Race

[zinc]

Why do you think rascism is wrong, no ad hominems, I want you to show me why you dont value your own race over others?

I'm not advocatin supremacy of any race but why have multiculturalism, which is liberal by the way not Marxist in my eyes.

Why destroy your culture, I thought Marxism was about economics.

[LSD]

Why do you think rascism is wrong

Because race is a made-up concept used to oppress, exploit, and dominate others.


I'm not advocatin supremacy of any race but why have multiculturalism, which is liberal by the way not Marxist in my eyes.

Race is a bouregois tool used to divide and segregate the workers.

Marxism is about liberating all workers, hence the abolition of "race" is very Marxist.


Why destroy your culture, I thought Marxism was about economics.

I thought we were talking about race?


no ad hominems

Really?

Not even 1 or 2?

Pleeeeaaaase....

How about just a little one?

OK, here goes:. :angry: RACIST FUCK!!!!! :angry:

...alright, I'm done.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ROFLcopter.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

First off what is a race?

[rebelafrika]

Racism is wrong because it's a lie and societies can't function on lies. If all engineers said "OF COURSE that skyscraper is BUILT TO STANDARD" anytime they felt like it (whether it was true or false), then who would feel safe entering any building? In fact, society as we know it is falling apart because of liars (look at the war on Iraq)...and only people willing to build a society based on truth can build a society to salvage humanity from this current society.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:57 PM
Why do you think rascism is wrong, no ad hominems, I want you to show me why you dont value your own race over others?

I'm not advocatin supremacy of any race but why have multiculturalism, which is liberal by the way not Marxist in my eyes.

Why destroy your culture, I thought Marxism was about economics.
Racism is wrong because it inherently leads to divisions in society. Divisions will ultimately result in conflict and factionization. A society can not be at peace when there is division.

Also race is a label...and a particularly crude one at that.

[fokker-scourge]

race is a thing that ppl cannot help and i personally think that exploitation of other races (such as slvery)sould be banned in general

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by fokker-[email protected] 14 2005, 05:34 PM
race is a thing that ppl cannot help and i personally think that exploitation of other races (such as slvery)sould be banned in general
When you say they cannot help it, you make it seem condescending.

[CrazyModerate]

Race is something that can be used as a physical descriptor, much like hair colour, height, or breast size can be. But it should never be used to discriminate or differentiate when applying for work, hiring, voting, or assuming personality attributes.

[Clarksist]

Basically, racism is wrong in a Leftist's eyes because we believe all humans are equal (hence not wanting a class system). You are saying that the "liberal" movement wants abolition of racism, so we can't POSSIBLY want that.

Well actually we oppose neo-liberalism, and we oppose liberalism because it supports a private market. But, the term liberal in America can mean anything from an actual neo-liberal to a leftist. So the term liberal is very shaky grounds for an argument.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM
Because race is a made-up concept used to oppress, exploit, and dominate others.
Don't be dumb, of course there's such a thing as race. It doesn't make any difference what race you are, however, you're still human.


Race is a bouregois tool used to divide and segregate the workers.

Blah blah...slogan slogan...cliche cliche...


Marxism is about liberating all workers, hence the abolition of "race" is very Marxist.

You&#39;re going to abolish something that doesn&#39;t exist ? <_<

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What is race then Money?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 15 2005, 03:39 PM
What is race then Money?
It&#39;s a definition of how humans differ in physical characteristics according to geographical location.

[RedAnarchist]

How do you account for mass migration, Prof?

[realist022]

the concept of race is not a concept. It is a reality. People are different genetically. Does that make them better or worse than one another? If you look at certain things over a whole group sometimes. Asians tend to be smarter and blacks tend to be better athletes. This is based on culture too. All and all, we are just different. Like men and women. Culture is not race either. THough they are entwined often. Racism and hate are not the same thing. Everyone is racist. If you consider yourself say white or black your a racist. Wanting to live with your own race is not bad either. I think races can peacefully coexist. I think they can mix too. Being from Detroit, I have alot of experience with racism. Detroit is one of the most segregated cities in America. It is very black. I&#39;m a white boy who hangs in the city. It is what it is. They say hey white boy. I say hey black boy. We get along mostly. I think the biggest problem with race is that people sidestep the issue and don&#39;t aknowledge the differences. They kinda brush it under the rug like it will go away. Some leftists have a way of trying to equate everything to workers and non-workers. It has some truth in the fact that when everyone has enough of what they need, hate based on race is less of an issue. Fuck, all of our ills are less of an issue. I see someone calling someone else here a racist. At least he&#39;s talking about it race. Your great experiment in communism, which failed, was run by the great white bear. White russians&#33; Oh, and every communist country is run by an elite group who is not equal. I think your worse than a racist. Your in denial&#33; Get with reality. I could go on forever on this because communism is a theroy that doesn&#39;t work. I&#39;m more for capitalism as an economic system, with anarchism mixed in. I think the trend in America is very disturbing. We live in a total police state. A fascist one, not based on race, but based on control. I don&#39;t have any problem with a capitalist. It makes things work. i do have a problem with greed though. The thing with being a worker is that you can pick and chose. Just like being a consumer. If I don&#39;t like working for someone I quite. The thing with most workers is that they don&#39;t leave themselves options. So, they get taken advantage of. I don&#39;t agree with big business taking advantage of people. It makes me sick. BUt, if your a victim, you&#39;ll be taken advantage of.

[LSD]

You&#39;re going to abolish something that doesn&#39;t exist ?

I didn&#39;t say it didn&#39;t exist. I said that it&#39;s a made-up concept, as in it is not reflective of reality.

Like, say, religion. Religion is another made-up concept and, again, one which must be abolished.


It&#39;s a definition of how humans differ in physical characteristics according to geographical location.

Only physical characteristics?

Your pal realist022 claims that it determined intelligence and athletic ability as well.

And what are the races? How many are there? What are their defining characteristics? What distinguishes them? What&#39;s the difference between inter-racial differences and intra-racial differences?

Do some research on this. You&#39;ll find that all serious biologists and anthropologists have throgroughly rejected the classical concept of "race".

[deus ex machina]

Do some research on this. You&#39;ll find that all serious biologists and anthropologists have throgroughly rejected the classical concept of "race".

Not really.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081...7309290-1681663 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813340861/qid=1118863201/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-7309290-1681663)

Sarich, a Berkeley emeritus anthropologist, and Miele, an editor of Skeptic magazine, cannot resist calling the current view that "race does not exist" a "PC dogma." They make cogent, if not convincing, arguments of their case in three areas. Race as a concept, they argue, considerably antedates colonial Europe, presenting such examples as an "Egyptian tomb with four races" (as one caption calls a tomb painting) that may point up "awareness" of difference, but whether that awareness correlates to concepts of "race" as currently defined remains unproven. Several chapters are heavy going on DNA-based research into the origin and differentiation of Homo sapiens, here interpreted as branching off from the other hominids recently enough to make differences among people very minor but, in the authors&#39; view, significant. They move from the Human Genome Project into their final section, in which differences in intelligence are said to correlate to a concept of race (but are not said to be a justification for discrimination). This last argument is predicated on what will seem to many readers an excessive faith in IQ tests. Nevertheless, the book lacks vitriol, other than that needed to fuel the skeptic&#39;s attempt to debunk.

Sarich and Miele, both respected academicians, challenge the much-hyped, popular notion of race as an illusion, or mere social construct. Instead, they contend that significant human racial differences exist. Those differences are being increasingly identified and quantified via medical research and law-enforcement techniques, most notably in DNA testing, which has led to convictions and acquittals. Inquiries into the genetic influences behind racial differences in educational achievement and intelligence, despite inflammatory resistance, are justified by cost-benefit analyses, the authors contend. Assessing the future of racial politics in the U.S and internationally, Sarich and Miele offer three scenarios: meritocracy with race-sensitive safety valves (which they prefer), affirmative action or quotas, and rising resegregation and ethnopolitics. This is an important work, despite its conservative inferences, that challenges both the existence and the value of America&#39;s obsession with color blindness. Vernon Ford
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:50 PM
How do you account for mass migration, Prof?
Black people still came from Africa/Oceania.

And white people from Europe. And Asians, from, well Asia.

[Forward Union]

Why do you think rascism is wrong, no ad hominems, I want you to show me why you dont value your own race over others?

Because Morally, Practically, and most importantly Scientifically, there is nothing superior about &#39;my race&#39;


Why destroy your culture

Im all for Culture, all kinds of Culture, multi culture&#33;&#33;&#33; that&#39;s nothing to do with race.

[LSD]

Sarich and Miele, both respected academicians, challenge the much-hyped, popular notion of race as an illusion, or mere social construct.

Well, that was my point. The general consensus is that race is a social construct. I may have been overstating the fact by saying "all", because, you&#39;re right, there will always be outlyers in any field.

[Seneca]

LSD (lol&#33;),

That doesn&#39;t quite seem to be the case, if this this correct.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."

Are there differences in the research concentrations of these two groups of experts? Yes, most decidedly there are. As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories.


Of course, then you get into the whole issue of what is and is not a race. But however you define it there do seem to be a lot of academics who believe that race is real as a biological fact, and not some sort of social construct.

[Xvall]

Don&#39;t be dumb, of course there&#39;s such a thing as race. It doesn&#39;t make any difference what race you are, however, you&#39;re still human.

To an extent, I know what you&#39;re saying.

Of course, there are still "black people", "white people", "asian people", and what have you. In spite of this, I feel that "race" is made up. That doesn&#39;t mean that I think that everyone looks the same, but if it doesn&#39;t make a difference, then it may as well not exist.

For example, there are people with various eye colors. There are green eyed people, and even though green eyed people exist, if I were to declare that green eyed people were the Greeneedian race, I would, essentially, be making stuff up.

Anyways, in regards to the initial topic, I don&#39;t like racism because it stands in the way of everything that I hope to achieve and just outright bothers me.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 15 2005, 04:48 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 15 2005, 04:48 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Jun 15 2005, 03:39 PM
What is race then Money?
It&#39;s a definition of how humans differ in physical characteristics according to geographical location. [/b]
So there are 6 billion human races?

[RedAnarchist]

What if you had two twins, one with brown hair, blue eyes and another with blonde hair, brown eyes? Are they different races?

[Professor Moneybags]

Does it really matter ?

[Xvall]

Yeah, really man, who gives a shit? I bet your twins are ugly as hell, dude.

[zinc]

Interesting, one who actually believes there is no such thing as race yet oddly then talks about racial discrimination. Thats some logic.



Prove race is a social construct and will concede give up my not rascist but you will say they are because thats what leftists do ways, some of us just like to believe that the world is all that is the case.

[LSD]

Interesting, one who actually believes there is no such thing as race yet oddly then talks about racial discrimination.

I didn&#39;t say there was no such thing as race, just that it was socially constructed, like class. Class is a social construct, and there is certainly class discrimination. Indeed, most social discrimination is based on social constructions and not physiology.


Thats some logic.

Yes it is, thank you.

Oh, we&#39;re you trying to be sarcastic?

:rolleyes: How cute&#33;


Prove race is a social construct and will concede give up my not rascist

Are you saying that you&#39;re a racist?


but you will say they are because thats what leftists do ways, some of us just like to believe that the world is all that is the case.

:huh:

Did anybody understand what that was supposed to mean?

[danny android]

Racism is just wrong. Sorry it&#39;s a fact.

[superiority]

Prove race is a social construct and will concede give up my not rascist but you will say they are because thats what leftists do ways, some of us just like to believe that the world is all that is the case.
...
Yes...



Because race is a made-up concept used to oppress, exploit, and dominate others.

Don&#39;t be dumb, of course there&#39;s such a thing as race. It doesn&#39;t make any difference what race you are, however, you&#39;re still human.
He meant that difference between races, other than purely physical ones, are a made-up concept. Obviously those physical differences a distinguishing feature, just like, as stated, hair or eye colour or height.


I&#39;m not advocatin supremacy of any race but why have multiculturalism

So you&#39;re saying you support monoculturalism? That is to say, the dominance of one culture over all others, from which I infer that the society or race from which that culture came is superior to all others. So you are advocating supremacy of any race, you&#39;re just not saying which one.

[rebelafrika]

but why have multiculturalism



Why destroy your culture, I thought Marxism was about economics.

Marxism argues that the determinant factor in society is economics.

Multiculturalism is good because it is the opposite of ethnocentrism. Not only have I had the unfortunate aquaintence of confrontations with Euro-centrists (ethnocentric) but I have ALSO had HEATED confrontations with black people who are lashing out at Euro-centricity with the EQUALLY MISTAKEN AND BACKWARDS "Afri-centric" (ethnocentric) view.

Multi-culturalism does not destroy anybodies culture. It removes people&#39;s own culture as a central point of reference and is all inclusive of other cultures.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2005, 04:35 PM
Does it really matter ?
Obviously there were two eggs fertilized at the same by different fathers. What I would be asking "Where can I find a good divorce lawyer".

Plus who do you think is a better starship captain? Kirk or Picard?

I got a kicker for you communist.

In all the places that communist revolutions take place, they are typically in places with low rates for education, literacy, and industry. Places like Czar Russia, Africa, Latin America, and farm based poor regions of the world. Would these people where the revolutions take place even understand anything that we are discussing here? Would they understand the concept "racism is wrong"?

Why is this important? You can not have a classless society with racism. So please note where the hot spots of communism are taking place.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:09 AM




in all the places that communist revolutions take place, they are typically in places with low rates for education, literacy, and industry. Places like Czar Russia, Africa, Latin America, and farm based poor regions of the world. Would these people where the revolutions take place even understand anything that we are discussing here? Would they understand the concept "racism is wrong"?

Your suggestion that only uneducated people would be willing to fight in a communist revolution is false. Yes, mostly, communist revolts have taken place in 3rd world countries. But if you think that the only factor leading to this uprising was stupidity, then you really need to do some reading. Besides, it is not only poor nations that witness communist action, think of the riots protests and political parties...think of other revolutions like the one in Germany, 1930s.

If someone didn&#39;t understand the term "racism is wrong" then they would understand "racism is right" so I wouldn&#39;t care.


Why is this important? You can not have a classless society with racism. So please note where the hot spots of communism are taking place.

Where are these &#39;hot spots&#39; of communism? are you referring to the mass protests, gatherings, and communist ran communes in Britain? or the Mass workers parties in europe? or perhaps the riots in America?

There are no &#39;hot spots&#39; We are everywhere (http://www.weareeverywhere.org/)

[Sky]

race is a social construct.

While this statement may be true in the United States where there is a weak sense of nationhood and culture, this is not the case in many other countries. In countries like Russia, Turkey, etc one's physical features is not at all a marker of one's identity. For example, anyone can belong to the Turkish nation just as long as they speak the predominant language whether that person be blond-haired, blue-eyed Ataürk or curly black-haired, dark brown-skinned Esmeray. The simple truth is that in most countries one's morphological features means nothing, for one's identity is instead marked by the tribe or nation.

[RedAnarchist]

Why did you necro this from 2005?

[RGacky3]

I don't really think racism is wrong, its just ignorant and stupid, and kind of pointless, when it turns into opression and violence, well those things are wrong, whatever the reason is. But if a guys a racist, I just look at him as an idiot, not someone doing something 'wrong' morally perse, its just his viewpoint, an idiotic one, but just that non the less.

Race is a Social construct, just a devision made by man, your absolutely right, but so is the difference between fruits and vegetables. But all and all I think people should treat racism as it is, idiotic, and ignore it, unless it turns into violence or oppression, in which case you'd fight it no matter what the cause.

Thats why I cringe every time the media freaks out when a celebrity or someone makes a racist comment, 90% of the time its juts out of anger or humor, not deep seeted racism, and even when it is, who cares, it just prooves the persons an idiot, nothing to be outraged about.

[Robert]

I have recently been suggesting that when asked on a form what one's race is, one should answer: "none of your business." It's what I do.

However, I don't see the harm in health clinics telling African Americans to be particularly vigilant to detect early signs of, say sickel cell anemia. For whatever reason, it is far more prevalent in that group than in others.

Higher incidences of breast cancer have been noted in Jewish than in non-Jewish males. Is that a social construct?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

However, I don't see the harm in health clinics telling African Americans to be particularly vigilant to detect early signs of, say sickel cell anemia. For whatever reason, it is far more prevalent in that group than in others.
That has nothing to do with race though, it's to do with the chemical make-up of your skin. Obviously doctors should differentiate between patients based on physiological factors, they do it all the time, it's not really relevant to the race argument though.


Higher incidences of breast cancer have been noted in Jewish than in non-Jewish males. Is that a social construct?
Again, it is likely that there is something in the physiological traits shared by people who would generally be perceived as being of Jewish ethnicity that may increase the probability of breast cancer, or maybe it is due to a shared lifestyle. But to say that they get breast cancer because they're Jewish is, as you can appreciate, a rather unsatisfactory statement from a scientific point of view.

But this also brings to light another danger of attempting to categorize things like this. If, for example, you conducted a study to find the gender of all the people who died on Wednesdays and Saturdays, save in the overwhelmingly unlikely event that it was split right down the middle between men and women, you're obviously going to find one gender suffering a higher casualty rate on these days. That doesn't necessarily mean that men/women are more likely to die on Saturdays or Wednesdays because they are men/women. Sometimes shit just happens, and it's very easy to use it for one's own political purposes.

[Robert]

If, for example, you conducted a study to find the gender of all the people who died on Wednesdays and Saturdays, save in the overwhelmingly unlikely event that it was split right down the middle between men and women, you're obviously going to find one gender suffering a higher casualty rate on these days.Well, sure. The two particular diseases I mentioned, however, have markedly higher incidence rates among the two groups I name. Look up the stats.

The "dark skin" argument also doesn't explain the vastly higher incidence of sickel cell among Af/Americans vis a vis Latin Americans and Asian Indians, some of whom are darker than any Afrian American you'll ever see.

Now, if all you're saying is that dark skin is merely one indicator that one's ancestors are more likely to have come from Africa than from Scandinavia (surely we won't argue this point?), and that this isn't an indicator of "race," but mere "physiological differences," then we're just arguing semantics out of fear -- I guess -- of offending somebody. "Race" is a shorthand word to identify those differing origins, as someone above has already explained.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well, sure. The two particular diseases I mentioned, however, have markedly higher incidence rates among the two groups I name. Look up the stats.

The "dark skin" argument also doesn't explain the vastly higher incidence of sickel cell among Af/Americans vis a vis Latin Americans and Asian Indians, some of whom are darker than any Afrian American you'll ever see.

Now, if all you're saying is that dark skin is merely one indicator that one's ancestors are more likely to have come from Africa than from Scandinavia (surely we won't argue this point?), and that this isn't an indicator of "race," but mere "physiological differences," then we're just arguing semantics out of fear -- I guess -- of offending somebody. "Race" is a shorthand word to identify those differing origins, as someone above has already explained.
Yeah - a social construct.

[Robert]

So what are you advocating? Elimination of the word "race" as invalid, divisive, or meaningless? Something like elimination of the "n" word, which we all support I'm sure?

Surely we can't simultaneously deplore racism and deny the existence of race.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

So what are you advocating? Elimination of the word "race" as invalid, divisive, or meaningless? Something like elimination of the "n" word, which we all support I'm sure?

Surely we can't simultaneously deplore racism and deny the existence of race.
The word "race", unlike the "n-word", is not inherently offensive, so there is no real compelling reason to advocate its elimination in my opinion, so long as it is made clear that race is a social construct and not a very satisfactory one at that; the myriad problems of using race as a categorization for any purpose have been highlighted in this thread and also through experience. I don't think we should rely on race for any practical purposes, as it is too inaccurate and unscientific. Whether we should aim to extinguish any reference to "race" at all is a different matter; indeed, it would probably be a better situation if we broke from that term because of the overwhelming historical and social baggage it carries, but one must wonder if people would not just develop another similar construct to conveniently group together people who they perceive to share certain traits which is just as unfounded and unscientific.

[Forward Union]

Why do you think rascism is wrong

Depends what you mean, Racism as a social phenomina? it's wrong because it practically divides the working class and causes innocent people suffering.

But this is wrong because it's based on "Race Science" which is scientifically falsifiable.

[Awful Reality]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU GOD DAMN FUCKING NECROMANCERS

[Dean]

Depends what you mean, Racism as a social phenomina? it's wrong because it practically divides the working class and causes innocent people suffering.

But this is wrong because it's based on "Race Science" which is scientifically falsifiable.

"Falsifiable" means that an thesis can be proven false with a scientific test that is applicable. It doesn't mean that something is wrong, but rather that a test can give credence to its validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

[Robert]

Ron Burgundy, you are one bright son of a gun. I'd say sonofa***** but you might take it wrong.

Salute!

Don't get the bighead, you smart little sonofab--gun.

Awful Reality: thank you.

[Sky]

Race is a Social construct
In the United States race is a social construct but not in most other countries. In most other countries it is the nation or tribe that define one's identity. In my own nation members range from blond-haired to brown-skinned yet they are still considered to be part of the same nation regardless of their physical features. The definition of a person based on his morphological features is a phenomenon present only in the United States and certain other countries in the western hemisphere.

[Unicorn]

That has nothing to do with race though, it's to do with the chemical make-up of your skin. Obviously doctors should differentiate between patients based on physiological factors, they do it all the time, it's not really relevant to the race argument though.
Sickle-cell anemia has nothing to do with skin color. It is a blood disorder which became common in African populations because heterozygotes are more resistant against malaria.

[Forward Union]

"Falsifiable" means that an thesis can be proven false with a scientific test that is applicable. It doesn't mean that something is wrong, but rather that a test can give credence to its validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

Yes that's why I used it.