Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you made one good point, just one that i am aware of and heard clearly. if everything stupid bad shameful thing i ever did was a direct "proof" of the genetic inferiority of my race, i would be very tense all the time and probably pretty defensive. of course i have been on the opposite side of the fence, different citizenship different race than those around me. of course i wasnt carrying a 9mm and wearing my pants around my knees either. i was making some attempt to fit in up not down.
Not at all. The genocide in Darfur is race-based, and there is not a White population.
Not true. The genocide in Darfur is based on tribal and ethnic conflicts. The "Arabs" are black, and the "non-Arabs" are also black. As well, both groups are Muslim.
Not true. The genocide in Darfur is based on tribal and ethnic conflicts. The "Arabs" are black, and the "non-Arabs" are also black. As well, both groups are Muslim.
Are Arabs considered "black"? Most EEOC forms I fill out consider some areas of Northern Africa and the Middle East as "white".
In any event, far as I know, there's not a truly scientific "yes/no" definition of race in existence yet. I suspect as the genome gets more clearly understood, that may arise one day. But even if it does arise, it would still likely be somewhat arbitrary, I suspect. Mainly because the traditional definitions of "black, white, red, yellow" etc. are visual, clusters of traits and likely do not reduce to any one gene.
So if what we've come to call "race" is a set of several genes, abarring some reason I don't know, it's likely that people with "mixed sets" exist, and thus where a line gets drawn is likely a completely subjective issue. For example, is Obama white, black, both, something else? What of Tiger Woods? Do we go back to words like Quadroon?
Another suspicion is that as genetic research uncovers things, perhaps genes for specific negative behaviors may be found, and *those* will become the new thing people take sides about. E.g is it "aggression" or "ambition", LOL! (i.e if you want to cast financial aggressiveness negatively you might use the word "greedy", want to cast it positively... "ambition".)
Now it might just happen that "tendendy towards [bad behavior x] gene exists more frequently in what we perceive as "race Y", but at present I tend to believe that hasn't been established yet.
And even then, whether a trait is a + or - depends a whole lot on environmental factors.
It all reminds me of psychiatric definitions. At one time there was a move up to define it a disorder if a woman did *too much* for her family. "Self Deprication Disorder" or some such. Now 200 years ago, on the frontier that might just have been a desirable trait that ensured children survived.
So like it or not, arguments about these things will likely persist for as long as there are differences among people.
That is irrelevant. When is the last time a white politician has run for office? Whites still have ultimate economic power there.
If you are talking econoic power do you mean whites, or jewish folk?
As an aside, I think most anthropologist, etc. define jewish as "caucasian", so technically I guess things like AIPAC and folks like Greenspan, Geffen, Spielberg, Katzenberg, etc. etc. are "white", despite what the Nazis had to say about it.
I really like (or dislike I guess) number 17... flesh color bandages! I never thought of that.
In a class I was teaching we were discussing racism. One of the white students mentioned that there would be riots if we had a TV Channel Called "White Entertainment Television." I've heard that argument a lot, and actually bought into it. I thinks it's true. But then one of the black girls in the class said something that totally changed my whole view.
She said, "You do have White Entertainment Television. It's called TBS, CNN, CBS, ABC, The CW, Nickelodeon, Lifetime Television for Women, Spike TV, 'E' Entertainment, NBC, Fox, PBS, AMC, TNT, Disney, HGTV, Oxygen, Style, TCM, USA, WE, and all the other TV channels. How do you think it felt growing up and only have one channel in which I could see someone of my race in more than just one supporting role on an otherwise white cast television show... and only then if I was lucky. Not to mention, not seeing anyone of my race playing the hero or the heroin of any show!"
I never thought of it that way, but it's true. I think it's better now, then years ago... but think about the big shoes....
Desperate Housewives- all white
Grey's Anatomy- all main characters are non-black/non-hispanic
Private Practive- all white
CSI- Currently all Main characters are white
House- 3 our of 4 are white
Sorry, can't think of anymore right now, don't watch that much TV
Blockbuster movies in the theaters right now... almost all feature whites only in main and large support roles.
You are completely missing the point of the "If there was a WET there'd be riots" argument.
The point is not that all white casts are prohibited. The point is whites aren't allowed to use the word "white" in the titles of their endeavors and *that* is a form of anti-white racism that has taken root.
What offends me and many non-Whites the most, is the denial that it exists and that it is of no benefit.
What you are probably not noticing is that the people "in denial" are probably poor whites who feel that the rich upper crust are screwing them just as much as anyone else, and perhaps even *more* due to minority race based preferences in some policies.
As far as *that* group of white is concerned, their "whiteness" is being held against them and they have no recourse. They can't even say it, or stick up for their side without being labeled nazis.
Are Arabs considered "black"? Most EEOC forms I fill out consider some areas of Northern Africa and the Middle East as "white".
The problem with the USA's definition of racial and ethnic groups is that they are often not realistic. For many years, all Hispanics/Latinos were considered white, even though many are pure Native American, African or Asian. I am black Cuban and have relatives darker than me who actually have "white" on their birth certificates. Same with Arabs. Like Hispanic, Arab is a cultural and ethnic designation, not a racial one. Some Arabs have blond hair and blue eyes and look like white Europeans. Others, in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other parts of the Arab world are the blackest of black African. You cannot lump Arabs into one racial category. In the US, by the way, many black Arab Americans have filed complaints about their being erroneously considered white.
Quote:
In any event, far as I know, there's not a truly scientific "yes/no" definition of race in existence yet. I suspect as the genome gets more clearly understood, that may arise one day. But even if it does arise, it would still likely be somewhat arbitrary, I suspect. Mainly because the traditional definitions of "black, white, red, yellow" etc. are visual, clusters of traits and likely do not reduce to any one gene.
All of this is true, but there are at least some guidelines set.....
Quote:
So if what we've come to call "race" is a set of several genes, abarring some reason I don't know, it's likely that people with "mixed sets" exist, and thus where a line gets drawn is likely a completely subjective issue. For example, is Obama white, black, both, something else? What of Tiger Woods? Do we go back to words like Quadroon?
Most "blacks" in the US and the Americas are mixed. Obama and Tiger are not exotic or new phenomena.
As I've recently gone back to University and gotten the bill, I can say that I received no form of "White Privilege" from the Bursar's office when they sent me the bill.
But I've spoken to many folks who have received a free ride due to nothing other than the fact that they are a racial minority. It can be frustrating, maintaining a near straight A average and someone with a B average gets the free ride because their skin is darker than mine.
No doubt. This is an example of systemic anti-white racism that should be pushed back against. The goal should be "equal in the eyes of the law", no more, no less. At least that's my current opinion.
So people like you who benefit from slavery and genocide of Natives have more of a right to be here than nonwhites do?
I didn't say that.
The debate there has to consider whether or not we want to call it "genocide" or "conquest" doesn't it? After all, haven't most all national borders been decided by armed and violent conflict? (And to the extent that we decide it was "conquest" then yes, I guess I would have more of a right if I am a decendent of the conquerors. The real fact is, one is a free as the circle one can defend, be it via force or diplomacy. Though *I* wouldn't... one could argue that successful genocide is, in fact, natural selection. Hopefully we are evolving to something other than that, though.)
So it would almost seem to come down to the question of, "On what date do we consider the lines on the map to be the right ones?"
Even the native americans themselves were constantly fighting over territory, resourses etc.
This is not to say that I'm not empathetic towards Native Americans. I am. But those wrongs happened in a time when the world was different, and I am not guilty of committing those wrongs. And I'm certainly not living an elite life, so coming to me for the payback is certainly not going to be met with anything but a refusal.
As for the issue of slavery, I have always held it was wrong and do not condone it at any point in history.
As for benefiting from slavery. I don't think so. My ancestors are know to have fought on both sides of the civil war. So my family was shooting my family over your ancestors. Debt paid as far as I'm concerned.
If the aim of reparations is to restore those harmed to where they would have been should the wrong not occured, then I'd say repatriation is the correct reparation for African Americans, after all, they'd have been in Africa if those idiot slavers had not brought them to the "New World".
In any event, I'm also empathetic to what happened to the blacks. But I do not feel any I've gotten any benefits from it, nor do I feel I owe any paybacks. Again, all things done before my time, and I'm not among those family lines that were made rich by those events.
Now, if you feel strongly about things like slavery etc. How about this? Slavery is still happening in Africa... why not go over there and solve that problem? I see no line of African Americans lining up at the docs to go save their "brothers" over there. In fact, I'd guess the the vast majority of African Africans, would like to come over *here*.
I've stated it before, and I'll state it again. I'm against the "protected classes" idea. It's just racism in a different direction. I'm for "equal in the eyes of the law" and not, as a famous book once said, "more equaler".
However, even "equality" has a lot of debates surrounding it. Do we mean "equality of opportunity? "Equality of Outcome"? Something else?
As a practical matter it is unlikely that people will ever be "equal". At present, wealth determines who is "more equaler". If you normalized that, then "attractive people" would likely be "more equaler"... if time got rough then physically superior people would be "more equaler" and so on.
So in the end, what I feel is neccessary for whites to do, who don't have the advantages "white guilt" presupposes they have, is to actively reject white guilt and hold the line at "equal in the eyes of the law".
Last edited by JMadison; 01-23-2009 at 09:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
