Am I racist in your opinion? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Am I racist?

Yes
14
56%
No
11
44%
#15126171
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think listening to black people

But you refuse to tell us who these Black people are. You seem to use the term to refer people of West African racial origin or at least in part West African racial origin. Does it include what the South Africans called Kleurlinge? Does it include Pigmies? Does it include people of East African racial origin, who again have a clearly different racial morphology to West Africans. Does it include South Asians? What about the Tibetans do they count as Black and do the Chinese Imperialist racist aggressor occupiers of Tibet count as White people?
#15126176
We're all innately racist, it is in our genetics and it cannot be conditioned out of us. Even babies start to exhibit in-group preferential behavior for example. There is a very valid biological basis behind it.

That's like pretending sexual conversion therapy works, it doesn't. Our innate biological inclinations can only be suppressed to an extent with fantastical ideology that's always on the cusp of breaking down.

This is why fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Racism. It need to exist, it serves a beneficial purpose for most groups. Those that abandon it tend to lose out to those groups which keep it. I don't want the entire planet to resemble sub-saharan Africa, southern India or South America. Ironically, such a planet would be MORE racist, MORE intolerant.
#15126178
Igor Antunov wrote:We're all innately racist, it is in our genetics and it cannot be conditioned out of us.
That's a rubbish argument. Racism is a learned behavior. You are trying to use science to dismiss racism. Unconscionable and dishonest.


Note: 2012...
New Evidence That Racism Isn't 'Natural'
There's never been good reason to believe that human beings are naturally racist. After all, in the environment of human evolution--which didn't feature, for example, jet travel to other continents--there would have been virtually no encounters between groups that had different skin colors or other conspicuous physical differences. So it's not as if the human lineage could have plausibly developed, by evolutionary adaptation, an instinctive reaction to members of different races.

But when it comes to defining this enemy--defining the "out group"--people are very flexible. The out group can be defined by its language, its religion, its skin color, its jersey color. (And jersey color can trump skin color--just watch a brawl between one racially integrated sports team and another.) It all depends on which group we consider (rightly or wrongly) in some sense threatening to our interests.

It's in this sense that race is a "social construct." It's not a category that's inherently correlated with our patterns of fear or mistrust or hatred, though, obviously, it can become one. So it's within our power to construct a society in which race isn't a meaningful construct.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... al/263785/


The Ideology of Racism: Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination

In the early twentieth century, shortly after the scientific community's discovery of Gregor Mendel's work led to a new, exciting branch of biology, geneticists warned that the intermarriage of "far apart" races could produce what they called genetic "disharmonies". Charles Benedict Davenport, a world renowned researcher at the time, observed, for example, that if a member of a tall race, such as the Scots, should mate with a member of a small race, such as the Southern Italians, their offspring could inherit the genes for large internal organs from one parent and for small stature from the other, resulting in viscera that would be too large for the frame. Naturally these claims were not tenable for long, but they were soon replaced by assertions less easily disprovable, as some social scientists insisted that the children of mixed race parentage were morally and intellectually inferior to either of the parents.

Although belief in such genetic mismatches was once fairly widespread within the scientific community and cited specifically to rationalize various racially oppressive policies, this notion now enjoys far less credibility. However, while there has been absolutely no evidence that racial interbreeding can produce a disharmony of any kind, warnings of some kind of genetic discord are still far from entirely extinct. Only a few years ago, Glayde Whitney, a prominent geneticist and former President of the Behavior Genetics Association, claimed that the intermarriage of "distant races" could produce a harmful genetic mixture in offspring, citing the wide range of health problems afflicting African Americans and their high infant death rate as examples of the effects of "hybrid incompatibilities" caused by white genes that were undetected due to the "one drop" convention defining all "hybrids" as blacks. Unsurprisingly, he was also a regular speaker before neo-Nazi groups and, in an address to a convention of holocaust deniers, blamed Jews for a conspiracy to weaken whites by persuading them to extend political equality to blacks.Another trend in the scientific justification of racial discrimination has been the claim that prejudice is a natural and indeed an essential phenomenon necessary for the evolutionary process to be effective by ensuring the integrity of gene pools. In this view, evolution exerts its selective effect not on individuals but on groups, which makes it necessary for races to be kept separate from each other and relatively homogeneous if there is to be evolutionary progress. One anthropologist who adheres to this belief refers to the tendency to "distrust and repel" members of other races as a natural part of the human personality and one of the basic pillars of civilization.

Finally, the most common way in which science has been used to support racial discrimination is through pronouncements that some groups are systematically less well endowed than others in important cognitive or behavioural traits. This is not to say that there may be no group differences in these traits, but rather that at this point there are no clear conclusions, which in any event would be irrelevant to issues of social and political equality. Nevertheless, there is again a long history of the use of such claims for oppressive purposes. For the first quarter of the twentieth century, there was particular concern over the results of early intelligence tests, which supposedly demonstrated that Southern and Eastern Europeans were not only intellectually inferior to their Northern counterparts, but were also unfit for self-rule. Some of the most important scientists of the time explained that Nordics, characterized as they were by greater self-assertiveness and determination, as well as intelligence, were destined by their genetic nature to rule over other races. In the last half century, the controversy over intellectual and moral traits has focused primarily on the differences between blacks and other races, which were often cited by those seeking to preserve white minority rule in South Africa and legal segregation in the United States.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article ... rimination
#15126182
Godstud wrote:That's a rubbish argument. Racism is a learned behavior. You are trying to use science to dismiss racism. Unconscionable and dishonest.


We do not have innate racism. However, we evolved in tribes and are prone to tribalism. The tribes put more emphasis on culture than on skin color. For example in England classism due to socioeconomic status was as bad as racism. In Western nations there is a lot of tribalism. In America the relationship between the left and the right is tribal. Muslims of difference sects hate each other and it is all about the religion and not the skin color.

The isms are learned behaviors, but it is facilitated by our innate tendency for tribalism.
#15126184
Everybody is a little bit tribalist. It's also very easy for that tendency to be hijacked into racism.

I would not consider it racist per say to just believe/acknowledge that European colonialism, as bad as it was/is didn't have benefits to even people that historically bared the brunt of colonialism.

It's like having an uncle that molests you, but pays for your University tuition. Him paying for your schooling is a good thing, but it certainly doesn't excuse the fact he molested you though. Just acknowledging that doesn't mean you are condoning it.
#15126191
Rancid wrote:Everybody is a little bit tribalist. It's also very easy for that tendency to be hijacked into racism.

I would not consider it racist per say to just believe/acknowledge that European colonialism, as bad as it was/is didn't have benefits to even people that historically bared the brunt of colonialism.

It's like having an uncle that molests you, but pays for your University tuition. Him paying for your schooling is a good thing, but it certainly doesn't excuse the fact he molested you though. Just acknowledging that doesn't mean you are condoning it.


You have a knack for stating the obvious.
As a Latin American I have discussed the issue of colonialism with Spaniards. This is how they see it. They cannot understand why a Latin American that has a huge content of Spaniard DNA has the need to complain about colonization. They say you guys are complaining about your own ancestry and culture.
#15126194
Julian658 wrote:You have a knack for stating the obvious.

Is this a back handed insult to my intellegence? :eh:

Julian658 wrote:As a Latin American I have discussed the issue of colonialism with Spaniards. This is how they see it. They cannot understand why a Latin American that has a huge content of Spaniard DNA has the need to complain about colonization. They say you guys are complaining about your own ancestry and culture.


Short response:
I think it hinges on the identity people in Latin America choose to take on.


Long response:
Yea, it's interesting. It's a kind of propaganda war basically. It's about identity, and however gets to decide what the identity of a nation is, basically determines if you hate Spain or not. I'd imagine if you see yourself as indigenous, you will hate the Spanish. If you see yourself as the descendants of Spanish people, you won't hate them. Genetic legacy doesn't matter here. Perception is what wins out. Perception is king, I'm over 50% European and have significant Native DNA (I took a genetic test), but people (in the US) still consider me to be just black. Dominicans have a resistance to just being labeled as only black (because we're not only black), a lot of outsiders see this resistance as some sort of self-hating denial of blackness. Which is an over simplified, lazy, and ignorant way to view this in my opinion (in short it basically denies everything about the unique mixed cultural heritage and history of the people to just bucket them as the same as any one else with dark skin. Funny enough, it's leftist that do this more than anyone...). This is a totally wrong way to view it, but that's what outsiders (especially whites) see it as. It annoys me they are totally missing so much stuff by viewing this stuff from their American centric "one drop rule" point of view. These people completely ignore the complex history of the island. Anyway, that's for another thread.

Dominicans are typically raised/taught to hate Spain. I think that's changing a little (see note below), but that's where it is. The reason they're taught to hate Spain is that Spain abandoned the colony. "They left us to die." The reality is, this is the best way to gain independence. No fucking revolution to fight! It was also the best result for slaves, because after the abandonment, they were free! This is precisely the reason why Dominicans, unlike Cubans or Puerto Ricans are very mixed. Since there was little to no slavery due to the disbandment. There was no strong central government to enforce slavery and a caste system, thus, whites and black mixed way more than in other countries. Over 80% are at least bi-racial (African-Spanish), and some many tri-racial like me (Africa-Spanish-Native).

Note:
Funny enough, Spain is the DRs #1 trading partner, and much of the economic boom (fastest growing economy in Latin America over the last few decades) that has happened there over the last 20-30 years has come from Spanish investment (just as an example, many of those Punta Cana beach resorts were built by Spanish investment firms). The general attitude towards Spain is becoming more positive now.
#15126204
Rancid wrote:Is this a back handed insult to my intellegence? :eh:



Short response:
I think it hinges on the identity people in Latin America choose to take on.


Long response:
Yea, it's interesting. It's a kind of propaganda war basically. It's about identity, and however gets to decide what the identity of a nation is, basically determines if you hate Spain or not. I'd imagine if you see yourself as indigenous, you will hate the Spanish. If you see yourself as the descendants of Spanish people, you won't hate them. Genetic legacy doesn't matter here. Perception is what wins out. Perception is king, I'm over 50% European and have significant Native DNA (I took a genetic test), but people (in the US) still consider me to be just black. Dominicans have a resistance to just being labeled as only black (because we're not only black), a lot of outsiders see this resistance as some sort of self-hating denial of blackness. Which is an over simplified, lazy, and ignorant way to view this in my opinion (in short it basically denies everything about the unique mixed cultural heritage and history of the people to just bucket them as the same as any one else with dark skin. Funny enough, it's leftist that do this more than anyone...). This is a totally wrong way to view it, but that's what outsiders (especially whites) see it as. It annoys me they are totally missing so much stuff by viewing this stuff from their American centric "one drop rule" point of view. These people completely ignore the complex history of the island. Anyway, that's for another thread.

Dominicans are typically raised/taught to hate Spain. I think that's changing a little (see note below), but that's where it is. The reason they're taught to hate Spain is that Spain abandoned the colony. "They left us to die." The reality is, this is the best way to gain independence. No fucking revolution to fight! It was also the best result for slaves, because after the abandonment, they were free! This is precisely the reason why Dominicans, unlike Cubans or Puerto Ricans are very mixed. Since there was little to no slavery due to the disbandment. There was no strong central government to enforce slavery and a caste system, thus, whites and black mixed way more than in other countries. Over 80% are at least bi-racial (African-Spanish), and some many tri-racial like me (Africa-Spanish-Native).

Note:
Funny enough, Spain is the DRs #1 trading partner, and much of the economic boom (fastest growing economy in Latin America over the last few decades) that has happened there over the last 20-30 years has come from Spanish investment (just as an example, many of those Punta Cana beach resorts were built by Spanish investment firms). The general attitude towards Spain is becoming more positive now.

I am one of those Latin people that looks quite European so I get to enjoy the so-called privilege :lol: :lol: :lol: . I actually have 7% indigenous and 3% Northern African, the rest is mostly Spanish, French, and Portuguese (Iberian) and 20% UK. I never thought about race until I moved to the USA. It would be hard for me to be afrocentric or indigenous :knife: :knife: . I admire black and indigenous culture, but I feel more at home with Western values.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Oh, so now you don't believe Amit Soussana, @Pant[…]

Oh please post those too :lol: Very obvious p[…]

No, it does not. It is governed by the rather vagu[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]