Racism - Page 12 - 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.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
3
8%
Both
11
28%
Neither
14
36%
Other
10
26%
User avatar
By Political Interest
#15008960
blackjack21 wrote:How do you figure? John Kerry may think "nuance" is a virtue. Nuance means making subtle distinctions. Distinctions are at the heart of racism. Pants-of-dog is making crude distinctions between black and white, but ignoring distinctions of people with a similar skin color, such as the Nilotese and the Pygmy.


My definition of racism is enmity, ill will or hatred to other ethnicities, including different ethnicities who happen to belong to one's same racial family, i.e. chauvinism and jingoism between European countries for example.

I don't deny that there are races and sub-races and a patchwork of ethnicities and cultures around the world. However these differences should not be a point of contention or a source of conflict but a reality that can affirm international friendship between peoples.

I do not advocate mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact I oppose both. However I don't do so on the basis that there is a problem with some 'other' but rather because mass immigration and multiculturalism lead to a disintegration of social cohesion and communal tension.

What I mean by racism is the type of racism that leads a person to conclude, "All X are an evil and nasty people and I don't like them," or, "All X are more likely to be criminals." This type of thinking eventually leads to a genocidal mentality. If you can ascribe negative characteristics to an entire ethnicity or religion the eventual product is dehumanisation.

By the way, a big part of the reason why I oppose mass immigration into Europe is because I think that if Europeans were to become a minority they could face racism and discrimination.

Basically a well balanced and good adult man should not be prejudiced or hateful. Every man regardless of his blood he should consider his brother. But human weakness prevents ideas like multiculturalism from working in my view. It's just not going to work, but that's not the fault of any particular ethnic or religious group.

blackjack21 wrote:Why? What does "condemned" mean to you? Does it merely mean that you run around saying, "I condemn racism! I condemn ALL racism!"?


Racism or as I would define it, enmity and hatred of other ethnic and religious groups leads to violence.

And what does it mean to condemn it? It means to not practice it. For example, not treating people on a racial basis and generally giving everyone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Chauvinism is never fun, especially if you're on the receiving end. I think the only people who can celebrate it as some type of rediscovered virtue are those who have never experienced it at all.

You see, I'm a moderate. I'm not so naive as to think that this multicultural experiment is a good idea but I'm completely anti-racist in the real sense of what that means.

Racism is a trait of low altruism 'alphas' who I think are the cause of most of the world's problems.
By Pants-of-dog
#15008967
BigSteve wrote:In this case, the label is just to acknowledge that there are differences between two entities...


What does that have to do with being scientifically sound?

Being able to see the colour of someone’s skin does not require science.

It does, but only as a means to accomplish the larger goal of creating division between people...


Yes, and then in turn it is used to justify enriching oneself at the expense of another. Slavery is an example of this.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15008979
Pants-of-dog wrote:What does that have to do with being scientifically sound?

Being able to see the colour of someone’s skin does not require science.


It's scientifically sound without the label. The label simply acts as a means to acknowledge that there are differences...

Yes, and then in turn it is used to justify enriching oneself at the expense of another. Slavery is an example of this.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sure, slavery could be an example, but I believe that was rooted in something far more insidious than simple racism. Slave traders and owners regarded their slaves as sub-human...
By Pants-of-dog
#15008991
BigSteve wrote:It's scientifically sound without the label. The label simply acts as a means to acknowledge that there are differences...


What exactly is scientifically sound?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sure, slavery could be an example, but I believe that was rooted in something far more insidious than simple racism. Slave traders and owners regarded their slaves as sub-human...


It was rooted in racism and the desire to accumulate wealth that someone else has worked for. The racism helped get over the fact that white people were literally stealing the lives of these people, as well as stopping other white people from supporting the slaves.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15008998
Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly is scientifically sound?


I'm not heading down the rabbit hole with you...

It was rooted in racism and the desire to accumulate wealth that someone else has worked for. The racism helped get over the fact that white people were literally stealing the lives of these people, as well as stopping other white people from supporting the slaves.


But what of blacks who were involved in profiting from the slave trade? Where do they fit in?
By Pants-of-dog
#15009008
BigSteve wrote:I'm not heading down the rabbit hole with you...


If you are unable or unwilling to even clarify what your argument is, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

But what of blacks who were involved in profiting from the slave trade? Where do they fit in?


They also profited. For them, it may have been purely economic.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15009112
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are unable or unwilling to even clarify what your argument is, there is no point in continuing this discussion.


No, it wouldn't be long before you're asking what the meaning of "is" is.

So, yeah, I agree there's no point in continuing this discussion..

They also profited. For them, it may have been purely economic.


As it was for whites...
By Pants-of-dog
#15009125
BigSteve wrote:As it was for whites...


No. Assuming it was the same for both requires ignoring all the racist rhetoric that white people came up to justify slavery.

Such as the idea of “white man’s burden”.

Africans were not going around colonising, enslaving, and taking the land from others. Thus, they did not need a justification like racism.

And if you are saying that race is a scientifically sound concept, you are incorrect.
By SolarCross
#15009256
Pants-of-dog wrote:Africans were not going around colonising, enslaving, and taking the land from others. Thus, they did not need a justification like racism.

They did actually. When you think of "Africans" you a thinking of the Bantu. Ask the Pygmies or the Khoisan what they think of the pure and virtuous Bantu, if you can find any since they were driven to the brink of extinction.
By Pants-of-dog
#15009261
SolarCross wrote:They did actually. When you think of "Africans" you a thinking of the Bantu. Ask the Pygmies or the Khoisan what they think of the pure and virtuous Bantu, if you can find any since they were driven to the brink of extinction.


We were discussing the Transatlantic slave trade.

The Bantu were not involved in that.

We are not going to pretend that all of African history happened at one time to one group just because we want to defend racism.
By Hindsite
#15009273
Suntzu wrote:Weren't the original slaves White. What is the origin of the word "slave"? 8)

ALL Original Slaves were WHITE - 100%



Any time you use the word SLAVE you are thereby acknowledging that this one group of white people were captured; imprisoned; bought; sold and owned and controlled so very frequently by different peoples that their very name eventually became, has become and IS synonymous with what we today know as a SLAVE.

So the _word_ "SLAVE" which stems from the word SLAV which originally meant a person of SLAVIC ethnicity originally has now evolved to be THE international word used to describe 'a people held in bondage' or 'a person held in bondage as the chattel property of another.'

How interesting that the very people for whom this word originated as a description of their ethnicity are the ones most in denial and most ignorant of the factual history of their own captivity and bondage. The very word SLAVE gives tribute to the WHITE Slavic people due to their excessive experience as being the chattel property of others.

A perfect analogy would be that if Kenyans had a long a legacy of being captured, held, bought and sold then over time the very word "Kenyan" over time or some bastardization of it (such as Kenyat) would evolve to be synonymous with BONDAGE and CAPTIVITY.

THAT is precisely what has occurred due to the frequency of the WHITE Slavic people being in bondage to others. Prior to them this was never known by the word "SLAVERY".

How did the Slavs go from Slaves to Conquerors?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15009279
Hindsite wrote:ALL Original Slaves were WHITE - 100%



Any time you use the word SLAVE you are thereby acknowledging that this one group of white people were captured; imprisoned; bought; sold and owned and controlled so very frequently by different peoples that their very name eventually became, has become and IS synonymous with what we today know as a SLAVE.

So the _word_ "SLAVE" which stems from the word SLAV which originally meant a person of SLAVIC ethnicity originally has now evolved to be THE international word used to describe 'a people held in bondage' or 'a person held in bondage as the chattel property of another.'

How interesting that the very people for whom this word originated as a description of their ethnicity are the ones most in denial and most ignorant of the factual history of their own captivity and bondage. The very word SLAVE gives tribute to the WHITE Slavic people due to their excessive experience as being the chattel property of others.

A perfect analogy would be that if Kenyans had a long a legacy of being captured, held, bought and sold then over time the very word "Kenyan" over time or some bastardization of it (such as Kenyat) would evolve to be synonymous with BONDAGE and CAPTIVITY.

THAT is precisely what has occurred due to the frequency of the WHITE Slavic people being in bondage to others. Prior to them this was never known by the word "SLAVERY".

How did the Slavs go from Slaves to Conquerors?


And ''Slav'' means ''Glorious'' :) .

It's been a long 1000 year struggle....



User avatar
By Godstud
#15009282
It's also off-topic, as we aren't discussing the origin of words. :roll:
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15009283
Godstud wrote:It's also off-topic, as we aren't discussing the origin of words. :roll:


Hindsite is trying to forget the ''scientific'' racial basis of 19th century slavery, this is true, but slavery belongs to us all, in every culture on Earth and it continues in dark corners of the world to this day. Therefore, it's also right and just to remember that as well and remember the other many millions of non-Subsaharan African victims of this evil trade in human flesh.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15009285
Pants-of-dog wrote:We were discussing the Transatlantic slave trade.


Actually, I never once mentioned the "transatlantic slave trade". If memory serves, neither did you.

I remember discussing "slavery".

I guess you're just afraid to have that discussion, because you would be forced to acknowledge that blacks played a very large role in that and benefited greatly from their involvement. So, instead, you need to try to insist we were discussing something we weren't to avoid looking foolish...
By SolarCross
#15009295
Pants-of-dog wrote:We were discussing the Transatlantic slave trade.

The Bantu were not involved in that.

We are not going to pretend that all of African history happened at one time to one group just because we want to defend racism.

You are the one pretending that all of African history happened at one time to one group. Also you love racism more than anyone here.
By Pants-of-dog
#15009388
BigSteve wrote:Actually, I never once mentioned the "transatlantic slave trade". If memory serves, neither did you.

I remember discussing "slavery".


Actually, we were discussing how racism helped the slave trade exist, and the examples I gave were pertinent only to the Transatlantic slave trade.

I guess you're just afraid


This seems to be your usual insult.

to have that discussion, because you would be forced to acknowledge that blacks played a very large role in that and benefited greatly from their involvement. So, instead, you need to try to insist we were discussing something we weren't to avoid looking foolish...


If you want to bring up some imaginary slave trade in which blacks played a very large role so that you can defend the racist slave trade of your country, feel free.

If we do examine it, we would also probably find racism in that too.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15009402
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, we were discussing how racism helped the slave trade exist, and the examples I gave were pertinent only to the Transatlantic slave trade.


I see, so you're the one who gets to decide the scope of a conversation?

We were talking about "slavery". Your examples may have been pertinent only to the transatlantic slave trade, and that's fine. But the examples provided by others did not, and their input is every bit as valuable as yours.

Please, don't fool yourself into believing you're anything special...

This seems to be your usual insult.


It's not an insult, it's an observation. If you see it as an insult, maybe that's because it's true...

If you want to bring up some imaginary slave trade in which blacks played a very large role so that you can defend the racist slave trade of your country, feel free.


"Imaginary slave trade"??

So you don't believe blacks profited from the slavery of other blacks? Because that would be a ridiculously stupid thing for you to believe...
By Pants-of-dog
#15009405
BigSteve wrote:I see, so you're the one who gets to decide the scope of a conversation?

We were talking about "slavery". Your examples may have been pertinent only to the transatlantic slave trade, and that's fine. But the examples provided by others did not, and their input is every bit as valuable as yours.

Please, don't fool yourself into believing you're anything special...

It's not an insult, it's an observation. If you see it as an insult, maybe that's because it's true...

"Imaginary slave trade"??

So you don't believe blacks profited from the slavery of other blacks? Because that would be a ridiculously stupid thing for you to believe...


Let me know when you have an argument.

As far as I see, this is just you telling me your opinion about stuff.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Firstly they use historic wind power numbers rat[…]

Well the first thing you can be relieved about is[…]

Yes, that is the beauty of free market capitalism[…]

The answer is simple. Stop invading, Russia. Se[…]