methods), of the culture and social organization of a particular people: language, economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, kinship and family structure, gender relations, childrearing and socialization, religion, mythology, symbolism, etc. (U.S. universities more often use the term cultural anthropology; British universities have tended to call the corresponding field social anthropology, and for much of the 20th century emphasized the analysis of social organization more than cultural symbolism.) In some European countries, socio-cultural anthropology is known as ethnology (a term coined and defined by Adam F. Kollár in 1783[38] that is also used in English-speaking countries to denote the comparative aspect of socio-cultural anthropology.) Subfields and related fields include psychological anthropology, folklore, anthropology of religion, ethnic studies, cultural studies, anthropology of media and cyberspace, and study of the diffusion of social practices and cultural forms.
* Linguistic anthropology seeks to understand the processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation in language across time and space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture. It is the branch of anthropology that brings linguistic methods to bear on anthropological problems, linking the analysis of linguistic forms and processes to the interpretation of sociocultural processes. Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields including anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis.[39]
* Archaeology studies the contemporary distribution and form of artifacts (materials modified by past human activities), with the intent of understanding distribution and movement of ancient populations, development of human social organization, and relationships among contemporary populations; it also contributes significantly to the work of population geneticists, historical linguists, and many historians. Archaeology involves a wide variety of field techniques (remote sensing, survey, geophysical studies, coring, excavation) and laboratory procedures (compositional analyses, dating studies (radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence dating), measures of formal variability, examination of wear patterns, residue analyses, etc.). Archaeologists predominantly study materials produced by prehistoric groups but also includes modern, historical and ethnographic populations. Archaeology is usually regarded as a separate (but related) field outside North America, although closely related to the anthropological field of material culture, which deals with physical objects created or used within a living or past group as a means of understanding its cultural values.

Could have something to do with that, but thats just me, lol...

Oh, don't be so simple. It's like comparing two cars. The first car might have the superior engine, but that doesn't automatically make the first car superior to the second car.

exactly. People are like cars. It's a flawless analogy.

Oh, don't be so simple. It's like comparing two cars. The first car might have the superior engine, but that doesn't automatically make the first car superior to the second car.

Except through its Engine of course, that would be in fact superior, lol(thx, NeoArt, lol)...On this basis they are not equal cars...

I was wondering the same about you. What are your credentials?

I have a bachelors degree in biology and I'm an MD/PhD student at the moment. Doesn't matter though. I'm not intending to pull rank and any layman can read the literature for himself.

I'm not going to say this any more. For the last time, black people are not "worse" than white people.

They're just dumber.

Ignoring one person's obviously ignorant viewpoint, does anyone else have any relevant ideas on the original post?

Again, this idea of Racism 2.0 is racist in itself, it says that black people are different and should remain so, that to achieve the ideals of American society, to be educated, successful and more are limited to white people only, that a black person, in achieving these ideals, is somehow betraying his race.

The previous difference is that, even in achieving these ideals, a black person could not be president due to racism.

Now they can, that's an improvement and if it serves as a light for all people, of any colour, that you can overcome great difficulties to achieve greatness then all to the good.

I doubt we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking black person anymore than we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking white person.

I have a bachelors degree in biology and I'm an MD/PhD student at the moment.

I heard Deep Kimchi is a lawyer. You two should get together.

any layman can read the literature for himself.

This is true. So then, why haven't you? Too lazy?

You're probably a filthy Mexican.

I have a bachelors degree in biology and I'm an MD/PhD student at the moment. Doesn't matter though. I'm not intending to pull rank and any layman can read the literature for himself.

Sorry I find that hard to believe. And you don't know what biological anthropology is? Or about the numerous genetic studies that show there are NO differences between the races?

I'm not going to say this any more. For the last time, black people are not "worse" than white people.

They're just dumber.

If you put it like that...

This might be easier for you to understand:

You're not "worse" than Einstein. You're just dumber.

Sorry I find that hard to believe. And you don't know what biological anthropology is? Or about the numerous genetic studies that show there are NO differences between the races?

Quiet. He said it, so it must be true. If you stop defaming him, he's going to get Deep Kimchi to sue you.

Again, this idea of Racism 2.0 is racist in itself, it says that black people are different and should remain so, that to achieve the ideals of American society, to be educated, successful and more are limited to white people only, that a black person, in achieving these ideals, is somehow betraying his race.

The previous difference is that, even in achieving these ideals, a black person could not be president due to racism.

Now they can, that's an improvement and if it serves as a light for all people, of any colour, that you can overcome great difficulties to achieve greatness then all to the good.

I doubt we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking black person anymore than we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking white person.

As per the OP, ^^^Thats prettymuch my view in itself...

If you put it like that...

This might be easier for you to understand:

You're not "worse" than Einstein. You're just dumber.

and of course, in this analogy, you just happen to belong to the race that gets to be Einstein, doncha?

How convenient.

Again, this idea of Racism 2.0 is racist in itself, it says that black people are different and should remain so, that to achieve the ideals of American society, to be educated, successful and more are limited to white people only, that a black person, in achieving these ideals, is somehow betraying his race.

The previous difference is that, even in achieving these ideals, a black person could not be president due to racism.

Now they can, that's an improvement and if it serves as a light for all people, of any colour, that you can overcome great difficulties to achieve greatness then all to the good.

I doubt we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking black person anymore than we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking white person.

That is not what the antiracist activists are saying. Their saying that yes, black culture is different in mannerisms and speech (not that the culture automatically is criminal). They say there is inherent racism in that the mannerisms of the white upper middle class are the most acceptable model of manners, and that President Obama reflects this as well as Bill Cosby.

They also are also saying what you just said is part of white denial. That just because there are a few successful individuals of color able to succeed and rise beyond institutional racism that this is not the case for the majority of African-Americans for a myriad of reasons.

Sorry I find that hard to believe. And you don't know what biological anthropology is? Or about the numerous genetic studies that show there are NO differences between the races?

I'm aware of numerous genetic studies that DO show there are differences between the races. These are conducted by actual biologists, not politically motivated physical anthropologists.

I'm aware of numerous genetic studies that DO show there are differences between the races.

Well of course there are genetic differences between the races. That's obvious. The question is, of course, if there are genetic differences in the genes responsible for intelligence.

And the answer is, of course "no, as far as we know", and there's not a single study that shows otherwise.

You're probably a filthy Mexican.

Nope, not Mexican. Mexicans aren't filthy either. As a rule Mexican illegal immigrants work harder than all the lazy Americans (not excepting myself)

and of course, in this analogy, you just happen to belong to the race that gets to be Einstein, doncha?

How convenient.

I'm not Jewish. I'm not white either.

I do realize the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have pretty much the highest average intelligence of any race (i.e. cladistic population) in the world. Higher than your run of the mill James Clerk Maxwells or Asian math prodigies.

A study providing strong evidence for racial-biological differences in intelligence-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_StudyThe article states quite clearly that the study found that it's social factors, not biological factors, that caused the gap."However, the study can be considered largely invalid due to how it was looking at the effects of parental influence, now well understood to typically exert little effect on a child's IQ."

From your own source my friend, next...Given that the study actually states that it's social factors, and only social factors responsible for the (Closing) gaps, I find that this doesn't help your point at all.

In short, it does appear that both of you are, in fact, functionally illiterate.

---

That aside, though, and for the moment ignoring the validity-or-not of any such studies, I'm as usual endlessly amused that issues such as, say, the higher-than-average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence) when compared to the 'White Mean' is never considered 'Racist' (Despite the findings of the relevant studies being equally controversial). In fact, it's come up in this forum before - and the study and its interpretations were considered valid. The same applies to the higher-than-average results in test scores east asians achieve - again, nobody appears to consider such fundings 'Racist'. Only when it's about whites-superior-to-others, they are. Others-superior-to-whites? Not a problem there.

I call bullshit on this. Why exactly should a thousand years of specialisation on intellectual activities cause an IQ-boost, when half a thousand years of specialisation on manual activities are apparently supposed to not cause a diminishing of the same (In favour of greater physical strength)? Either both are valid hypotheses, or none are.

Now, of course, among the scientists involved, both hypotheses are controversial, and heavily criticised - no issues there. But apparently, a zillion dilettantes flocking to PoliSci & Sociology courses measure differently - when it gives a plus to whites, it's racist. When it gives a plus to jews/ asians, it's perfectly sensible.

Wankers.

not politically motivated physical anthropologists.

And on what basis do you claim that Anthropology is Politically Motivated, Because it doesnt agree with you?

That is not what the antiracist activists are saying. They're saying that yes, black culture is different in mannerisms and speech (not that the culture automatically is criminal).

What culture are they talking about, street culture?

Do all black people have to say 'yo ma ******' and eat fried chicken to be considered acceptably black?

They say there is inherent racism in that the mannerisms of the white upper middle class are the most acceptable model of manners, and that President Obama reflects this as well as Bill Cosby.

Well-spoken English is well-spoken English, colour of skin doesn't matter, I can't remember a white president shooting shotguns at street signs, living in a trailer park and drinking meth.

EDIT: To account for your own edit:

They also are also saying what you just said is part of white denial. That just because there are a few successful individuals of color able to succeed and rise beyond institutional racism that this is not the case for the majority of African-Americans for a myriad of reasons.

Absolutely there are a myriad of reasons, no one is pretending that it's not harder for the average black person to achieve due to environment factors such as history, poor schools funding, limiting opportunities and, yes, racism, no one is pretending that these need not to be fixed, but to castigate Barack Obama for rising to the level of presidency for 'not being black enough' is racist in itself.

Well of course there are genetic differences between the races. That's obvious. The question is, of course, if there are genetic differences in the genes responsible for intelligence.

And the answer is, of course "no, as far as we know", and there's not a single study that shows otherwise.

Correlative studies are all there, and even published in high profile journals like Nature Genetics. Some biochemistry and pathways have even been figured out. They haven't all been completely figured out yet, but they will be.

Correlative studies are all there, and even published in high profile journals like Nature Genetics. Some biochemistry and pathways have even been figured out. They haven't all been completely figured out yet, but they will be.

finish the sentence for me, will ya? "And you can find proof of my assertions at . . . . "

Well-spoken English is well-spoken English, colour of skin doesn't matter,

Problem with that is the obvious. Traditionally, what group got to define what was "well spoken" english in america?

Give you a hint, wasn't the guys in chains working the fields.

What culture are they talking about, street culture?

Do all black people have to say 'yo ma ******' and eat fried chicken to be considered acceptably black?



Well-spoken English is well-spoken English, colour of skin doesn't matter, I can't remember a white president shooting shotguns at street signs, living in a trailer park and drinking meth.

I am not exactly sure where they are coming from on that end, but it definitely goes much deeper than defined stereotypes. Most of my friends are black, and I have heard several things. For example it has been mentioned in some essays, and among my own black friends if black men wear their hair braided that they have a harder time finding a job and it is not considered to look "professional." Most professional black men have a short lining or shorter hair it looks like sometimes. It can only be said that this is because this is more acceptable to white culture, and the braids hairstyle is not familiar to white culture.

The article states quite clearly that the study found that it's social factors, not biological factors, that caused the gap.Given that the study actually states that it's social factors, and only social factors responsible for the (Closing) gaps, I find that this doesn't help your point at all.
Only the original authors of the study claim that. They did the study in the first place to prove their preconceived notion that there are no biological bases for intelligence differences among races. When the data came out exactly opposite of their expectations, they bewilderingly insisted the data supported their hypothesis. Jensen, Gottfriedsen, Detterman, and others have easily refuted the author's strange triangulations, and used common sense and the scientific method to prove that the data supported biological bases- this is mentioned in that wikipedia link.

I am not exactly sure where they are coming from on that end, but it definitely goes much deeper than defined stereotypes. Most of my friends are black, and I have heard several things. For example it has been mentioned in some essays, and among my own black friends if black men wear their hair braided that they have a harder time finding a job and it is not considered to look "professional." Most professional black men have a short lining or shorter hair it looks like sometimes.

Well, I had a problem finding a job with my long hair and Facial hair...had nothing to do with me being White...

But, when I cut my hair and shaved, I was hired...although I soon began growing them both back, lol...

finish the sentence for me, will ya? "And you can find proof of my assertions at . . . . "
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/this-is-bruce-lahns-brain-on-aspm-and.php
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1720
http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

etc.

The first link, GNXP, is a useful source because it has frequent updates on research into this field.

Well, I had a problem finding a job with my long hair and Facial hair...had nothing to do with me being White...

But, when I cut my hair and shaved, I was hired...although I soon began growing them both back, lol...

True there are clean braids and messy braids. If you actually keep clean braids close to the head then why does that not look professional? This hairstyle is popular among African-American men but they know they will be overlooked and considered unprofessional if they wear it even though some would prefer to. My own friend would but he keeps a short lining. It can really mainly be deduced that this is because upper class and upper middle class white culture has defined the acceptable hairstyles (and also culture) for professionalism.

This is what the antiracist activists are talking about.....

True there are clean braids and messy braids. If you actually keep clean braids close to the head then why does that not look professional?

Because, long hair doesnt look professional, do I agree, hell no, I liked my long hair...

But, the fact is that I was hired when I cut it short...It has nothing to do with race...

Problem with that is the obvious. Traditionally, what group got to define what was "well spoken" english in america?

Give you a hint, wasn't the guys in chains working the fields.

Well that goes back to my original post on page 1, yet no matter, and given the debate over brain structure, there's nothing inherently different in the ability to learn what is now defined as well spoken English, no matter where it originated from.

I am not exactly sure where they are coming from on that end, but it definitely goes much deeper than defined stereotypes. Most of my friends are black, and I have heard several things. For example it has been mentioned in some essays, and among my own black friends if black men wear their hair braided that they have a harder time finding a job and it is not considered to look "professional." Most professional black men have a short lining or shorter hair it looks like sometimes.

Alas this is a facet of western cultural hegemony, we expect white people to 'look professional' as well.

There's a distinction to be made, as I posted on page 1, between cultural hegemony and racism.

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/this-is-bruce-lahns-brain-on-aspm-and.php

Nothing on the front page that stands for anything even close to what you're proposing


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1720

States the following: The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.

Nothing to do with race


http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf


This article was written by an anthropologist. Are you conceding your earlier comments about anthropologists, or should we reject this paper?

Only the original authors of the study claim that. They did the study in the first place to prove their preconceived notion that there are no biological bases for intelligence differences among races. When the data came out exactly opposite of their expectations, they bewilderingly insisted the data supported their hypothesis. Jensen, Gottfriedsen, Detterman, and others have easily refuted the author's strange triangulations, and used common sense and the scientific method to prove that the data supported biological bases- this is mentioned in that wikipedia link.I wouldn't call it bewilderingly. Note that the IQ doesn't go 'White kid this, black kid that, no matter the parents'. Rather, it slowly 'Slides' - White with white parents > Black with two white parents > black with one white and one black parent > black with black parents.

This is quite easily interpreted as 'Social Factors'. The all-white family has no problems. The black-kid family may have issues with their kid occasionally experiencing some kind of rejection by its otherwise white environment. The black kid & black mom/ dad family may, just by its interracial marriage, experience substantial social rejection (It's the seventies, after all), with follow-up issues to, erm, follow. And the all-black family is in an entirely different social stratum altogether, providing entirely different opportunities and stimuli.

This does certainly not rule out biological factors - being 'Lifted' into a higher social stratum may simply help overcoming them to an extend -, but it does provide conclusive evidence that it can't be only biological factors, by virtue of social factors evidently having some effect.

Because, long hair doesnt look professional, do I agree, hell no, I liked my long hair...

But, the fact is that I was hired when I cut it short...It has nothing to do with race...

This is not long hair. Braided as in short close to the head braids along the head. that cut off where most hairstyles cut off. Not long braids.

This and dozens of other cultural differences is why there is still a long way to go.

I am sorry but this is racist, racism 1.0 and racism 2.0. All the black people do is complain about how bad their lives are.

Nothing on the front page that stands for anything even close to what you're proposing


States the following: The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.

Nothing to do with race
That's just the abstract. Read the full articles. Also look at the differential allele distribution maps at the bottom of the front page. The finding of that particular study was that a novel form of ASPM gene is found in all populations except SubSaharan Africa. ASPM isn't the only gene in question. There are other brain alleles found to have geographically/racially differential distribution like DAB1, etc.

I wouldn't call it bewilderingly. Note that the IQ doesn't go 'White kid this, black kid that, no matter the parents'. Rather, it slowly 'Slides' - White with white parents > Black with two white parents > black with one white and one black parent > black with black parents.

This is quite easily interpreted as 'Social Factors'. The all-white family has no problems. The black-kid family may have issues with their kid occasionally experiencing some kind of rejection by its otherwise white environment. The black kid & black mom/ dad family may, just by its interracial marriage, experience substantial social rejection (It's the seventies, after all), with follow-up issues to, erm, follow. And the all-black family is in an entirely different social stratum altogether, providing entirely different opportunities and stimuli.

This does certainly not rule out biological factors - being 'Lifted' into a higher social stratum may simply help overcoming them to an extend -, but it does provide conclusive evidence that it can't be only biological factors, by virtue of social factors evidently having some effect.

Hmm, admittedly the wikipedia article doesn't do justice to the studies. Reading the original studies and commentaries (listed at the bottom) would be much more informative, since the analyses effectively control for and rule out environmental factors. A most interesting finding was that adoptees identified by peers and adoptive parents as "black", and with compartively dark skin, but in actuality biracial according to birth records, actually had IQs expected of black-white mix children (i.e. IQ intermediate between all-black IQ and all-white IQ).

I am sorry but this is racist, racism 1.0 and racism 2.0. All the black people do is complain about how bad their lives are.

Because statistically it is? I am white but have read some books on this. Statistics from numerous sources private, and public. Universities, government, etc. They show that wealth and capital is overwhelmingly in the hands of those who are white, of course we all know most of the nation's wealth is held by the top 1% which is why our country is in the crisis it is in any way, but even the upper middle class is mostly white.

You forget that the Civil Rights movement was just 50 years ago. That there is something known as generational poverty. The fact that neighborhoods were segregated due to various influences results in segregated neighborhoods today, and black neighborhoods having less money have poorly funded schools which statistically do not hire the best teachers which furthers the cycle and on down the line. There are statistics that show black people with equal credit to white people on average pay $300 more on their home mortgages.

As opposed to upper middle class and middle class white neighborhoods that have more capital, have very good schools, can hire the best teachers or send their kids to private schools, etc.

Hmm, admittedly the wikipedia article doesn't do justice to the studies. Reading the original studies and commentaries (listed at the bottom) would be much more informative, since the analyses effectively control for and rule out environmental factors. A most interesting finding was that adoptees identified by peers and adoptive parents as "black", and with compartively dark skin, but in actuality biracial according to birth records, actually had IQs expected of black-white mix children (i.e. IQ intermediate between all-black IQ and all-white IQ).

To clarify, the adoptive parents were unaware their new child was biracial, and assumed both of the child's parents were black.

Because statistically it is?

The path of least resistance for black people would be to conform to mainstream WASPy expectations, i.e. assimilate. This is pretty much what Asian Indians and East Asians have done when they live here, so these two groups have statistically increased their socioeconomic living standards here in the US.

Assimilation sounds distasteful to some but it's effective if socioeconomic uplift is the goal.

The path of least resistance for black people would be to conform to mainstream WASPy expectations..

As it would for WASP punks, thieves, drug addicts, hippies, goths and whatever,

EDIT: I'm not equating black people to these examples, I'm simply saying that anyone who stands out from the 'business community look' lessens their chances, regardless of colour, as they do the chance of being elected.

Hmm, admittedly the wikipedia article doesn't do justice to the studies. Reading the original studies and commentaries (listed at the bottom) would be much more informative, since the analyses effectively control for and rule out environmental factors. A most interesting finding was that adoptees identified by peers and adoptive parents as "black", and with compartively dark skin, but in actuality biracial according to birth records, actually had IQs expected of black-white mix children (i.e. IQ intermediate between all-black IQ and all-white IQ).Actually, I've to (Partially; the principle remains valid, but it didn't come directly rom the study) retract what I wrote - I missed the 'Biological' parent bit when I read it. This said, the comments linked in the wiki article make it quite clear that the study cannot be conclusive. Issues with pre-adoption status, for a start.

Furthermore, there seem to be a lot of different studies concerning the issue - which have a habit of providing support for either hypothesis. In other words, the question remains very much in the open.

IQ has an extremely consistent correlation with race

IQ fails at gauging intelligence.

I am sorry but this is racist, racism 1.0 and racism 2.0. All the black people do is complain about how bad their lives are.

First of all, don't ever apologize for having an opinion, especially when there is so much in that second sentence for you to be sorry for instead. Secondly, 'complaining about their lives' is not a specifically 'black' characteristic, nor is it something 'all' black people do. I don't know, if I had to pick a demographic a characteristic of whom was 'complaining about their lives' I'd think of 'teenagers' or 'college students' or 'emo coffe-house poets who want the girl behind the counter to think they're deep' before I thought of 'black people.'

Where to begin? Well, I'll start with studies show no difference between the races, my DNA is just as likely to be similar to a black person's as it is to a white person. Which makes sense, "black" and "white" are socially created ideas, nothing else matters other than skin color regarding race. Skin of a certain color makes you "black," while skin of a different color makes you "white."

As for the argument about Racism 2.0, I generally agree with the argument. Aside from the statistics mentioned, blacks are simply talked about differently than whites. We can see this in the media all the time. Black athletes are often regarded as "thugs" who don't deserve their money and fame, while white athletes are given more respect. Can you imagine there being so much (justified) simpathy for Michael Phelps if he was black? Also, remember the debate over Don Imus's "nappy headed hoes" comment? The media spent a short time condemning Imus, but then they started bashing "hip hop culture."

snip

So... they're complaining that people are still racist? So, inauguration day was supposed to mean all racism ended? Why are they labelling human racism for the last ten thousand years as 'racism 1.0', and racism for the last two weeks 'racism 2.0'? What has really changed? We elected a black guy? America, a nation just over two hundred years old, a fragment of human history elects a black guy, and suddenly the face of racism changes?

Of course there is still racism, in fact, I saw quite a bit of racism regarding Obama coming from the people voting for him (I did not). When asked who I was voting for, people would naturally assume it would be Obama, when I responded that I actually was voting for McCain, the #1 question I got was "Is it because Obama is black?" Umm, nope, I don't care about skin color, the people voting for him were always the first to bring it up, or to mention it.

If racism has been '1.0' for this long, it still should be, nothing really has changed except that these anti-racists are trying to complain about everything they can, racism still exists, and thats too bad, but it's a condition I don't really see going away any time soon, regardless of who gets the American vote.

Where to begin? Well, I'll start with studies show no difference between the races, my DNA is just as likely to be similar to a black person's as it is to a white person. Which makes sense, "black" and "white" are socially created ideas, nothing else matters other than skin color regarding race. Skin of a certain color makes you "black," while skin of a different color makes you "white."

Well... there are certainly differences. Melanin content is a big one. It's not that all the races are the same, it's that all the races are equal. While growing up I recall a slogan in my school "Celebrate Diversity" but I also noticed asn underlying "But don't celebrate diversity in people who are intolerant.'

All people are equal. I don't care what they're race is, political leanings, nation of origin, gender, or even whether or not they are racist. A racist, or a bigot of some other variety is equal to those who are accepting of others. This is the idea that we need to propogate in the world, equal doesn't have to mean 'the same'.

I guess my being Jewish is how come I can see through Trilateral Commission's bullshit. It's a pity that his racial intellectual inferiority prevents him from seeing how wrong he is; or at least from deriving such sadistic enjoyment from it as I.

Of course, just because he's racially intellectually inferior doesn't mean he's inferior.

Aside from the statistics mentioned, blacks are simply talked about differently than whites. We can see this in the media all the time. Black athletes are often regarded as "thugs" who don't deserve their money and fame, while white athletes are given more respect. Can you imagine there being so much (justified) simpathy for Michael Phelps if he was black? Also, remember the debate over Don Imus's "nappy headed hoes" comment? The media spent a short time condemning Imus, but then they started bashing "hip hop culture."

Yes. It seems like when it comes to race in our nation we have a tendency to blame everything on the victims.

Of course, just because he's racially intellectually inferior doesn't mean he's inferior.

Just because white people are harder to spot when laying naked in snow than black people doesn't mean that black people are inferior. Or are we to treat intelligence differently than colour of skin? Why?

Just because white people are harder to spot when laying naked in snow than black people doesn't mean that black people are inferior. Or are we to treat intelligence differently than colour of skin? Why?

Calling black people intellectually inferior is no more insulting than - why, than calling them black!

Well... there are certainly differences. Melanin content is a big one. It's not that all the races are the same, it's that all the races are equal. While growing up I recall a slogan in my school "Celebrate Diversity" but I also noticed asn underlying "But don't celebrate diversity in people who are intolerant.'

All people are equal. I don't care what they're race is, political leanings, nation of origin, gender, or even whether or not they are racist. A racist, or a bigot of some other variety is equal to those who are accepting of others. This is the idea that we need to propogate in the world, equal doesn't have to mean 'the same'.

Nonsense. If you are an intolerant bigot, your ideas are not equal to those of someone who is tolerant. The Ku Klux Klan were not equal to the Civil Rights movement - one of them was in the right, the other was in the wrong.

Equal does mean 'the same'. Equal rights in marriage means that all people have the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Equal voting rights means that all people have the same right to cast a ballot of the same value. Equal rights in religion means that all people have the same right to practice the religion of their choice. By saying that all races are equal, I say that all people of all 'races' deserve the same rights, because no rights are dependent on the colour of one's skin.

I will celebrate diversity and difference, but I demand equality - if you reject equality, I will not defend you, I will not celebrate you, and I will not consider your ideas of equal moral worth. We are all the same - we are all human - and we are thus all equal and deserve the same rights. If you reject that, you reject the humanity of some people, and I cannot consider that a view worthy of being tolerated or celebrated.

Why not call each one of us just human? IMO the colour of our skin is as artificial difference as is the score of our IQ test.

I guess my being Jewish is how come I can see through Trilateral Commission's bullshit.

It's actually because you have at least a pair of working neurons, not because of your Jewness.

They say that President Obama fits a comfortable demeanour that was more closer to upper middle class whites, more close to a Huxability factor (their words) such as Bill Cosby, and that he comfortably swept many race issues (police discrimination like the shooting of Oscar Grant) under the rug as well as condemned black anger like Reverend Wright even though in some cases it is justified considering the terrible history of the country.
Huxtability.

They propose that many white supporters of President Obama are still in fact uncomfortable, even distrustful of black people, and that President Obama only sets up a new standard which will cause many people still to refuse to accept most African-Americans who speak a different way, and act a different way. Now people will say that a black male needs to "be like Obama" or act a certain way to be acceptable to the mainstream.
Act like Obama? So black people should go to school & become learned, speak good english, stand up straight, wear nice, fitting clothes, and not do drugs? God forbid we expect that of any race.
Why should we accept the ghetto-thug black person? Ghetto-thug is not a character type that should be accepted into society as it doesn't blend with society. Add into that anti-white racism and we have some one who should be shunned, just like anti-black racist white hicks.

Their main point is that of course that the election of President Obama will further delusion whites, and others to ignore the plight of black people as a result of institutional racism, and ignore the generational poverty and segregation of poor black neighborhoods.
Hardly. Your position is they didn't ignore those in the first place, which they did. It couldn't possibly get any worse than it is. I would propose that the election of a black president should bring those issues to the fore.

They of course go into the factors including until recently discriminative housing, and that the segregation of poor black neighborhoods in certain areas leads to poor under-funded schools due to lower tax revenues which is resultant of the lack of capital that poor black families had as compared to white families and that is the result of generational poverty.
Having seen this, it is partially a result of self-segregation, here anyway. "Huxtable" black people* move into a neighborhood. Later, poorer, more ghetto-thug black people move into the neighborhood and lower the property values so it can be afforded by more black people of the same caliber who also want to live near black people like them. Normal people move out, repeat until neighborhood is all black, low-income level. Neighborhood becomes poor and since legislatures hate all poor people, the school don't get the funding they need to supplement the loss in property taxes from devaluing property.

* Normal people that are black, but they arn't ghetto-thug, poor black people so they have to be given names, usually by the ghetto-thug, poor black people, to segregate them and imply that they arn't normal black people and that quality shouldn't be expected from all black people.

It's actually because you have at least a pair of working neurons, not because of your Jewness.

And why do you think he has those working neurons, huh?

I am not exactly sure where they are coming from on that end, but it definitely goes much deeper than defined stereotypes. Most of my friends are black, and I have heard several things. For example it has been mentioned in some essays, and among my own black friends if black men wear their hair braided that they have a harder time finding a job and it is not considered to look "professional." Most professional black men have a short lining or shorter hair it looks like sometimes. It can only be said that this is because this is more acceptable to white culture, and the braids hairstyle is not familiar to white culture.
Would it be acceptable for a white man to wear braids at many offices?
How about a caffe au lait man, would that be acceptable?

Would it be acceptable for a woman to wear a bikini to work, if she were not a model, a waitress on the beach, a pageant participant, or dancing around a pole?

Would it matter what color her skin was if she were to walk into an interview for an office job in that attire?

Would it be acceptable for a white man to wear braids at many offices?
How about a caffe au lait man, would that be acceptable?

Would it be acceptable for a woman to wear a bikini to work, if she were not a model, a waitress on the beach, a pageant participant, or dancing around a pole?

Would it matter what color her skin was if she were to walk into an interview for an office job in that attire?

See this is just a good example though of the dominant culture being white. How can a particular popular hairstyle among a race (black men with braided hair) be compared to a woman wearing a bikini to any job? What defines this particular hairstyle particular to this race as unprofessional? Why?

See this is just a good example though of the dominant culture being white. How can a particular popular hairstyle among a race (black men with braided hair) be compared to a woman wearing a bikini to any job? What defines this particular hairstyle particular to this race as unprofessional? Why?
Because they both have to do with personal choices about your appearance, and neither one has been defined as appropriate by those hiring in offices.

If one wants to drive a car, one must obtain a license and insurance.
If one wants to work in an office, one must possess the clothing and the appearance appropriate to that.
If one wants to be a teacher, one must obtain the proper education, licensing, and criminal background check.

It's really not so hard, and it's nothing to do with race. If I decided to show up to an interview in a mini-skirt, too-tight t-shirt, stiletto heels, overdone make-up and with a huge tattoo of a bleeding skull across my face, I would expect not to be hired, regardless of whether it was the norm for my culture. It is NOT the norm for OFFICE CULTURE.

If you wish to have a specific job, you must fit the qualifications. Some of them include "professional dress and grooming". You can complain about it, but the fact is everyone has to fit into the same cookie-cutter mold to get the jobs within that realm. And you would be told so by the HR head whether he was black, white, purple or Venusian.

See this is just a good example though of the dominant culture being white. How can a particular popular hairstyle among a race (black men with braided hair) be compared to a woman wearing a bikini to any job? What defines this particular hairstyle particular to this race as unprofessional? Why?

Its a good example of how people that work in offices all have the same boring hair styles... nothing to do with race man.

So its racism 2.0 now? We had to upgrade to a more politically correct form of racism? WHy can't we lump it in the same category as the 'burn all the niggers' racism and just call it what it is... disgusting.

See this is just a good example though of the dominant culture being white. How can a particular popular hairstyle among a race (black men with braided hair) be compared to a woman wearing a bikini to any job? What defines this particular hairstyle particular to this race as unprofessional? Why?

It's not a matter of race, though, it's a matter of the dominant middle class professional culture, which is by and large, significantly more colorblind than people have given it credit. It does not embrace deviations from the norm in overt behavior, as these deviations tend to be indicative of deviations from other values--especially education. I, for one, will feel equally as uncomfortable around a redneck klukker as I will a "thug".

It's not a matter of race, though, it's a matter of the dominant middle class professional culture, which is by and large, significantly more colorblind than people have given it credit. It does not embrace deviations from the norm in overt behavior, as these deviations tend to be indicative of deviations from other values--especially education. I, for one, will feel equally as uncomfortable around a redneck as I will a "thug".

I would like comments more generally around the original posting, but continuing on this thread. Braids are not just worn by thugs. Many black men who are able or can get away with it wear them. College students, athletes, etc.

I would like comments more generally around the original posting, but continuing on this thread. Braids are not just worn by thugs. Many black men who are able or can get away with it wear them. College students, athletes, etc.

And none of them work in an office.

I would like comments more generally around the original posting, but continuing on this thread. Braids are not just worn by thugs. Many black men who are able or can get away with it wear them. College students, athletes, etc.

Perhaps Barack Obama should answer..

"Here's my attitude," Obama begins: "I think passing a law about people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, getting health care, dealing with the war in Iraq. Any public official who's worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend time focusing on real problems out there.

"Having said that," he added, "brothers should pull up their pants. You're walking by your mother, your grandmother and your underwear's showing, what's going on with that? Walking down the street showing your underwear.

"You don't have to pass a law, it doesn't mean people shouldn't have some sense and some respect for other people. A lot of people may not want to see your underwear. I'm one of them."

Is there anything inherently 'white' about being presentable and, to be fair, I have issues about presentability being equated with work ethic, I honestly don't get the 'suit and tie' approach to assessing the work ethic of an individual.

Perhaps conformity is a desirable attribute in business, that the willingness to wear a suit in the war of business equates to accepting a uniform to go to actual war, but this is a different issue to the concept of 'race' in determining suitability for a position.

What business or political attire is a black person supposed to wear in order to show allegiance to his colour, how is s/he meant to speak?

No one said braids = thug.
If I dyed my hair electric blue, I also would not be likely to get an office job.

What business or political attire is a black person supposed to wear in order to show allegiance to his colour, how is s/he meant to speak?

It is not about attire I was mainly talking about why braids should be considered unprofessional as it is only one of the few neat ways for black men to wear their hair. I know I have had friends who wanted to wear them but to be professional they just kept a short fade.

Also speaking of speech. I have seen one of my friends, and other people have two fully different voices. It is more different than say just sounding a little bit more professional, but two different speech patterns. I have one friend that says literally their professional voice. Some black people who feel they have to use professional speech have gone so far to sound like, to me personally, like they are trying to directly mimic the white stereotype of someone somewhat nerdy or uptight, and sometimes this professional speech is even referred to as "how white people talk" I have heard them say.

The question is why is all of this necessary?

Their not saying President Obama is trying to act that way or being that rude about it. Some are saying that he sets up an unattainable image for most black men, and that it will be wrong if white people expect black men to act like President Obama and that that becomes the only acceptable image of what a black man should be when that is not nearly reasonable considering President Obama is an graduate of Harvard, and obviously had a very different background than most African-Americans. They do go as far as to say though that President Obama reflects a more upper-middle class white culture that is still today the more acceptable culture.

Well, I for one support such high expectations of black men. I also expect all white men to act like Barack Obama. He's half-white and half-black so I accept him as the Ultimate Role Model for both.

If you fall below the Barack Obama standard, you will be flogged daily until you get back on track. *nod*

The civil rights movement ended 50 years ago so people think blacks shouldn't be blamed for their inability to choose to work. Gays and Trannies are hated more then blacks, and their civil rights movement hasn't ended, they are very different, but perhaps because they choose to get an education and choose to have a work ethic is why they get a job. Maybe its because a lot of them don't dress flamboyantly or 'ghetto' to their job. Disabled people didn't have any protection from discrimination until 1992, when the American with Disabilities Act was past, but most of them contribute to society and work and want to work and have a work ethic and believe that they should be successful, unfortunately for some of them the government keeps them below poverty in order to get their vote, they don't do that to blacks. You should put blacks being unsuccessful with blacks choosing to be lazy and thinking that the government should take care of them. Blacks choose to not work, blacks choose not to get an education, so they claim racism when that is not the case. Generational poverty is because people who should not have children have unprotected sex, so it is also a fault of their own.

Well, I for one support such high expectations of black men. I also expect all white men to act like Barack Obama. He's half-white and half-black so I accept him as the Ultimate Role Model for both.

If you fall below the Barack Obama standard, you will be flogged daily until you get back on track. *nod*

I volunteer to do the flogging. :$

I volunteer to do the flogging. :$

And our first subject has just posted. :)

I'm sticking with Racism 1.9.

Racism 2.0. frequently crashes, has tons of new features I have no use for whatsoever, and won't let me run "Meinkampf.exe". I think having these flaws in a release version is really not Okkk. Anyway, there's loads of security holes in the new version (for instance, that "liberal media" worm keeps redirecting my friend from Fox News to one of the godless liberal news channels). I want it about as much as I want a black man marrying into the family :p

The Civil Rights movement ended 50 years ago, so people think blacks shouldn't be blamed for their inability to choose to work. Gays and Trannies are hated more than blacks, and their civil rights movement hasn't ended, they are very different; but perhaps because they choose to get an education and choose to have a work ethic is why they get a job. Maybe it's because a lot of them don't dress flamboyantly or 'ghetto' to their job. Disabled people didn't have any protection from discrimination until 1992, when the American with Disabilities Act was passed, but most of them contribute to society and work and want to work and have a work ethic and believe that they should be successful. Unfortunately for some of them, the government keeps them below poverty in order to get their vote: they don't do that to blacks. You should put blacks being unsuccessful with blacks choosing to be lazy and thinking that the government should take care of them. Blacks choose to not work, blacks choose not to get an education, so they claim racism when that is not the case. Generational poverty is because people who should not have children have unprotected sex, so it is also a fault of their own.
The irony, it burns. When one is taking others to task for their supposed lack of education and laziness, one should use elementary spell-checking and proofreading to avoid diluting the force behind one's assertions.

It is not about attire I was mainly talking about why braids should be considered unprofessional as it is only one of the few neat ways for black men to wear their hair. I know I have had friends who wanted to wear them but to be professional they just kept a short fade.

Also speaking of speech. I have seen one of my friends, and other people have two fully different voices. Some black people who feel they have to use professional speech have gone so far to sound like to me personally like they are trying to directly mimic the white stereotype of someone somewhat nerdy or uptight, and sometimes this professional speech is even referred to as "how white people talk" I have heard.

The question is why is all of this necessary?

We all speak differently given different contexts, I'm far more polite and well-spoken in business than I am among friends.

That is an issue separate from colour, it's an issue of presentability, but I ask - what is considered presentable black business culture? Specifically, as different to presentable white business culture, specific to America?

I hate using the word 'black', it creates a definition in itself, the point is that when it comes to being elected president, what culture are we pointing to as acceptable?

How are we even defining that culture, my suspicion is that the delineation itself is racist.

The irony, it burns. When one is taking others to task for their lack of education and their laziness, one should use elementary spell-checking and proofreading to avoid diluting the force behind their assertions.

FreeSatania is on his way to this gentleman's house with a flog as we speak. :)

I'm sticking with Racism 1.9.

Racism 2.0. frequently crashes, has tons of new features I have no use for whatsoever, and won't let me run "Meinkampf.exe". I think having these flaws in a release version is really not Okkk. Anyway, there's loads of security holes in the new version (for instance, that "liberal media" worm keeps redirecting my friend from Fox News to one of the godless liberal news channels). I want it about as much as I want a black man marrying into the family :p
:D

Clever. :)

Racism 2.0 is the new term that some antiracist activists are using for the racism that exists today and post-election President Obama.
Their theory is a good one, damned shame about the stupid, stupid name though.

No, darling, it's not. It's really not.

See: punctuation, proper use of possessive pronouns, the difference between past and past, and the difference between then and than.

S'alright, as long as he's not black I'll hire him, he demonstrates an understanding of white culture.

Lolwut?

Since I have dyslexia, if I misspell a few things you have no right to comment, if it was an actual essay, report, or job application, I would make sure that it was right. I said they chose not to be educated and they chose not to work, I did not say they couldn't spell or use proper grammer.

Yes. Its totally wrong to criticise you. You suffer from disadvantages beyond your control, that make it more difficult for you to spell. But when the brown people suffer disadvantages, both economically and socially (through discrimination) that mean their average performance in education is lower, you can criticise them.

I can find absolutely no bullshit in the above. Honest.

Since its all proper English, don't try to use this lie against me because you support the laziness of blacks.
No, darling, it's not. It's really not.

See: punctuation (specifically run-on sentences), the difference between the possessive pronoun its and the contraction it's, the difference between the homophones past and passed, and the difference between the adverb then and the conjunction than.

Considering I have said NOTHING regarding the laziness of blacks or the lack thereof, your assertion (which I assume to be meant as an insult) falls, predictably, flat on its face.

Proceed.

The irony, it burns. When one is taking others to task for their lack of education and their laziness, one should use elementary spell-checking and proofreading to avoid diluting the force behind their assertions.

Since I have dyslexia, a few things are going to be misspelled, but if it were a college essay, or a new report, or a job application, it would most certainly be proper English, and civil rights is not capitalized since there has been more than one civil rights movement. Another thing, not choosing to work has nothing to do with using improper English. A lot of black people refuse to go to college, without a college degree you can't get into any successful job. Blacks have equal opportunity but they choose not to use it.

Yes. Its totally wrong to criticise you. You suffer from disadvantages beyond your control. But when the brown people suffer disadvantages, both economically and socially (through discrimination) that mean their average performance is lower, you can criticise them.

I can find absolutely no bullshit in the above. Honest.

Great point.

Since I have dyslexia, a few things are going to be misspelled, but if it were a college essay, or a new report, or a job application, it would most certainly be proper English, and civil rights is not capitalized since there has been more than one civil rights movement. Another thing, not choosing to work has nothing to do with using improper English. A lot of black people refuse to go to college, without a college degree you can't get into any successful job. Blacks have equal opportunity but they choose not to use it.


By your own comments, it's right to judge people based on their appearance and circumstances whether we understand their particular problems.

You also asserted it was proper English you were using. It is not. That is the lie. Would you care to guess how I know it is not acceptable in an academic or in a work situation?

Which is it to be? Judge people on their performance and appearance without taking societal, heath, or learning disabilities into account, or not?

You assert they "choose not to work". I assert you "choose not to proofread and use a grammar checker." Both comments are based on appearances without taking into account factors not within the control of the person commented on.

Are you getting the point yet?

Since I have dyslexia, if I misspell a few things you have no right to comment, if it was an actual essay, report, or job application, I would make sure that it was right. I said they chose not to be educated and they chose not to work, I did not say they couldn't spell or use proper grammer.

Misspelling words is not a mark of dyslexia. It's a mark of laziness.

If you are going to debate education, make sure your grammar and spelling are in order. Otherwise, you loose the argument.

I can find absolutely no bullshit in the above. Honest.

Since I have dyslexia, a few things are going to be misspelled, but if it were a college essay, or a new report, or a job application, it would most certainly be proper English, and civil rights is not capitalized since there has been more than one civil rights movement. Another thing, not choosing to work has nothing to do with using improper English. A lot of black people refuse to go to college, without a college degree you can't get into any successful job. Blacks have equal opportunity but they choose not to use it.

Phear my wicked skillz!

By your own comments, it's right to judge people based on their appearance and circumstances whether we understand their particular problems.

You also asserted it was proper English you were using. It is not.

Which was is it to be? Judge people on their performance and appearance without taking societal, heath, or learning disabilities into account, or not?

If you would have read it after i fixed it you would have seen that. I am not asserting anything.

Since I have dyslexia, a few things are going to be misspelled, but if it were a college essay, or a new report, or a job application, it would most certainly be proper English, and civil rights is not capitalized since there has been more than one civil rights movement. Another thing, not choosing to work has nothing to do with using improper English. A lot of black people refuse to go to college, without a college degree you can't get into any successful job. Blacks have equal opportunity but they choose not to use it.

Refuse to go to college? You do realize there are a number of mostly African-American institutions of learning?

There is not equal opportunity considering the state of public schools in the inner-city, and poor black neighborhoods which it is a well known fact are bad. Then all of the socio-economic problems. Parents may have to take multiple jobs just to survive, no nice car ride home with mommy but rather a bus through bad neighborhoods. They may have to babysit siblings if the parents or guardians have to work. That describes a lot of the working poor though too which with other factors added in makes it really difficult to have an equal opportunity.

No, darling, it's not. It's really not.

See: punctuation (specifically run-on sentences), the difference between the possessive pronoun its and the contraction it's, the difference between the homophones past and passed, and the difference between the adverb then and the conjunction than.

Considering I have said NOTHING regarding the laziness of blacks or the lack thereof, your assertion (which I assume to be meant as an insult) falls, predictably, flat on its face.

Proceed.

My 'assertion' is not meant to be an insult, simply the truth.

This is even better than flogging. :)

If you would have read it after i fixed it you would have seen that. I am not asserting anything.
Ah, so going back and changing your post after it's been refuted is equivalent to not having said it at all.

Brilliant.

My 'assertion' is not meant to be an insult, simply the truth.
Your assertion is bollocks.

Otherwise, you loose the argument.
I sure hope the argument isn't rabid.

Would it be acceptable for a white man to wear braids at many offices?
How about a caffe au lait man, would that be acceptable?

Would it be acceptable for a woman to wear a bikini to work, if she were not a model, a waitress on the beach, a pageant participant, or dancing around a pole?

Would it matter what color her skin was if she were to walk into an interview for an office job in that attire?

Because they both have to do with personal choices about your appearance, and neither one has been defined as appropriate by those hiring in offices.

If one wants to drive a car, one must obtain a license and insurance.
If one wants to work in an office, one must possess the clothing and the appearance appropriate to that.
If one wants to be a teacher, one must obtain the proper education, licensing, and criminal background check.

It's really not so hard, and it's nothing to do with race. If I decided to show up to an interview in a mini-skirt, too-tight t-shirt, stiletto heels, overdone make-up and with a huge tattoo of a bleeding skull across my face, I would expect not to be hired, regardless of whether it was the norm for my culture. It is NOT the norm for OFFICE CULTURE.

If you wish to have a specific job, you must fit the qualifications. Some of them include "professional dress and grooming". You can complain about it, but the fact is everyone has to fit into the same cookie-cutter mold to get the jobs within that realm. And you would be told so by the HR head whether he was black, white, purple or Venusian.

No one said braids = thug.
If I dyed my hair electric blue, I also would not be likely to get an office job.

The irony, it burns. When one is taking others to task for their supposed lack of education and laziness, one should use elementary spell-checking and proofreading to avoid diluting the force behind one's assertions.

:D

Clever. :)

Since its all proper English, don't try to use this lie against me because you support the laziness of blacks.

No, darling, it's not. It's really not.

See: punctuation (specifically run-on sentences), the difference between the possessive pronoun its and the contraction it's, the difference between the homophones past and passed, and the difference between the adverb then and the conjunction than.

Considering I have said NOTHING regarding the laziness of blacks or the lack thereof, your assertion (which I assume to be meant as an insult) falls, predictably, flat on its face.

Proceed.

By your own comments, it's right to judge people based on their appearance and circumstances whether we understand their particular problems.

You also asserted it was proper English you were using. It is not. That is the lie. Would you care to guess how I know it is not acceptable in an academic or in a work situation?

Which was is it to be? Judge people on their performance and appearance without taking societal, heath, or learning disabilities into account, or not?

You assert they "choose not to work". I assert you "choose not to proofread and use a grammar checker." Both comments are based on appearances without taking into account factors not within the control of the person commented on.

Are you getting the point yet?

Ah, so going back and changing your post after it's been refuted is equivalent to not having said it at all.

Brilliant.

Your assertion is bollocks.

I have very thoughtfully collected every post I made here. Please point out precisely where I defended the laziness of blacks, as you put it. If you cannot find it, then your saying that I am lying about your ability to use proper English (as you claim your English to be) because I support the laziness of blacks is a great steaming pile of bullshit, not, as you term it, "the truth".

Regarding your lack of capitalization in referring to the Civil Rights Movement:
http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/mlk/links.html
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

I sure hope the argument isn't rabid.

:) Ah. But I am not arguing about the educational levels of a people and freely admit to being lazy if not down right stupid. ;)

:) Ah. But I am not arguing about the educational levels of a people and freely admit to being lazy if not down right stupid. ;)
TBH, it was difficult not to comment on loose v. lose now that the "education and laziness" card was thrown down. I ascribed your use as ironic, given the current discussion. ;)

Racism 2.0 is the new term that some antiracist activists are using for the racism that exists today and post-election President Obama.I am a supporter of President Obama, but position this to open discussion.

Racism 1.0 is the traditional white supremacy, and what was seen from many Right wingers and the typical racists.

The antiracist activists position that Racism 2.0 is more subtle. They say that President Obama fits a comfortable demeanour that was more closer to upper middle class whites, more close to a Huxability factor (their words) such as Bill Cosby, and that he comfortably swept many race issues (police discrimination like the shooting of Oscar Grant) under the rug as well as condemned black anger like Reverend Wright even though in some cases it is justified considering the terrible history of the country. It also positions that Obama sold the continued glossed over (mostly white) version of history (this has also been criticized by popular history advocates, saying he glossed over American imperialism and still is of course. Then more contemporary he is not going to investigate what was really done in the war in Iraq).

They propose that many white supporters of President Obama are still in fact uncomfortable, even distrustful of black people, and that President Obama only sets up a new standard which will cause many people still to refuse to accept most African-Americans who speak a different way, and act a different way. Now people will say that a black male needs to "be like Obama" or act a certain way to be acceptable to the mainstream.

Their main point is that of course that the election of President Obama will further delusion whites, and others to ignore the plight of black people as a result of institutional racism, and ignore the generational poverty and segregation of poor black neighborhoods. They of course go into the factors including until recently discriminative housing, and that the segregation of poor black neighborhoods in certain areas leads to poor under-funded schools due to lower tax revenues which is resultant of the lack of capital that poor black families had as compared to white families and that is the result of generational poverty.

They also present several statistics including the social cost to black neighborhoods of 2/3s of prison populations being black, high school graduation statistics at poorly funded schools in majority black areas, still it seems racial discrimination in loan practices (It is apparently statistically measurable that blacks with equal credit to whites were still given subprime loans at high rates while those white were given regular loans. These conclusions were drawn from official statistics from government sources)

Most interestingly it was actually racist rhetoric that trying to give black and other poor inner-city people housing loans was the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. The Act that was often blamed actually only allowed banks (as in the legal institution not the general brand) to grant the loans to poor homeowners, and not the mortgage lenders that were mostly responsible for the subprime crisis.
Oh give me a fucking break. :rolleyes: Will nothing make you Jesse Jackson types happy? Perhaps you should give the Back-To-Africa campaign a second go if you are really that miserable. :rolleyes:

Oh give me a fucking break. :rolleyes: Will nothing make you Jesse Jackson types happy? Perhaps you should give the Back-To-Africa campaign a second go if you are really that miserable. :rolleyes:
Are you flamebaiting?

'you Jesse Jackson types' -- seems to be....

Perhaps a rewording?

Are you flamebaiting?

'you Jesse Jackson types' -- seems to be....

Perhaps a rewording?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPy2alWEZ-U

:D

I would like comments more generally around the original posting, but continuing on this thread. Braids are not just worn by thugs. Many black men who are able or can get away with it wear them. College students, athletes, etc.

But braids alone are not the issue. With enough chemicals and heat, anyone can have braids, white men, white women, the whole gamut of humanity (except for bald people). It's the full package that some people project when they wholeheartedly embrace the "ghetto-thug" subculture as part of how they carry themselves.

If you project an overall appearance, though, of being an uneducated thug by dressing, speaking and acting like one, could I, as a hiring manager (I'm not), not take that into account? The image deliberately projected by a "ghetto-thug" culture is one of an uneducated, unthinking, violent tribal mentality. If you walk like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck, what else do you want me to take into consideration?

It's actually because you have at least a pair of working neurons, not because of your Jewness.

How dare you contradict my ego-gratifying fantasy argument!

Blacks have a higher unemployment rate.

Blacks commit more crime.

Blacks have a far lower rate of infant mortality.

Something is amiss, and it is obvious that Obama being elected does not mean it is all acceptable.

Blacks have a higher unemployment rate.

Blacks commit more crime.

Blacks have a far lower rate of infant mortality.

Something is amiss, and it is obvious that Obama being elected does not mean it is all acceptable.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/NS%20forum%20macros/Strawman.jpg

I thought I nipped this one last night, lol...

I thought I nipped this one last night, lol...

That was something else you "nipped"

That was something else you "nipped"

Really?......I was wondering about all those screams....

Poor white Europeans don't have a low average intelligence. IQ has an extremely consistent correlation with race, and a small and superficial correlation with socioeconomic status.


Sure, why not.
Take the average IQ in the average rural community in -dunno- Lombardy (quite NOT an underdeveloped region), and you'll find low IQ galore.

Race doesn't matter very much with IQ. Education and environment do.

Sure, why not.
Take the average IQ in the average rural community in -dunno- Lombardy (quite NOT an underdeveloped region), and you'll find low IQ galore.

Race doesn't matter very much with IQ. Education and environment do.
Indeed.

I heard Deep Kimchi is a lawyer. You two should get together.



This is true. So then, why haven't you? Too lazy?

You're probably a filthy Mexican.

Mexicans aren't lazy. They're the ones taking our jobs, the ones we're*
too lazy to do.

*we, here being Americans.... Americans are lazy.

Again, this idea of Racism 2.0 is racist in itself, it says that black people are different and should remain so, that to achieve the ideals of American society, to be educated, successful and more are limited to white people only, that a black person, in achieving these ideals, is somehow betraying his race.

The previous difference is that, even in achieving these ideals, a black person could not be president due to racism.

Now they can, that's an improvement and if it serves as a light for all people, of any colour, that you can overcome great difficulties to achieve greatness then all to the good.

I doubt we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking black person anymore than we'd vote in a drug-dealing, carjacking white person.
Indeed.
See this is just a good example though of the dominant culture being white. How can a particular popular hairstyle among a race (black men with braided hair) be compared to a woman wearing a bikini to any job? What defines this particular hairstyle particular to this race as unprofessional? Why?
The society in the US is very Euro-centric. In fact the business/office world isn't very accepting of anyone outside of the 'norm' they have prescribed. It can often have little to do with actual race/culture so much as the prohibitive code they have established. It's harder to get hired if you're a woman, if you're overweight, if you're underweight, if your hairstyle isn't modern, if your hairstyle is too modern, if you're not clean shaven, if your hair isn't a perfect cesar cut if you're a man and so on.

There is also the idea that you don't want to offend any clients, so while the boss himself might not have a problem with cornrows the client "might" so he feels he can't risk hiring on someone with them. It's why my husband gets better job offers when he's clean shaven.... most people don't like beards and don't associate them with a "well groomed" person, even though is grooming level is constant.

The third reason being there is still a lot of racism in America coming from many different angles, someone who looks stereotypically "black" might have a problem working past the stereotypes of behavior and work ethic with someone who assumes things based on appearance.

The question is whether people should have to work with the brokenness of the system or if they should try to change it. Of course they should try to change it, however I'm not sure they are going about it the most efficient way.

Anyone ever noticed that Obama sounds like Dave Chappelle's white guy impersonation?

White Guy Impersonation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M1a1qc7Ogg

Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd773j6NjE

I guess my being Jewish is how come I can see through Trilateral Commission's bullshit. It's a pity that his racial intellectual inferiority prevents him from seeing how wrong he is; or at least from deriving such sadistic enjoyment from it as I.

Of course, just because he's racially intellectually inferior doesn't mean he's inferior.

TC is a huge fan of Rushton. Look him up. There was actually a thread where I spent about 4 pages demolishing him for it. It was fun.

Are you flamebaiting?

'you Jesse Jackson types' -- seems to be....

Perhaps a rewording?
'Jesse Jackson types' = those who exacerbate racial problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns and, in some cases, make a career out of bitchin' and complainin' about racism.

It's a legit criticism of his post.

'Jesse Jackson types' = those who exacerbate racial problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns and, in some cases, make a career out of bitchin' and complainin' about racism.

This would be contrasted with those that exacerbate racial and cultural problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns, and make a constant habit of bitchin' and complainin' about race and culture? :eek:

And, damn that Martin Luther King, Jr., for the outside agitator he was. I mean the man practically made a career out of causing racial problems. :eek:

And, damn that Martin Luther King, Jr., for the outside agitator he was. I mean the man practically made a career out of causing racial problems. :eek:But we got him in the end!

'Jesse Jackson types' = those who exacerbate racial problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns and, in some cases, make a career out of bitchin' and complainin' about racism.

It's a legit criticism of his post.
No, really, it's not. It's name calling, and dismissing an entire argument -- and thread -- with a snide remark without having ever read a single word. In other words, intellectual laziness coupled with racism.

But tell yourself whatever you need to to justify it.

'Jesse Jackson types' = those who exacerbate racial problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns and, in some cases, make a career out of bitchin' and complainin' about racism.

It's a legit criticism of his post.

A bit of an evasion? Dropped the 'back to Africa', because the racial connotation there makes a glaring omission of race in your description of the 'Jesse Jackson Type' more obvious?

What you basically said, in more words, was 'stop them upitty ni**ers complaining, or 'send them home'.

A bit of an evasion? Dropped the 'back to Africa', because the racial connotation there makes a glaring omission of race in your description of the 'Jesse Jackson Type' more obvious?

What you basically said, in more words, was 'stop them upitty ni**ers complaining, or 'send them home'.
And we're off......

What I 'basically said' is exactly what I said.

I didn't advocate 'sending' anyone home. The Back-To-Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_africa)program was created by Blacks themselves who wished to return to Africa. It was not forced and nobody was sending them.

Stop being such a snake.

Sure, why not.
Take the average IQ in the average rural community in -dunno- Lombardy (quite NOT an underdeveloped region), and you'll find low IQ galore.

Race doesn't matter very much with IQ. Education and environment do.
Intelligence Quotient is also a cultural meter.

Can't recall who said it or the exact quote but: If IQ tests were designed by Aborigines, we'd all fail them

Logical deduction and understanding arbitrary symbols as a meter of intelligence is...at best...one dimensional.

'Jesse Jackson types' = those who exacerbate racial problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns and, in some cases, make a career out of bitchin' and complainin' about racism.

It's a legit criticism of his post.

It would have been were he actually doing that, but he wasn't. Thusly, your statement was just inane.

And we're off......

What I 'basically said' is exactly what I said.

I didn't advocate 'sending' anyone home. The Back-To-Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_africa)program was created by Blacks themselves who wished to return to Africa. It was not forced and nobody was sending them.

Stop being such a snake.

Ran right into it, didn't you? Created by Blacks themselves, huh? Blacks who wished to return to Africa.

I'd advise you to go back and read your ENTIRE post that Kat was addressing. Bear in mind what you said here.

And we're off......

What I 'basically said' is exactly what I said.

I didn't advocate 'sending' anyone home. The Back-To-Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_africa)program was created by Blacks themselves who wished to return to Africa. It was not forced and nobody was sending them.

Stop being such a snake.
How can you go BACK to someplace you've never been? I mean seriously, we're talking about generations of people being here. And yes, you DID say people should give it another go -- in other words, leave if you don't like things here.

If you don't like the "bitching and complaining" of other Americans about their legitimate concerns, why don't you go back to whatever Utopian non-black homeland your ancestors came from?

And you wouldn't much care for it if I said "you redneck backwoods inbred types should stfu and stop complaining", now would you? Because referring to people who feel the way you do that way is just as much flamebaiting as you referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a "Jesse Jackson Type".

Trilateral Commission's racism and paternalism render me speechless.

Oh give me a fucking break. :rolleyes: Will nothing make you Jesse Jackson types happy? Perhaps you should give the Back-To-Africa campaign a second go if you are really that miserable. :rolleyes:

So did you wear a hood when you typed this? You know that campaign finished about 110 or so years ago.....

Except through its Engine of course, that would be in fact superior, lol(thx, NeoArt, lol)...On this basis they are not equal cars...

No, the cars are equal, they're just SEPARATE.

That is racist. Low average intelligence? Have you ever considered that there are more measures to intelligence than simply literacy or how good of an education someone can display that was supposed to be attained though their schools were poorly funded?

So I suppose most poor white Europeans have a low average intelligence too?

Low average intelligence among blacks in the US (and among certain classes of whites, hispanics, and so on) can be directly attributed, not to potential, which is there, but to living conditions, diet, availability of medical care and educational enrichment. Change any one of these factors and you will see a dramatic increase in intelligence, not necessarily in the parents, but in the children.

And yes, poor white Europeans, for the reasons stated above, could also have low average intelligence.

So did you wear a hood when you typed this? You know that campaign finished about 110 or so years ago.....

I assume if calling people "Jesse Jackson" gets a flamebait reference calling them a Klanner will get at least the same?

I assume if calling people "Jesse Jackson" gets a flamebait reference calling them a Klanner will get at least the same?
Precisely.

So did you wear a hood when you typed this? You know that campaign finished about 110 or so years ago.....
Ahem. Chill.

Ahem. Chill.

I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.

Sorry teacher.

Ran right into it, didn't you? Created by Blacks themselves, huh? Blacks who wished to return to Africa.


It's The Blacks™

How can you go BACK to someplace you've never been? I mean seriously, we're talking about generations of people being here. And yes, you DID say people should give it another go -- in other words, leave if you don't like things here.
Well, obviously alot of people felt differently, as thousands and thousands of American Blacks decided to go 'back to Africa' with the program I was talking about. I said if . . . then . . . , which is a suggestion that he do something to himself, travel back to Africa, if he feels a certain way. But it does not equal me saying 'we' should 'send' 'them' back to Africa. The difference is there.


If you don't like the "bitching and complaining" of other Americans about their legitimate concerns, why don't you go back to whatever Utopian non-black homeland your ancestors came from?
The type of bitching and complaining shown in the OP about that nonsense exists only to further complicate race-issues by making them seem to be a larger problem than they actually are. This is an art that Jesse Jackson has perfected. Hence my Jesse-Jackson comment.


And you wouldn't much care for it if I said "you redneck backwoods inbred types should stfu and stop complaining", now would you? Because referring to people who feel the way you do that way is just as much flamebaiting as you referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a "Jesse Jackson Type".
Well I'm not even remotely a backwoods redneck so I doubt the flame, if you wish to call it that, would be well directed. :p

However, using a racial flame (redneck is racial, I suppose) is not that same as calling someone a Jesse Jackson type, which is a direct comparison to an individual and that individual's way of behaving.

I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.

Sorry teacher.
Oh, how cute. :rolleyes:

This would be contrasted with those that exacerbate racial and cultural problems because they make such a huge deal of them, raise up false concerns, and make a constant habit of bitchin' and complainin' about race and culture? :eek:

And, damn that Martin Luther King, Jr., for the outside agitator he was. I mean the man practically made a career out of causing racial problems. :eek:

There was race problem till he got them all stirred up...Him and them hippys.


I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.
I will not call The Atlantian islands a klansman.

And sure why would ye....its like something some 'Jesse Jackson type' would do...

The type of bitching and complaining shown in the OP about that nonsense exists only to further complicate race-issues by making them seem to be a larger problem than they actually are. This is an art that Jesse Jackson has perfected. Hence my Jesse-Jackson comment.

1. The OP was not "bitching and complaining" simply because you insist it.
2. You have absolutely no rational argument that the OP "exists only to further complicate race-issues." Your insistence does not constitute a rational argument.
3. "Race-issues," that is to say racism, is quite obviously a problem in the US. Pointing this out isn't "making them seem to be a larger problem than they actually are." And frankly, your every post smacks of racist overtones. You are a perfect example of how wrong you are - the problem is every bit as large as the stunning gaps in reasoning you employ to support your Not Really Racist (tm) arguments.

Everyone knows that race is socially constructed anyways.

Everyone knows that race is socially constructed anyways.

Where are you going with this? I mean, yes, race is a social construct, but therefore...?

Americans in general should be like Obama. He's an intelligent, literate, self-made man who has achieved one of the most powerful positions on Earth. It is a fact that there are serious problems in black communities that are ruining entire generations of Americans and in order to overcome them they need to follow the leadership of role models like our President or else there will be no end to the cycle of poverty, violence, and desperation that have caused so much damage in the past.

Americans in general should be like Obama. He's an intelligent, literate, self-made man who has achieved one of the most powerful positions on Earth. There are serious problems in black communities that have yet to resolve themselves and in order to overcome them they need to follow the leadership of role models like our President.

There are serious problems in every community. Why exactly are you singling out blacks? What, non-blacks can't or shouldn't follow Obama as a role model?

There are serious problems in every community. Why exactly are you singling out blacks? What, non-blacks can't or shouldn't follow Obama as a role model?

The internet is not very capable of transmitting the intended sarcasm, which I assume this post is.

There are serious problems in every community. Why exactly are you singling out blacks? What, non-blacks can't or shouldn't follow Obama as a role model?

(I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but for the benefit of others here is a response)

Because black communities have a lot more of these problems and their occurrence is significantly disproportionate to their percentage of the general population. This has nothing inherently to do with the fact that they are black; there is no inherent "blackness" that causes these crimes and there is nothing about these factual statements that should suggest there is some kind of inherent racial inferiority because of these problems.

That being said, 38% of prison inmates are black despite being only 10% of the general population...there is clearly a problem here. Unemployment and poverty rates are the highest on average in black communities, and the highest crime rates in the US are located in black communities. These problems make it difficult to succeed and escape that vicious cycle, and in order to change they need to emphasize positive role models like President Obama and to reinforce the values that enabled him to succeed.

The internet is not very capable of transmitting the intended sarcasm, which I assume this post is.
I hope for his sake.
(I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but for the benefit of others here is a response)

Because black communities have a lot more of these problems and their occurrence is significantly disproportionate to their percentage of the general population.

38% of prison inmates are black despite being only 10% of the general population...there is clearly a problem here. Unemployment and poverty rates are the highest on average in black communities, and the highest crime rates in the US are located in black communities. These problems make it difficult to succeed and escape that vicious cycle, and in order to change they need to emphasize positive role models like President Obama and to reinforce the values that enabled him to succeed.
Indeed.

(I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but for the benefit of others here is a response)

Because black communities have a lot more of these problems and their occurrence is significantly disproportionate to their percentage of the general population. This has nothing inherently to do with the fact that they are black; there is no inherent "blackness" that causes these crimes and there is nothing about these factual statements that should suggest there is some kind of inherent racial inferiority because of these problems.

That being said, 38% of prison inmates are black despite being only 10% of the general population...there is clearly a problem here. Unemployment and poverty rates are the highest on average in black communities, and the highest crime rates in the US are located in black communities. These problems make it difficult to succeed and escape that vicious cycle, and in order to change they need to emphasize positive role models like President Obama and to reinforce the values that enabled him to succeed.

Um. Although it is not the sole cause of these problems in black communities, a major cause is FUCKING RACISM!

I hope for his sake.

Indeed.

WTF? You deny race is a problem and then agree that there are major problems rlelated to race in America. YOU'RE JUST LIKE JESSE JACKSON!!!

Um. Although it is not the sole cause of these problems in black communities, a major cause is FUCKING RACISM!

Oh, absolutely. Racism is at the root of the downward spiral that has so devastated many black communities.

However, black communities need to look to their own past in that regard; they overcame not only slavery but fought a long and ultimately successful battle to defeat institutional racism. Their past is one of dedication and hard work in the face of terrible odds, and rediscovering and reinforcing the values of generations past is a necessity if they want to overcome today's racism.

Where are you going with this? I mean, yes, race is a social construct, but therefore...?

We're probably on Racism 14,000,000.0

Since I used one of my old posts in this on the new NSG, Im gonna gravedig for fun, knowing noone can stop me...

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/zombie.jpg

Since I used one of my old posts in this on the new NSG, Im gonna gravedig for fun, knowing noone can stop me...

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/zombie.jpg
Maybe I will gravedig somewhere as well. At least you admit what you did.

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement. Relatively low average black intelligence, and societal racism, interact in a vicious psychosocial cycle to keep the black man down.
gamegoldmoney.com tibia gold
tibiaitem.com tibia gold

Low average intelligence among black people is a major cause of their low economic achievement. Relatively low average black intelligence, and societal racism, interact in a vicious psychosocial cycle to keep the black man down.
gamegoldmoney.com tibia gold
tibiaitem.com tibia gold
flamebait much? You could be called rascist.