RE: Race and skin color. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:38:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks

quote:

I'm a citizen of the country due to the necessary paperwork but my geneology only goes back so far here. Unless you're indigenous to this land going back prior to colonization, you're an immigrant with citizenship.
Immigrants are welcome, that's why we prefer to use the word "invaders".

Immigrants are not always welcome, and you can hardly know how the immigrants of 7.000 years ago were received. Sorry.



SternSkipper -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:38:09 AM)

quote:

I just want to be the first to wave "bye bye" before this gets tossed.


Yeah.... Jesus ... "Hey kids wanna take yourself out of the ballgame? Just strap yourself to this thread"... thought the mods seem to be missing a lot lately



EmilyRocks -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:39:28 AM)

quote:

But if you're born in the USA, you're American.
I prefer the term Yankistani (or Canuckistani if you are from further North), that way you don't fall into the trap of accidentally legitimizing the occupation.



tweakabelle -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:40:17 AM)

quote:

If in this case I am using only one standard, then no, I am never racist according to your definition.

Now please answer my question, and fill the line of...

"In the Dominican Republic, _____ are usually discriminated and have a hard time getting a job."

Thank you very much.


I'm delighted to hear that SMM. (though I should point out it's a rule of thumb, not a definition).

In response to your question:
"In the Dominican Republic, _____ are usually discriminated [against] and have a hard time getting a job."
Any one of disadvantaged people/people of X descent or heritage/members of minority (ethnic) groups/marginalised people seem to fit nicely in your sentence. It's possible that "people with darker skins" might be appropriate, if that's the reason why people discriminate against them.

I'm sure there are heaps more suitable ways of filling the gap and I'm certainly not claiming my suggestions are perfect. Being unaware of all the relevant circumstances means I'm guessing to an extent.


ETA: (though I should point out it's a rule of thumb, not a definition).



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:43:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Any one of disadvantaged people/people of X descent or heritage/members of minority (ethnic) groups/marginalised people seem to fit nicely in your sentence. It's possible that "people with darker skins" might be appropriate, if that's the reason why people discriminate against them.

I'm sure there are heaps more suitable ways of filling the gap and I'm certainly not claiming my suggestions are perfect. Being unaware of all the relevant circumstances means I'm guessing to an extent.

That was good... really good. Using the exact description which matches with the exact context. Really good.

Now please, tell me what you think about the "Ethnicity" combo box in our profiles. There, the context does not seem so clear. Would you delete it? Fill it otherwise? Write a free text field?



EmilyRocks -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:46:05 AM)

quote:

Immigrants are not always welcome, and you can hardly know how the immigrants of 7.000 years ago were received.
Well I'm not talking about 7000 years ago, I'm talking about the last 500 years or so. You know, all the unwanted whites and blacks who invaded us and carried out the largest genocide in history (your particular gang was, and still is, the worst).
They were unwelcome and unwanted, and they still are. They aren't immigrants.



SternSkipper -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:48:26 AM)

quote:

Immigrants are not always welcome, and you can hardly know how the immigrants of 7.000 years ago were received. Sorry.


Actually, you're mistaken. Can we know what was 'said' to them? Course not... can we surmise from the slightly different genetic signature that they one skeleton or other remains found can be from a far away region? BIG YES!!! C
Can we then determine from the spearhead found inside the ribcage or combative bone injuries that he was not well received? Alsi BIG YES!!! And in some cases are there repeated findings that closely match the same pattern? BIG YES! We call that form of "immigration" ... "INVASION" (very popular in it's day)/
   WTF - Don't the germans have PBS? Get a dish if not, you're missing some great shows.





tweakabelle -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:49:04 AM)

quote:

Now please, tell me what you think about the "Ethnicity" combo box in our profiles. There, the context does not seem so clear. Would you delete it? Fill it otherwise? Write a free text field?


If it was up to me I'd delete the entire field.




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:50:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks

quote:

Immigrants are not always welcome, and you can hardly know how the immigrants of 7.000 years ago were received.
Well I'm not talking about 7000 years ago, I'm talking about the last 500 years or so (...)

I understand. Sorry. I though you were referring to the "clearer" people in North Africa. I was wrong.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 6:57:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

Now please, tell me what you think about the "Ethnicity" combo box in our profiles. There, the context does not seem so clear. Would you delete it? Fill it otherwise? Write a free text field?

If it was up to me I'd delete the entire field.

A sensible approach. It restricts the search for people who prefer to meet people from certain ethnical groups, but... you can still use the country, and anyway, if you like girls / men with/out glasses or long hair, you will not see a combo for it either... you cannot cover just anything.
And, thinking about it, that Ethnicity combo box, in certain perspective, gives IT-support to racial prejudices of the users. In certain perspective.
Ok. Let's burn it! [sm=blasted.gif]



Anaxagoras -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 7:16:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Curly-hairs? Wide-noses? Don't laugh, we do not have to concentrate necessarily on the skin color, and *everything* will always be an approximation.

Hair is supposed to be a good indicator of race, and arguably better than skin colour as an indicator of race. Those racally asian tend to have very straight hair, white (caucasian) people tend to have curly hair, and black people possess what is sometimes described as a more "wooly" type (aka Afro hair). By comparison skin tone crosses all racial divides, e.g. many caucasians have a very dark skin tone and not just from the tanning booth, asians can be whiter than "whites", and even the common terminology used can be vague, e.g. it seems many also use the term black for asians too (e.g. Indians).

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Well, the definition of the MW is online available and quoted here...

Good to see you are now backing up your use of words...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
In my attempt of being complete, I may have been insensible. Point given.

QFT [:D]



tweakabelle -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 7:22:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

Now please, tell me what you think about the "Ethnicity" combo box in our profiles. There, the context does not seem so clear. Would you delete it? Fill it otherwise? Write a free text field?

If it was up to me I'd delete the entire field.

A sensible approach. It restricts the search for people who prefer to meet people from certain ethnical groups, but... you can still use the country, and anyway, if you like girls / men with/out glasses or long hair, you will not see a combo for it either... you cannot cover just anything.
And, thinking about it, that Ethnicity combo box, in certain perspective, gives IT-support to racial prejudices of the users. In certain perspective.
Ok. Let's burn it! [sm=blasted.gif]


I'll go along with that. [:D]




Edwynn -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 7:36:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks

quote:

Immigrants are not always welcome, and you can hardly know how the immigrants of 7.000 years ago were received.
Well I'm not talking about 7000 years ago, I'm talking about the last 500 years or so. You know, all the unwanted whites and blacks who invaded us and carried out the largest genocide in history (your particular gang was, and still is, the worst).
They were unwelcome and unwanted, and they still are. They aren't immigrants.




Yeah well, hey, good thing none of the people on this continent ever invaded each other prior to the European invasion, huh? Spanish were the worst, then? How many hundreds of years did they carry somebody up to the alter and ritually rip their live beating heart out, then hold it up (still pumping its last) to a cheering audience? Wars were intentionally waged for that purpose alone, no territory or other survival considerations at all. Actually, I think it wasn't the Spanish, or any other Europeans that did that. But I'm sure that all those huge monuments built by dragging 30 ton stones from far away were all done by an egalitarian society, obviously.







Iamsemisweet -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 8:24:26 AM)

Surely you aren't trying to justify the genocide of the American Indian with that argument, are you Edwynn? Because some of the tribes invaded each other, it was OK for Europeans to massacre women and children, steal their land, give them small pox infected blankets, and on and on? Obviously none of that can be undone, but to not acknowledge how brutal the European invasion was is kind of blind. Equating it to immigration is just bizarre.



crazyml -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 8:31:57 AM)

<tips hat to SpanishMatMaster>




Edwynn -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 8:36:50 AM)



To any thinking person, it wasn't a justification at all.

The post mine was addressed to said that the Europeans were not immigrants. I pointed out that any invaders are never considered immigrants, and that such situation of "the unwelcomed" existed on this continent (as on pretty much every other continent) long before Europeans came into it.

Considering all the unintentioned and unacknowledged blatant "white world" racism in 90% of the posts here, it comes as no surprise that you find rendition of history to be "troublesome," yet having no issue at all with this little 'bon mot';

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
(your particular gang was, and still is, the worst).




Call yourself busted, sweetheart.












Iamsemisweet -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 8:46:44 AM)

Edwynn, I can see you are one of those people who can't discuss ideas without resorting to personal insults. How sad for you. How does that work for you in real life?
However, there is simply no way that your reference to "tearing the beating heart out of" and waging wars can be interpreted any other way than as a justification. Reread it yourself, and I am sure you will agree. It had nothing to do with how the native populations viewed Europeans.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 8:54:39 AM)

FR:

Ok, I must need therapy.  Or re-education.

I find that I'm agreeing more with Edwynn than not.  [8|]

Firm



Edwynn -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 9:01:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet


However, there is simply no way that your reference to "tearing the beating heart out of" and waging wars can be interpreted any other way than as a justification. Reread it yourself, and I am sure you will agree. It had nothing to do with how the native populations viewed Europeans.


So then, the rendering of what had transpired for for hundreds of years, by these people's own account, is taken by you as "justification" by anybody, for the Euro invasion? Are you trying to tell us that they were seeking "justification" of (yet another) invasion by relating their history?

What are you saying here?




Kirata -> RE: Race and skin color. (10/4/2011 9:11:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Surely you aren't trying to justify the genocide of the American Indian with that argument, are you Edwynn? Because some of the tribes invaded each other, it was OK for Europeans to massacre women and children, steal their land, give them small pox infected blankets, and on and on? Obviously none of that can be undone, but to not acknowledge how brutal the European invasion was is kind of blind. Equating it to immigration is just bizarre.

Any group of people moving into territory occupied by another group will invariably provoke conflict, and it's rarely pretty. The American Indians weren't the first peoples to come here. And if any of the peoples who came before them were still alive, we'd be hearing the same story. But I guess you could say that the fact that they aren't speaks for them, eh?

While we're on the evils that peoples have inflicted on each other, wanna talk about slavery? Did you know that during the Arab slave trade, which lasted for more than a millenium, the most prized of slaves were white women? Central and Eastern Europe were continually raped, figuratively and literally, for new slaves.

It's estimated that more than a million white slaves were taken in just the few hundred years before the founding of the United States. You may recall seeing Orientalist art depicting the slave markets. You don't hear much about it, hell you don't hear anything about it, because nobody is wasting their time bitching. Shit happens. You move on.

I am sick of hearing people with nothing better to do than nurse grievances and consume themselves with hatred ranting about shit that never happened to them and that wasn't the fault of anybody alive now. If we can't put the past behind us, we have no future.

K.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125