 |
|
Space05us
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
That would be part of the reason for the stereotype, yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:32
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
They told your afterwards how bad it was?
|
Well, they didn't complain, but the evidence wasn't very favorable.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2003 15:41
to this thread
.
on that note, I must be off to school.
|