RE: Racist (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Leatherist -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 5:43:06 PM)

It's usually not the race that is the devisive issue. People tend to forget that.

It's the cultural differences ATTACHED to the race, that are the real issue.



RealityLicks -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 6:14:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Believe what you will, but please check what the rest of the civilised world thinks before you arrive at any conclusions, past, and present, you lot have always influenced us



Much as I dislike to interpose into your discussion Aneirin, as a black man living in the UK I feel compelled to say that you are obviously speaking about an area with which you have only passing acquaintance.  Course, you have every right to an opinion but it will always be vulnerable to criticism by those who have more informed views. 

Knowing that this topic usually generates intensely heated debate, it's kind of insulting that you haven't even bothered to check your facts before writing them here. It's like you think your "gut feelings" are worth more than the lived experience of people who have dealt with this constantly throughout adulthood.

Honestly, I wish you had a proper argument to sustain your repeated visits to this subject.  But if you have, I'm yet to see it.



slvemike4u -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 6:37:40 PM)

Let's see if i understant this she's quoted as saying Obama is where he is(a possible democratic party nomination for pres.)because he's a black man..she gets attacked ,the statement is labeled racist by many....simple question was her statement true.We can all agree racism is bad(at least i hope we can),but what part of her statement was racist was it the part where a white woman used the phrase black man to descrbe Mr Obama.Or was it the part where she was comparing the treatment she recieved as the first female candidate for vice-president to the hands off policy the media has today with the first serious african-american canidate.Seems any questioning of obama's qualifications are deemed code for racism.Hell even Saturday Night Live that bastion of conservative thinking finds itself in the position of defending its impartiality as the result of skits performed the last few weeks....It seems to me that to question Obama's qualifications or to prefer Clinton or McCain you  run the risk of being labeled a racist.Dsclaimer after eight years of Pres Bush and his sidekick Cheney i'll vote for Daffy Duck if the democrats nominate him ..Proving once and for all i am not prejudiced against ducks.....



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 7:49:15 PM)

quote:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."


That isn't saying 'Oh look, he happens to be black'....She is saying that the only reason he got to where he is (an accomplished and well educated lawyer, activist, and legislator running for President), was because of his skin color, not because of his abilities.

If it is true that no white person has ever gotten to where Obama is, then she can use truth as her defense. But it isn't true.

If it is true that Obama had everything given to him because of a court order based on his skin color, she may have had a point. But in spite of all the fearmongering about minorities taking over the universities, the facts still don't support that assertion.


If the reality is that we have gotten to the point where only certain people are taken aback by the notion of a black man graduating from law school, conducting a career as an activist, and parlaying that into a bid for high office, then those people obviously think that such things are reserved for non-minorities.....which makes anyone believing Ferrarro or her nonsense, every bit as much a racist as she has outed herself to be.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:05:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

http://www.ivysuccess.com/dartmouth_college_2008.html

"While Connerly and other opponents of racial consideration of any kind use the argument of fairness to make their point, proponents of the use of race also argue that it is a question of fairness--fairness for those who have not had as much opportunity in their lives."

What many universities consider is that many minority students never were afforded the opportunity that many of their white counterparts take for granted.

Is it fair? Not anymore than if you got to school in a white suburb of Chicago that you are offered many more resources than the majority of the minority students that are not afforded that luxury.

To further make your argument it would be interesting as to what favoritism is bestowed upon these students once they are accepted? Less expectations? What percentage don't make it?

I completely agree. While I understand that there is no scientific basis for classifying humans into 'races", I accept there is a socio-political reality known as "race" wherein people are judged on the basis of skin color and other minor genetic variances.

Given that, I completely support Affirmative Action, as it is an historical fact that de jure "racism" existed up until 1965, and de facto "racism" occurs to this day.



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:10:53 PM)

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.

I am referring to the field of Evolutionary Biology, Komrade.
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html



slvemike4u -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:32:42 PM)

please Alumbrado show me the part of the quote where she says "that the only reason he got to where he is because he's black.And when your done with that if you can explain how coming down on one side or the other in a discussion has now "outed"  all those that don't see it the way you do as racist...Let me see if i understand this America is ready for an african american president we just shouldn't notice or comment on the fact that said president is an african american lest we get labeled....Wasn't that the point of the original quote that to quesion obama's qualifications was to risk being branded a racist,aren't you sort of proving her point



popeye1250 -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:45:04 PM)

Mike, Obama is white.
I know some "Black Irish" who are darker than him!



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:48:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.

I am referring to the field of Evolutionary Biology, Komrade.
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html


Then you have commited a classic logical fallacy by conflating one branch with all of science...do you need a link to a list? [:D]



Griswold -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:51:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

please Alumbrado show me the part of the quote where she says "that the only reason he got to where he is because he's black.And when your done with that if you can explain how coming down on one side or the other in a discussion has now "outed"  all those that don't see it the way you do as racist...Let me see if i understand this America is ready for an african american president we just shouldn't notice or comment on the fact that said president is an african american lest we get labeled....Wasn't that the point of the original quote that to quesion obama's qualifications was to risk being branded a racist,aren't you sort of proving her point


I remember in the 70's, black people would rant about how their differences were something to be proud of, then in the late 80's, we weren't supposed to recognize there were any differences...so we shouldn't even acknowledge that they were black (I think it was okay though to say "you have a fabulous tan").

In the 60's society was bludgeoned in the press because we weren't doing enough for equal rights, and needed to agree to quotas to insure everyone got a chance in life, billions of dollars were spent, then in the late 90's, multiple black leaders blamed society for creating a welfare society (using those same social programs they insisted were established) for those that got an "unfair" shake in the world due to their skin color or religious and other beliefs and that these social programs were basically society's way of keeping certain classes down.

It's real simple if people (of any color) want to look at the actual stats:

Second generation Asians do better financially than whites, blacks, or any other ethnic group because they (as a group) are more likely to send their children to college, insist on them studying, staying away from drugs, and as a group, whites do better than blacks, Hispanics better than whites...etc. etc.  (And I may have the "who's on top or above another wrong...but it's still a statistic that follows clear trends).

No...I can't cite the source...it was something I read a few years ago on some study I was involved in for work.

But you can pretty much follow the stats to find who (as a group or class) are not doing as well as others....they're the ones that go to school, stop impregnating women and leaving them to raise children alone, provide a good support system for their children, quit selling drugs to the generation below and above them, get a job (and if they get fired, assume FIRST that it might have been their actual work ethic...and not their skin color or religious beliefs), stay out of prison and so on...are more successful in life.

It's not that difficult to ascertain. 

People that work hard, invest in themselves, don't do destructive things, plan for tomorrow instead of living solely for today....

Those people, regardless of race...will do well.

There are however, races and groups that statistically do less well...and it's not racist to say so.

It's just a statistic.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:54:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.

I am referring to the field of Evolutionary Biology, Komrade.
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html


Then you have commited a classic logical fallacy by conflating one branch with all of science...do you need a link to a list? [:D]
Very funny. [8D] All seriousness aside, Dr. Graves' arguments have convinced me that there is no genetic basis for "race" in Humans. If you come across compelling evidence to the contrary, I shall be happy to consider it and, if I think it more convincing, will be happy to return to the old ways of thinking. [;)]



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 8:57:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

please Alumbrado show me the part of the quote where she says "that the only reason he got to where he is because he's black.And when your done with that if you can explain how coming down on one side or the other in a discussion has now "outed"  all those that don't see it the way you do as racist...Let me see if i understand this America is ready for an african american president we just shouldn't notice or comment on the fact that said president is an african american lest we get labeled....Wasn't that the point of the original quote that to quesion obama's qualifications was to risk being branded a racist,aren't you sort of proving her point


In case you hadn't noticed, I quoted her directly from the interview and logically parsed it, you simply made up something she never said.  
When you start with an untruth, it doesn't matter how tricky or 'clever' you think your semantics and sophomorism  are, you are defending a falsehood, and Ferrarro's statement is patently untrue.



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 9:08:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.

I am referring to the field of Evolutionary Biology, Komrade.
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html


Then you have commited a classic logical fallacy by conflating one branch with all of science...do you need a link to a list? [:D]
Very funny. [8D] All seriousness aside, Dr. Graves' arguments have convinced me that there is no genetic basis for "race" in Humans. If you come across compelling evidence to the contrary, I shall be happy to consider it and, if I think it more convincing, will be happy to return to the old ways of thinking. [;)]



I've followed the discussion on genetics with interest, and I'm not promoting the idea that race is a biological certainty..... although I will note that some in the discipline are saying that all the results are not in yet.   

As I said, there are branches of science that don't buy into the construct of race...others do, and some are arguing internally. 
Is social science from whence the construct of race came, not science?  I'd love to see some compelling evidence for that.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 9:45:31 PM)

I am the one that first said that equitable treatment under the law should have the energy placed into it. Anything that gives someone an advantage or disadvantage because of race or ethnicity is not earned. Either someone earns something or it is given to them. I feel that earning it makes it mean more, and in the end is better for society.

Rejections from what?

Why do you feel there is always a hidden agenda?


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Actually things should be based upon merit, and merit alone. It should not be based upon whether someone had or did not have certain advantages in their life. Fair is a concept that people use as an opinon on whether they agree with something or not.



You cannot base anything on merit alone if you forfeit such a basic democratic principle as equality under the law.

Why do provisions which seek to better the level of opportunities for minorities bother you so much, Orion? Have you had more than your share of rejections, recently?



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 10:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is plenty of scientific basis for classifying people according to the construct of race. 

It so happens that some branches of science don't follow that, but that doesn't mean that science never uses race.

I am referring to the field of Evolutionary Biology, Komrade.
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html


Then you have commited a classic logical fallacy by conflating one branch with all of science...do you need a link to a list? [:D]
Very funny. [8D] All seriousness aside, Dr. Graves' arguments have convinced me that there is no genetic basis for "race" in Humans. If you come across compelling evidence to the contrary, I shall be happy to consider it and, if I think it more convincing, will be happy to return to the old ways of thinking. [;)]



I've followed the discussion on genetics with interest, and I'm not promoting the idea that race is a biological certainty..... although I will note that some in the discipline are saying that all the results are not in yet.   

As I said, there are branches of science that don't buy into the construct of race...others do, and some are arguing internally. 
Is social science from whence the construct of race came, not science?  I'd love to see some compelling evidence for that.
Um, ya know, I have no idea where the notion of "race" comes from. Did you read that link? I find it fascinating. Here's an excerpt (I apologize for the long cite) from Part I:

"Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, the founder of the Western science of anthropology, thought that there was no objective ranking to human races and that genes and environment both played a role. The 18th century naturalists do not believe that Africans represent a separate species from Europeans.
Things changed in the 19th century, mainly from the institutionalization of chattel slavery in the British empire and in the Americas. We see a new view arising amongst naturalists. For example, Charles White looked at skulls and sex organs and said that the differences were genetic, not environmental, and that blacks, or Negroes represent a separate species. Georges Cuvier, considered the Aristotle of his age, also said that the Negro is the most degraded of human races."



Alumbrado -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 10:12:58 PM)

What does that have to do with my questions? 

Race exists as a real artifact in human experience. So does racism. Valid scientific research has been done on both, and in the course of such research, older hypotheses were supplanted by new ones, ala Kuhn.

Referencing outdated research, or finding special cases that do not use those labels neither negates nor excuses the reality.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Racist (3/13/2008 10:36:27 PM)

"Is social science from whence the construct of race came, not science?"

As I said, I have no idea. I've already given you a link to a lecture (he has also written at least one book: http://www.amazon.com/Race-Myth-Joseph-Graves/dp/0525948252 )

Here is a very cool pic: http://bizzbangbuzz.blogspot.com/2007/04/power-of-myth-of-race.html

Here's a link to a PBS "article": http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

Do you believe that modern biology/genetics shows that there are races in the Homo Sapiens sapiens genome?  Screw what the Social "Sciences" say.



kittinSol -> RE: Racist (3/14/2008 5:18:54 AM)

Scott - as you know, we had a twenty odd pages debate over whether "race" is a valid notion in science last summer. I argued throughout that it isn't a biological reality; Alumbrado argued (rightly, in my opinion) that in social sciences, "race" was used as a cultural construct. My arguments about the fallacy behind the biological notion of race fell on deaf ears, however.

When social scientists examine the human experience of ethnicity and difference they categorise it as "race"; it is biologically indefensible, but as it's so ingrained, there is no other word to investigate these issues. In effect, however, social science has been juggling with a double-edged sword. Maybe the paradoxe isn't fully appreciated.

The two notions aren't mutually exclusive  except for one thing: the word is so contentious; that "race" has been proven to be a false notion in biology doesn't invalidate that "race" exists in the human experience because of evident differences (such as skin colour, which, as well all know, does not make a race; indeed, what "race" would Obama be, with his dual heritage?).



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Racist (3/14/2008 5:59:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
what "race" would Obama be, with his dual heritage?).


Obamian.[8|]



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02