[SpecialOlympian]

I agree. It's not OK to be white. This is a moot point though, I don't think anyone posting on PoFo qualifies as white. I'm not even sure if there's a white person in the OP, since I do not consider the filthy, backward mud people of Italy, Ireland, or England to be white.

[Victoribus Spolia]

backward mud people

[Pants-of-dog]

The US is weird in that they consider Hispanic to be a race.

There are black Hispanics, white Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, and Hispanics with indigenous ancestry.

Also, Pelosi never said it was not OK to be white.

[danholo]

It would indeed be a ridiculous stance if Pelosi indeed was arguing as the OP claims but I feel this entire thread is presenting a straw man argument.

As I see it, Pelosi said nothing of the sort. The only thing I could see as positive from this type of viewpoint is that the younger generation does not see skin color as a defining factor in any way - and how it is superficially can be construed as positive. Previous generations might not have said something similar.

[danholo]

I agree. It's not OK to be white. This is a moot point though, I don't think anyone posting on PoFo qualifies as white. I'm not even sure if there's a white person in the OP, since I do not consider the filthy, backward mud people of Italy, Ireland, or England to be white.

My skin color is white but I'm Jewish so I guess I'm an impostor? Faux White.

[SpecialOlympian]

Correct. Jewish people are not white. Neither are the Irish, Italian, or English.

[colliric]

Correct. Jewish people are not white. Neither are the Irish, Italian, or English.

Technically everyone who's "White" is in fact a shade of Pink(including all those ethnicities)... But who gives a shit?

Oh that's right, you do.

[Ter]

The picture/poster shows five men representing five different cultural spheres: an American Indian, an Australian Aborigine, an African, an Asian and an European. The European, standing in the center, dominates the scene and thus shows the Eurocentric world view of the time (early 20th century). This poster was printed as an illustration on a Dresden-based German magazine.

This should make it easier to see who is what.

[Deutschmania]

This topic reminds me of a Psychological test that was first carried out in the 40's

, and has been repeated with some variation since

. All that I have to say in reply is that while I feel that it is fine to have appreciation for other people and cultures , one should also have appreciative esteem for one's own ethnic heritage . After all , would we as a society really want to hold up as a positive role model the likes of Rachael Dolezal ?

[Tainari88]

The US is weird in that they consider Hispanic to be a race.

There are black Hispanics, white Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, and Hispanics with indigenous ancestry.

Also, Pelosi never said it was not OK to be white.

Race is socially constructed and doesn't have a true biologically pure definition. But people who are 'racists' believe in simplistic shit with no science anyway so why argue?

For science? A species is all the same species if members of any ethnic group can mate and produce fertile offspring. Period. Nothing else is of a more complex nature than the reality that a Swedish super light skinned woman and a Congolese or very dark skinned African man can produce a child that is fertile and is able to grow to adulthood and pass on its genes. That means the Swede and the African are of the same biological species and are equals in terms of successful 'races'. It is all arguments about who is superior or inferior socially or economically. Once that happens all the subjective shit comes into play. Education, environment, innate talents, latent abilities, social milieux, cultural capital, etc. Not anything about oh, these are different races that biologically are incompatible.

A black man can be raised in a completely 'white' culture and household and have just his 'look' as African. But nothing at all about African ethos there. But to talk about that shit with people who are stubborn and extreme in that sense is a waste of time Pants.

[Hindsite]

Commenting on someone's skin colour is rather strange, and really quite rude.

Maybe it is best to keep such comments to oneself.

I agree. The writers in the Holy Bible never commented on a persons skin color that I can recall. Some just assume they had a certain skin color based on the location they came from. I believe Pelosi is trying to use the race card to appeal to many of her left-wing base that have brownish skin. She is just a damn rich hypocrite.

[Conscript]

Race is socially constructed and doesn't have a true biologically pure definition. But people who are 'racists' believe in simplistic shit with no science anyway so why argue?

For science? A species is all the same species if members of any ethnic group can mate and produce fertile offspring. Period. Nothing else is of a more complex nature than the reality that a Swedish super light skinned woman and a Congolese or very dark skinned African man can produce a child that is fertile and is able to grow to adulthood and pass on its genes. That means the Swede and the African are of the same biological species and are equals in terms of successful 'races'. It is all arguments about who is superior or inferior socially or economically. Once that happens all the subjective shit comes into play. Education, environment, innate talents, latent abilities, social milieux, cultural capital, etc. Not anything about oh, these are different races that biologically are incompatible.

A black man can be raised in a completely 'white' culture and household and have just his 'look' as African. But nothing at all about African ethos there. But to talk about that shit with people who are stubborn and extreme in that sense is a waste of time Pants.

None of this is true Tainari. Race is subspecies, and our genetic distance to each other is comparable to species with one or more subspecies. Mixed race children also have intermediate IQs, also twin studies and transracial adoption studies show that black children still have a gap in IQ compared to whites that is either not closing or is so at a snail's pace. There's a similar gap in math and reading scores. Personality traits and political values also are heritable to an extent. There is no reason to be a cultural relativist and assume culture is not tied to genetics, because in the end both culture and gene expression is tied to environment. A Swedish community ceases to be Swedish insofar as it does not have Swedes.

There is nothing about nature that supports the egalitarianism and blank slates you believe in. Some peoples are more compatible with modern liberal-democracy than others.

[Suntzu]

The US is weird in that they consider Hispanic to be a race.

There are black Hispanics, white Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, and Hispanics with indigenous ancestry.

Also, Pelosi never said it was not OK to be white.

Hispanics consider Hispanics to be a race. Never heard of La Raza Unida? Do I need to translate?

[Zagadka]

Hispanics consider Hispanics to be a race.

Um, no.

I've venture to say that most Hispanics (and anyone else) is less obsessed with race than you lot.

Never heard of La Raza Unida? Do I need to translate? :lol:

Which is like saying the KKK is representative of whites.

[Pants-of-dog]

None of this is true Tainari. Race is subspecies, and our genetic distance to each other is comparable to species with one or more subspecies.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Mixed race children also have intermediate IQs, also twin studies and transracial adoption studies show that black children still have a gap in IQ compared to whites that is either not closing or is so at a snail's pace. There's a similar gap in math and reading scores.

Please provide evidence that the genetic componenets of intelligence is presemt im the genetic differences between races. Thank you.

Personality traits and political values also are heritable to an extent. There is no reason to be a cultural relativist and assume culture is not tied to genetics, because in the end both culture and gene expression is tied to environment. A Swedish community ceases to be Swedish insofar as it does not have Swedes.

This may be true but it is a moot point since ethnic diversity will continue to increase in the developed world for the foreseeable future.

There is nothing about nature that supports the egalitarianism and blank slates you believe in. Some peoples are more compatible with modern liberal-democracy than others.

Perhaps, but I think that with patience and understanding, white people will eventually get it.

[Conscript]

Please provide evidence for this claim.



Please provide evidence that the genetic componenets of intelligence is presemt im the genetic differences between races. Thank you.



This may be true but it is a moot point since ethnic diversity will continue to increase in the developed world for the foreseeable future.



Perhaps, but I think that with patience and understanding, white people will eventually get it.

You can pick up where I left off with this communist:

viewtopic.php?p=14883358#p14883358

Also whites are the only demographic in the US that is significantly divided while also the place where most people who want smaller government reside. Other races vote in tribalistic fashion as a group and for larger government, leveraging Western liberal values and its social liberal outgrowth in a form of rent seeking behavior.

If you were to somehow conduct such an experiment in a clinical setting, a libertarian society is going to often be a white one.

Your joke about whites needing into integrate into today's western societies is cute considering the people who propose this are bourgeois liberals who live in lily white, affluent parts of the country.

Indeed, you live in a country that is whiter than the US and your immigrants are largely higher IQ Asians. While you are a postcolonial country, you are without the same kind of history of race we have.

Also, there is no guarantee it will increase in the foreseeable future. Diversity has shown to be detrimental to the social fabric and cohesion, and further the push for it is coming from the heights of society. That's why people like you are panicking about the rise of populism and reciprocal tribalism. Indeed, Trump's approval rating is increasing and the Democrats are losing their margin for the midterms, and it's made worse by the fact you will have to accept less legal immigration in a DACA deal while at the same time white births are now majority. The AfD also just hit a new height. Further, South Africa is about to have a water crisis in a major city and mulling expropriation of white property owners. This is fitting because nowhere in history has there been a successful multicultural democracy, and no amount of browbeating native demographic majorities for believing in themselves is going to change that.

Quite simply, if we put an end to mass immigration and your tactic of importing a left wing voting bloc to get around white liberal values, in group preference, and cultural conservatism, you lose in the long term. You depend on it to make gains further left than the 60s because whites by and large don't want it.

[Pants-of-dog]

You can pick up where I left off with this communist:

viewtopic.php?p=14883358#p14883358

If the links are already there, then it should be no problem for you to copy them here, and quote the appropriate text.

Also whites are the only demographic in the US that is significantly divided while also the place where most people who want smaller government reside. Other races vote in tribalistic fashion as a group and for larger government, leveraging Western liberal values and its social liberal outgrowth in a form of rent seeking behavior.

If you were to somehow conduct such an experiment in a clinical setting, a libertarian society is going to often be a white one.

Your joke about whites needing into integrate into today's western societies is cute considering the people who propose this are bourgeois liberals who live in lily white, affluent parts of the country.

Indeed, you live in a country that is whiter than the US and your immigrants are largely higher IQ Asians. While you are a postcolonial country, you are without the same kind of history of race we have.

Also, there is no guarantee it will increase in the foreseeable future. Diversity has shown to be detrimental to the social fabric and cohesion, and further the push for it is coming from the heights of society. That's why people like you are panicking about the rise of populism and reciprocal tribalism. Indeed, Trump's approval rating is increasing and the Democrats are losing their margin for the midterms, and it's made worse by the fact you will have to accept less legal immigration in a DACA deal while at the same time white births are now majority. The AfD also just hit a new height. Further, South Africa is about to have a water crisis in a major city and mulling expropriation of white property owners. This is fitting because nowhere in history has there been a successful multicultural democracy, and no amount of browbeating native demographic majorities for believing in themselves is going to change that.

Quite simply, if we put an end to mass immigration and your tactic of importing a left wing voting bloc to get around white liberal values, in group preference, and cultural conservatism, you lose in the long term. You depend on it to make gains further left than the 60s because whites by and large don't want it.

I doubt it. After you have provided evidence for the previous claims, we can look at this.

[Tainari88]

None of this is true Tainari. Race is subspecies, and our genetic distance to each other is comparable to species with one or more subspecies. Mixed race children also have intermediate IQs, also twin studies and transracial adoption studies show that black children still have a gap in IQ compared to whites that is either not closing or is so at a snail's pace. There's a similar gap in math and reading scores. Personality traits and political values also are heritable to an extent. There is no reason to be a cultural relativist and assume culture is not tied to genetics, because in the end both culture and gene expression is tied to environment. A Swedish community ceases to be Swedish insofar as it does not have Swedes.

There is nothing about nature that supports the egalitarianism and blank slates you believe in. Some peoples are more compatible with modern liberal-democracy than others.

You are not valid. Blacks are not naturally inferior. You have a continent with millions upon millions of people in it with extreme diversity within any given ethnic group. So much so that it is meaningless to think that that huge pool of people are 'generally inferior'. That is BULLSHIT and unscientific. Genes vary and are mutable. Mutable realities within groups is something that exists across the board.

The lies continue with the natural inferior and superior crap that doesn't deal with huge swathes of individuals with variations that are so difficult to measure and predict that it is impossible. You got very intelligent people in all ethnic groups. To think that blacks dilute the intelligence is falling into some false science.

I don't care about IQ tests. Any standardized tests are going to have flaws. ALL OF THEM.

I can come up with a test for you in a foreign language you don't understand and in an environment totally alien to your experience and then label you a failure. It doesn't mean you are a failure, at any particular thing you are tested for, it means you have limited mastery of that particular set of skills they are looking for. It doesn't deal with many factors. Neuroscience of the brain is fascinating. It basically says our brains have plasticity and are malleable. As such it is an organ that is in constant states of change and adaptability. At all times in our life. Can't measure it accurately in general. You should read "Ghost in the Brain" and "Proust and the Squid" both deal with how the human brain deals with reading, information, and memory. Why all these boxing of the brain tests are not valid. So are race theories of subspecies of shit. Humans adapt. That is what we do. If we adapt? Where does evolution of our species take place? In groups. Individuals don't evolve. But groups do. So far? Have the Africans evolved successfully into this world and into their own environments? Yes. So all these value judgments are placed there by people full of shit theories. Your theories are not valid.

You are invalid. Go back to some racist reality. I won't qualify you with a damn thing.

Read this book and then come back here and tell me your subspecies beliefs are still valid. Basically how it works is this. You throw 10,000 Swedes into an African desert or hot place. The survivors over 100,000 years will be dark skinned. End of controversy. They were once Swedes. You change their environment and the ones who survived the initial shocks of adaptation survive. The ones who don't. Don't.

So all 'human beings', got to cope. In that sense it is truth.

Read this book. Then if you still think Conscript in some pyramid of any single characteristics as universal? You got issues. Also Darwin finally scrapped it as even doable after a while. Even being a 19th century man with 19th century science. He realized it was limiting to be that narrow. It is reality.

https://www.livinganthropologically.com ... unks-race/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/

Race and genomics, and all this effort in trying to scientifically say that en entire somatic or ethnic group fall neatly into the 'smart ones' and the 'dumb ones' and the best ones, and the bad ones, is the stuff of lying people with no science of any true worth.

Variation is part of humanity. Racial mixing is not something new. It is in fact--normal and human. It keeps everyone with a good set of genes. Intermediate intelligence happens in all ethnicities. It is never relegated to some particular group. Adaptation. Study it. It says, is this land cold? Has little sunlight? What does a body need to adapt to that? Not over a single individual's lifetime. But over thousands upon thousands of years. Why does the species have to adapt to the land and develop variation to survive? That is what you should deal with Conscript and not some conservative racially charged simple theories of why some political and economic system uses to justify class categories.

I think where you go wrong is justifying a natural variation in nature and equating that with a justification for social and economic exploitation or predation of one socioeconomic group over another. You are essentially trying to say that an egalitarian society is not possible and an impossibility because there are people who are born and will be born naturally 'inferior'. Is that what you are saying? If you are? You have no idea what economics limits are in human society.

Two ideal set of parents may have a child that for some reason varies from a norm. You got variation. Why? How does variation help humans survive? If you can explain that to me? Do so. Otherwise if all your arguments are going to be about justifying not dealing with injustice and dealing with economic material conditions within capitalism? No, you won't have much support in research communities dedicated to trying to understand why humans are not the same in all ways. Why vary?

Another thing Conscript, don't assume you know what I believe in. Ask a question if you don't know. How the hell do you know if I believe in blank slate and egalitarianism in nature? Just you assuming that crap Conscript means you are presuming what I know and believe in. You don't. Use the Socratic method and ask a question instead of assuming! Nature is nature. It has nothing to do with politics. The ocean is not conservative or liberal or socialist or communist or fascist. It is the ocean. It follows a natural law and nature based scientifically tested patterns. Not a political thing. Not even human children have political thoughts that solidify until they study it and shape it.

I really really hate people that assume they know what I am about without asking a damn question first. Ask questions.

[Tainari88]

None of this is true Tainari. Race is subspecies, and our genetic distance to each other is comparable to species with one or more subspecies. Mixed race children also have intermediate IQs, also twin studies and transracial adoption studies show that black children still have a gap in IQ compared to whites that is either not closing or is so at a snail's pace. There's a similar gap in math and reading scores. Personality traits and political values also are heritable to an extent. There is no reason to be a cultural relativist and assume culture is not tied to genetics, because in the end both culture and gene expression is tied to environment. A Swedish community ceases to be Swedish insofar as it does not have Swedes.

There is nothing about nature that supports the egalitarianism and blank slates you believe in. Some peoples are more compatible with modern liberal-democracy than others.

Another thing Conscript. You are being very weak in argumentation in the sense that language is something both biological and socially learned but it is not about inherited culture. For example an African in Kenya is not the same culturally as an African American in Alabama. A Swedish extraction person raised completely all their lives speaking Arabic in the Middle East without any Swedish history, culture or input in that person's life is culturally not really a Swede. They are Jordanian or Iraqi with a Swedish look and the same allergies as their biological parents. They might like yogurt because their mother liked it. But that after a lifetime of speaking Farsi or Arabic and never hearing a word of Swedish and not knowing any of its traditions or history that somehow that person is going to pull out Swedish culture out of their ass because it is in their genes? Encoded in there by magic and not social surroundings? No.

Do you understand what I am saying. Politics are learned. So is language. Think of every little thing you speak....like English, like your nationality, like your education, regional environment, etc and how much of it is social learning and not endemic to your body and its genes? It is massive.

Most people in the past were illiterate and did not know how to read or write. How did that change? Someone manipulated their genes and gave them the natural ability? The brain in humans are open to language acquisition. But it has a window of time and then closes if they don't get the right environment for it. And they learn at paces that have to do with biology in the sense that a child will learn a foreign language like a native well but only up to a certain age. Then that 'battery' no longer is as flexible. Social learning is similar. Environmental influence in culture? Is massive and powerful. How much is biological? How people look superficially. It might not be good in other ways. If you are German but never dealt with speaking German your entire life? Some Chinese looking guy who did grow up in Germany in a German cultural environment is going to be a lot better at fluently speaking German than the supposed genetic German person will. Why? Figure it out.

[Tainari88]

I agree. The writers in the Holy Bible never commented on a persons skin color that I can recall. Some just assume they had a certain skin color based on the location they came from. I believe Pelosi is trying to use the race card to appeal to many of her left-wing base that have brownish skin. She is just a damn rich hypocrite.

Ah hell Hindsite! Finally you wrote something I agree with 100%. Really.


It took a while but you wrote something I think is absolutely true!