The Elephant in the Room, Skin Colour - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15111616
So the issue of skin colour has been preying on my mind for a while now. Until recently I went along with the practice of referring to European-races as White. I realise now that this is racist, because it presumes that East Asians aren't White, when they clearly are. How did this absurd situation even come about? I must confess to thinking in the past that I was fully woke. Fully woke to all the lies of the Liberals. But I now realise that is not the case.

As far as I can make out we got here because of the extreme racism of Amerindians. They didn't consider Europeans, Blacks or East-Asians full human beings. They considered all of us untermensch. So they chose the symbolic colour of Red people because for them this denoted superiority. The Red White and Black schema was quite convenient in the early days of the North American Anglosphere so Europeans went along with it. Then when significant numbers of East Asians turned up, they were assigned the symbolic colour of yellow, probably because of the Japanese association with the rising sun, to fit in with this schema.

For the Liberals Europeans have to be the source of every evil. You notice in their pathetic fantasy world Trump has become the creator of Covid-19. How they think Trump would have had the opportunity to create and disperse such a virus is beyond me. Anyway it seems that Liberals invented on origin story for the racial colour coding, that Europeans were so stupid, bigoted and ignorant that they couldn't tell that East Asians were as white and in same cases whiter than the European races.
#15111620
"White" chiefs mediated and advocated peace before the English was taking on the role of peacemakers in American colonies. The English assumed the role of the civil or "white" chief and the Cherokees were to be the warrior or "red" chief. In this manner, the Cherokees derided the English ability to make war with the white designation, while the Cherokees respected their superior knowledge and wealth. The Cherokee warriors used red face paint to evoke the menstrual blood and life-giving powers of women.
#15111623
We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway, so people can just forget that this happened.

No one actually cares about skin color, otherwise white supremacists would hate dark Indians and praise pale Asians and so-on like you said. It's a strawman.
#15119677
A curious and rambling OP, this one.

That racial disparity is evident in today's United States of America is a fact. Just how we go about defining 'race' is not a settled issue, though. There's a continuum of h. sapiens in any number of parameters -- height, age, weight and skin color are but 4 of them. Just where lines are drawn is unclear and, to a large degree, arbitrary.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
#15119898
Torus34 wrote:A curious and rambling OP, this one.

I make no apologies for that. I'm attempting a task, a task that is big but long over due. Challenging the Cultural Marxist lie machine on its home territory, on terminology. There is massive massive discrimination against White people. This is a fact. If two people apply for a university and they are equal in all respects except one is considered white and one is considered Black, the so called Black person will almost every time be ranked above the so called White person.

So it is vital importance that we ask.

Who is White?
Who is Black?
Who is African-American?
Who is African-unAmerican?
Who is Coloured?
Who is Colourless?
Can people be Red?
Can people be Yellow?
Are Chinese people White? are they Black? Are they Yellow? Are they some other colour?
Are Chinese people coloured or are they colourless?

As far as I can make out Cultural Marxists in the United States, seem to base their racist classification system on the work of Apartheid South Africa. So when they say Black they mean Swartes. Swart essentially mean someone of West African descent. The Swartes could not be considered indigenous to south Africa by any stretch of the imagination. Gandhi it should be noted although an opponent of the caste system, was a thorough going morphological racist bigot, who largely went along with the late Apartheid racial classification system, but just objected to the position of the Indiërs relative to the Blankes.

@Pants-of-dog has made the lying claim that in the West it is the Blankes who determine who belongs in which racial caste. But in Britain leftist South Asians very specifically chose to reject the Apartheid schema and refer to themselves as Swartes or Black.
#15119902
Rich wrote:I make no apologies for that. I'm attempting a task, a task that is big but long over due. Challenging the Cultural Marxist lie machine on its home territory, on terminology. There is massive massive discrimination against White people. This is a fact. If two people apply for a university and they are equal in all respects except one is considered white and one is considered Black, the so called Black person will almost every time be ranked above the so called White person.

So it is vital importance that we ask.

Who is White?
Who is Black?
Who is African-American?
Who is African-unAmerican?
Who is Coloured?
Who is Colourless?
Can people be Red?
Can people be Yellow?
Are Chinese people White? are they Black? Are they Yellow? Are they some other colour?
Are Chinese people coloured or are they colourless?

As far as I can make out Cultural Marxists in the United States, seem to base their racist classification system on the work of Apartheid South Africa. So when they say Black they mean Swartes. Swart essentially mean someone of West African descent. The Swartes could not be considered indigenous to south Africa by any stretch of the imagination. Gandhi it should be noted although an opponent of the caste system, was a thorough going morphological racist bigot, who largely went along with the late Apartheid racial classification system, but just objected to the position of the Indiërs relative to the Blankes.

@Pants-of-dog has made the lying claim that in the West it is the Blankes who determine who belongs in which racial caste. But in Britain leftist South Asians very specifically chose to reject the Apartheid schema and refer to themselves as Swartes or Black.


OK. Let's begin a dialog.

For the time being, let's set aside any question of what we, as a society, are or should be doing through the medium of our governmental institutions and just look at what is. It will give us a starting point.

Whether we look at, say, the Congress of the United States of America or the Fortune 500(r) CEO's, we do not see reflected there the make-up of our population. There's a skew. We see the same thing in our prison population, viewed nationwide.

So the first step is to agree that there are inequalities evident in the US in that people with certain characteristics are not equally represented in our government nor in our world of business nor, for that matter, in our prisons.

Agreed?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
#15119942
Torus34 wrote:
Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.



The Big *4* -- masks, hand washing, physical distancing, and try to refrain from Existing While Black, since that makes you a target for police brutality and killer cops.
#15119957
ckaihatsu wrote:The Big *4* -- masks, hand washing, physical distancing, and try to refrain from Existing While Black, since that makes you a target for police brutality and killer cops.


Hi!

I suspect there's an almost infinite number of Big 4's; some deadly serious, others humorous and even some related to troll-speak. Thanks for the post.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15120110
Denoting races , subraces of the larger Human race in actuality , by color coding dates back to ancient antiquity . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race If Amerindian peoples considered outsiders , such as White Europeans , to be subhuman , then how would you explain the experience of my ancestor , Conrad Weiser ? East Asians vary in skin color . I take it though that you are primarily referring to the Japanese though . In their instance , they are partially comprised by the indigenous Ainu , a Caucasoid people . https://weirdnews.info/2020/05/24/what-race-are-the-ainu-people-of-japan/ They have even had relations with Nazism . https://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/the-rebirth-of-nazism-in-japan/ Yet even in China , there had been ancient Caucasian settlement . https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/10/the-mysterious-european-mummies-of-china/
#15120144
Rich wrote:I make no apologies for that. I'm attempting a task, a task that is big but long over due. Challenging the Cultural Marxist lie machine on its home territory, on terminology. There is massive massive discrimination against White people. This is a fact. If two people apply for a university and they are equal in all respects except one is considered white and one is considered Black, the so called Black person will almost every time be ranked above the so called White person.

So it is vital importance that we ask.

Who is White?
Who is Black?
Who is African-American?
Who is African-unAmerican?
Who is Coloured?
Who is Colourless?
Can people be Red?
Can people be Yellow?
Are Chinese people White? are they Black? Are they Yellow? Are they some other colour?
Are Chinese people coloured or are they colourless?

As far as I can make out Cultural Marxists in the United States, seem to base their racist classification system on the work of Apartheid South Africa. So when they say Black they mean Swartes. Swart essentially mean someone of West African descent. The Swartes could not be considered indigenous to south Africa by any stretch of the imagination. Gandhi it should be noted although an opponent of the caste system, was a thorough going morphological racist bigot, who largely went along with the late Apartheid racial classification system, but just objected to the position of the Indiërs relative to the Blankes.

@Pants-of-dog has made the lying claim that in the West it is the Blankes who determine who belongs in which racial caste. But in Britain leftist South Asians very specifically chose to reject the Apartheid schema and refer to themselves as Swartes or Black.

A long time ago the French realized that it was divisive to classify according to color. In France everybody is French. It is improper to refer to people by skin color . I believe it works better than the the system we have in America. The only problem is that it disarms the lefties that go around creating victimhood according to skin color. Or perhaps it is too late for America.
#15120278
Rancid wrote:@Torus34, thanks for sticking around this time. Sorry for being a dick in that other thread. :)


Hi!

Mighty nice to know that I'm not the only one who has off days. Now I don't feel so lonely!

Regards, and the very best to you and yours.
First 2020 Debate Thread

Again, you assume a great deal. I have seen the a[…]

Yes they do. People on the right also get fired […]

There's statistical correlation, however, hence t[…]

Keeping elderly people in lockdown away from their[…]