Keeping whites seperate from your coloureds?

[Nubclear]

to this thread

[Az]

Originally posted by TheStinger


My little boy was orange/yellow between 4-7 months. The doctors didn't have a clue what was up with him. He was otherwise healthy though so they wern't worried.

His mother is half Spanish I don't know if that made a difference

was?

[TheStinger]

He had a yellow/orange tint to his skin and then it just stopped.

[Kropotkin]

It was so much easier for Johnny Cash.

[Az]

Originally posted by TheStinger
He had a yellow/orange tint to his skin and then it just stopped.

I was fearing the worst for a second.

In any case, better get a genetic check up for gilbert's. it COULD be that. ( in any case, nothing bad about it. )

[Pekka]

I was also yellow, but that's because I had high fever for few days after I was born. I guess that explains the obvious brain damage .

[Provost Harrison]

Yellowy colour sounds like jaundice, perhaps the liver just wasn't quite functioning right but it sounds like it has sorted itself out. Probably not significant.

[TheStinger]

His liver was fine the quacks checked for that.

They wern't worried as he was eating and growing and all that stuff

[Space05us]

That's why I propose a radical new idea.

Forced breeding. Yep, you heard me right. Whites should be forced to mate with blacks. Mexicans should be forced to mate with Chinese. American indians should be forced to mate with Indians.

you get the drift. This will eliminate racism.

Can I be forced to mate with an Asian or Pacific Islander instead? Also, because we're all members of 'Poly wouldn't it be included in your plan that we get first pick?

[Dr Strangelove]

Aren't Mexicans largely of Amerind stock and therefore technically orientals?

You'd be amazed at how many of my patients are racially mixed. I'd guess nearly one-fifth of my black patients either marry outside their race, are products of inter-racial couplings, or have mixed race family members.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There are Mexicans (and a lot of them) with every sort of ethnic influence, from Yanqui to all over Europe to African, middle eastern (Salma Hayek for one), Asian, etc. Even the near-purely indigenous people range from fair skin, light haired northern desert Indians to very dark tropical Indians. I see native Mexicans who are more "whitey" than I am.

Any racial or ethnic lines are just a generalization.

True, but that doesn't mean there are no common traits. Stereotypes wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth in them.

Hanging's a nasty way to go. I've known a couple of people who did it.

They told your afterwards how bad it was?

The ideal is to drop the entire inaccurate, biologically meaningless antiquated social construct of separate races entirely.

It's not biologically meaningless at all, but the reason you believe this - and want others to - is because you think believing this is the only way humans can accept each other's differences - by believing we are all the same.

I want the same thing as you - for everyone to recognise that we are all brothers and sisters - but I don't think denying the reality of group differences is the best way to go about it.

[Kropotkin]

Stereotypes wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth in them.

What kind of truths are you talking about?

[Space05us]

What kind of truths are you talking about?

like white people are always smarter than eveyone else. on that note, I must be off to school.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

What kind of truths are you talking about?

Of course a blanket statement will always be wrong, but if nobody experienced a common attribute of any particular group there would be no stereotypes. For example the stereotype of the arrogant American. If it hadn't been the common experience of a lot of people who met Americans, the stereotype would never have emerged. This is not to say that most Americans are arrogant, but that there must have been enough of them who are in order for the stereotype to have been created.

[Kropotkin]

Or they just happen to see the traits they want to see.

If a jew is greedy, it's because he's a jew. Point proven; jews are greedy. If someone else is greedy, it's because he as a individual is greedy.

[Caligastia]

That would be part of the reason for the stereotype, yes.

[Al B. Sure!]

MtG:

you forget that I live on the east coast, where we don't have mexicans and have mostly puerto ricans with the occasional cuban. cubans are mixed but boricuas are spanish... castillian... caucasion. and i live in one of the puerto rican quarters of philly (Susquehanna Ave in north philly) and i've said something to this effect. people don't like being equated to crackers () but they know they are spanish and spain is in europe.

anyway, my point with this thread was, what with the preponderence of whites in america, you would think white supremicists would be in favour of inter-racial relationships as the end result of them would be to dilute the black population and have all americans be 70% white. isn't that what the Klan would want? everybody to me overwhelmingly white and there to be no black people.

[Caligastia]

To answer your question, Albert, the Klan wouldn't go for that because they see blacks and other races as vermin. They see nothing of value in these other races and would view inter-racial breeding as polluting the white race.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Of course a blanket statement will always be wrong, but if nobody experienced a common attribute of any particular group there would be no stereotypes. For example the stereotype of the arrogant American. If it hadn't been the common experience of a lot of people who met Americans, the stereotype would never have emerged. This is not to say that most Americans are arrogant, but that there must have been enough of them who are in order for the stereotype to have been created.

On the other hand, I've met arrogant Brits, Germans, Dutchmen, Turks, and (surprise!) Frenchmen. So the question is not whether the stereotype is "true," but why it sticks to some groups and not others -- and, most crucially, who made it stick, and why.

The stereotypre of the arrogant American, also known as the Ugly American, originated in Europe after WWII. Were Americans more arrogant than Europeans? Who knows, but it doesn't seem obviously true. But did Europe have a reason to demonize the Americans, if only to make themselves feel better about licking its wounds after WWII, watching its empires crumble, and facing the reality that it just wasn't as important as it used to be? You bet.

So it's worth asking what the group that perpetuates the stereotype gets out of stereotyping another group? For example, the stereotype of the lazy black was a convenient way to justifty, first, horrific beatings of slaves and, later, racist hiring policies. The stereotype of the greedy Jew was a convenient way for Europeans to demonize Jewish moneylenders, at a point where Europe desperately needed a money-lending system to fuel early capitalism but regarded lending money as unChristian. The Brits perpetuated all manner of stereotypes as ready excuses for their inexcuseable colonial policies. That's kind of dynamic is far more significant than whether some stereotypes are true of some people in the stereotyped group.

[Caligastia]

Interesting.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
You know what the old Vikings called Negroes? "Bluemen"

There is some references in the sagas to Vikings being enslaved. Such vikings would have referred to their masters, as, er, "master".

[Kaak]

Originally posted by Dissident
That's why I propose a radical new idea.

Forced breeding. Yep, you heard me right. Whites should be forced to mate with blacks. Mexicans should be forced to mate with Chinese. American indians should be forced to mate with Indians.

you get the drift. This will eliminate racism.

bulworth and i'm okay with it, as long as i get halle berry

[Bereta_Eder]

Well neverminding Apolyton, in real life, the nicest bunch of people I've ever met were Americans. True one or two of them were a bit "weird" (maybe I seemed weird to them too) but they were also nice nevertheless. My vote and having traveled all around western Europe, Americans are the nicest/politest bunch of people I've ever met.

[Bereta_Eder]

That was a reply to Rufus post BTW. I hope they have stayed the same after 11 September.

[Pekka]

Agreed. Americans are usually to polite ones. At least they try to look like they are interested.

Britts? They are all drunks. Germans? There are many bars they aren't even aloud (a fact). Finns? Drunks. Swedes? Pretty much drunks, girls are nice though.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Pekka
Germans? There are many bars they aren't even aloud (a fact).

Really?! They have bars in Finland that have sings saying "no germans"?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It's not biologically meaningless at all, but the reason you believe this - and want others to - is because you think believing this is the only way humans can accept each other's differences - by believing we are all the same.

I want the same thing as you - for everyone to recognise that we are all brothers and sisters - but I don't think denying the reality of group differences is the best way to go about it.

Well, the only difference race makes outside of societal convention is susceptibility to particular diseases or conditions, racially common features, and possibly an unusually good sense of rhythm in the case of black people. I've never heard of anything to indicate that race matters on any important level: intelligence, talent, physical fitness, or anything.

The problem with our current approach to race, IMO, is that we try to have our cake and eat it too. We're told that we should be "proud" to be black or whatever, and then immediately afterwards they tell us that it doesn't matter what color our skin is. What are we supposed to be so proud of then?

And if you're supposed to take pride in your race because of great people of your race in the past, shouldn't you also be ashamed of yourself on account of all the mass-murderers your race has introduced to the world?

This is why we are best off ignoring race entirely.

[Japher]

Elok, you are, IMO, both right and wrong.

Right in that there is the BE PROUD movement as well as a segregation is wrong movement, being ran by the same ppl... Very confussing.

Wrong in that ignoring race is a good thing. How can one respect diversity if they are not allowed to recognize it? You list several things explaining how some races seem to differ from others. Of course these things are not absolute, but are statistically signifigant. While you list those several things, how are we to know there are not more if we are not allowed to search?

There have been threads showing mental differences between man and woman, why would it stop there?

What ifs still exist whether we choose to ask them or not, and by not asking them we are depriving ourselves; the human race.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia
True, but that doesn't mean there are no common traits. Stereotypes wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth in them.

Those common traits are often (a) mythical (big schlong theory) or (b) when they are true, they are learned behaviors, i.e. cultural or social, not biological.

They told your afterwards how bad it was?

Well, they didn't complain, but the evidence wasn't very favorable.

It's not biologically meaningless at all, but the reason you believe this - and want others to - is because you think believing this is the only way humans can accept each other's differences - by believing we are all the same.

I want the same thing as you - for everyone to recognise that we are all brothers and sisters - but I don't think denying the reality of group differences is the best way to go about it.

What is biologically meaningful that some people with ancestors from areas with more sun exposure usually have darker skin? What's biologically meaninful about lumping them into five categories? (especially when there's hispanics lighter than me, and hispanics darker than most American blacks)

Social and cultural constructs, yes, biological significance? No. Even sickle cell, the most commonly cited example, is not in fact racial, it's tied to latitude and humidity of ancestral regions, so you have members of all "races" who have sickle cell issues, and you have members of all "races" who don't. I.e. the genetic propensity of Xhosa is about the same as that of Finns.

The "modern" concept of race originated with social issues (justification of slavery, and treating non-white populations as subhumans) before modern biology had progressed to considering any real reasons for population differences. It was all either they were sub-human savages, or God had punished them by making their skin black - after all, the entire human population was descended from two white people, so how could these other things exist? Then you morph that forward to the era of pseudosciences like phrenology, and that's the background that the notion of three or five races comes from.

What I'd like to see is that we acknowledge genetic differences as genetic differences, and we acknowledge cultural and social differences as cultural and social differences. In other words, we separate what is really physical (mostly of medical significance) from what is behavioral.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, the only difference race makes outside of societal convention is susceptibility to particular diseases or conditions, racially common features, and possibly an unusually good sense of rhythm in the case of black people. I've never heard of anything to indicate that race matters on any important level: intelligence, talent, physical fitness, or anything.

Several scientists believe it does, and so do many intelligence experts.

The problem with our current approach to race, IMO, is that we try to have our cake and eat it too. We're told that we should be "proud" to be black or whatever, and then immediately afterwards they tell us that it doesn't matter what color our skin is. What are we supposed to be so proud of then?

I totally agree. It's not exactly an accomplishment to be born a certain way is it?

And if you're supposed to take pride in your race because of great people of your race in the past, shouldn't you also be ashamed of yourself on account of all the mass-murderers your race has introduced to the world?

Exactly. It's this kind of mentality that leads people to believe that all whites in the US should give money to blacks to pay for slavery.

This is why we are best off ignoring race entirely.

I don't see any harm, in the interests of science, in researching differences. Gaining a greater understanding of the human race can only be a good thing.