 |
|  |
 |
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970 time: 00:17
|
|
By default, we are racists.
And who cares? I don't care if my subconcious or something is racist. I'm not, with I being my conscious, non-default self.
I realize you may have meant this in a slightly different context, but this is something that always annoys me. It especially comes up in discussions of the poisonous aspects of gendered language (man instead of person, etc.). I have no doubt that things like that might generate misleading assumptions in our unconcious- that the secretary will be a woman, the fireman a man, etc. It's just that I don't care, because my conscious self doesn't believe in that, so I see no particular need to clean up the English language.
Edit: Needless to say, I came up Colorblind on that poll, but I could have said that before without need of a poll.
Last edited by SnowFire on 20-02-2002 at 13:27
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
Evidence for this assertion, please.
I think two things need to be pointed out:
1. The current inhabitants of Europe (a branch of the Indo-Europeans), with several exceptions (Basques, Finns, etc.), are originally from Eastern Anatolia.
|
Well, I think you are skating on very thin ice here. There are innumerable theories of the origins of the Indo-Europeans, but very few of them posit an Eastern Anatolian origin for the Indo-Europeans. Even the definition of the origin of the Indo-Europeans is pretty tricky. I would say that it is the people or peoples who spoke Indo-European just prior to it's initial surviving fragmentation. Of course you could go further back into pre-history and attempt to trace the origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, which in a sense is still tracing the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and in any event it's very unlikely that you could really discern the language variation through the only tools available, which are archeology of a pre-literate society.
A more likely but by no means definitive location for the original more or less cohesive Indo-European language to have been born is the area East of the Caspian Sea or the Pontic Steppe. This is all heavy theorizing of course, any definitive statement on the matter like you make above is completely unsupportable, especially since there are very good reasons to think that the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs (ie the folks who make up the majority of Europes population today) lived for a long while in close proximity to one another, and that their initial appearances on the historic stage place them far from Eastern Anatolia which was the domain of another earlier split off branch of the family.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Guynemer
And I'm pretty sure that "call a spade a spade" comes from the derrogatory meaning of the word, not from the conventional definitions. I don't remember where I heard that, but I remember learning that somewhere. I was actually going to post something about his choice of phrase, but you beat me to it. |
Er, OK. I did a search on google, and found 3000 instances of the phrase. A further refinement of the search including the word 'origin' turned up this gem from a forum dealing with the 2000 election, and obviously veering off-topic:
Hey, you illiterate ****, the phrase "calling a spade a spade" has nothing to do with your racial origin or insecurity.
According to Dr. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, published in 1898:
Why not call a spade a spade? Do not palliate sins by euphemisms.
“We call a nettle but a nettle, and the faults of fools but folly,”—Shakespeare: Coriolanus, ii. 1.
“I have learned to call wickedness by its own terms: a fig a fig, and a spade a spade,”—John Knox.
For your information John Knox was a preacher who lived in England from 1505 until 1572. Shake Spear, by the way, is also NOT a racial slur. He wrote plays and lived in England from 1564 to 1616.
Everybody knows that the british don't have the balls to originat a phrase with as controversial a meaning as you imply.
I was sure that the term had nothing to do with Africans or African Americans, it's used far too much to have survived the slur purge which has raged for over 30 years in this country. If you have access to a contradictory source I'm all ears, as my source is obviously not authoritative, though it sounds authentic.
I used the term completely unconsciously in my post. I guess I need an irony checker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drekkus
|
|
This is a joke I just received on my mail. Is this racist? Or just Anti-bush?
> George W. Bush and Tony Blair are standing and talking together in a bar. The bartender asks them what they are talking about. "We are planning world war 3", answers Bush. "Ooohh" says the bartender. "What are the plans"? "We will kill 14 millions of Muslims and 1 consultant", Bush replies. The bartender looks very surprised and after a few seconds he says: "1 consultant ??? Why ??" George W. Bush puts his hand on the shoulder of Tony Blair, and says "What did I tell you? Nobody will ask about the Muslims!"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DaShi
|
 |
The Taste of Japan
Sep 2000 time: 05:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is racism always hate? I would say no. I posit that involves actions or ideas that are solely based on a person's race, such that these actions and ideas either indicate or imply said person to be superior or inferior.
It is not racism when characteristics are used merely for distinction.
So saying that "blacks are great athletes" (while other races are not as good) is racism, while saying "US pro sports are dominated by blacks" is not. |
But not all blacks are great athletes. And not all US pro sports are dominated by blacks. Any racism eventually leads to some sort of hatred or dislike, since you are placing values on people based on the color of their skin. And those values will not be the same in all aspects, thus making one better than the other in your mind. Thus, you justify a pecking order, which does not conform to reality. This leads to jealousy, resentment, and hatred.
Last edited by DaShi on 22-02-2002 at 06:31
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
I never judge individuals based on race. No race has the monopoly on idiots or geniuses.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ranskaldan
I think the point here is that, not only does no race have a monopoly on idiots or geniuses, but that no race has a higher proportion of idiots or geniuses (if we remove environmental influences). |
As nice as that would be its just not true. Different races have different abilities, but I would never hold that against anyone and neither would I make an assumption on an individual based on race.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
I really cant be bothered. Im not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have researched both sides of this and my conclusions are not based on hate of any kind.
Peace
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Caligastia
I really cant be bothered. Im not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have researched both sides of this and my conclusions are not based on hate of any kind.
|
In other words, he has no facts to support his arguments. As for his research, it was probably done while sitting in a bar or watching afternoon television.
His conclusions are not based on hate. He just thinks that black people are stupid, that black people are fat, but physically superior to white and that white people are weak. Oh, and lets not forget that there are no bigots in New York city.
I have no doubt that he won't change his mind. His mind probably hasn't changed since kindergarten.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000 time: 22:17
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo

You're just being pedantic! The definition completely rests upon where Anatolia begins and the rest of Asia ends. "Eastern Anatolia" might be slightly too far West, but it's close enough damnit! |
Come on Ramo, I was careful to not dismiss your theory as impossible even after you stated it like it was the revealed truth of God. I haven't seen a theory for the IE homeland which suggested Eastern Anatolia before, so I chose the closest area for which I had seen a theory, which is East of the Caspian sea. There are a lot of theories, and precious little evidence. You might even be correct, but the stuff I have read doesn't point that way.
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
Grimm's Law? Anyways, it's certainly definitive enough to cast serious doubt on Cali's Nordic ubermenschentheory, if not completely invalidate it.
My point is that the PIE's are most likely not the same people who lived in Ice-age era Europe. |
Yea I agree, though we are way out there talking about the ice ages in the same conversation as the IEs. Trying to tag a language or a language group to a particular 'race' of human beings is a whole other mess. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the original IEs weren't caucasians for instance.
I think we agree that the whole idea of race is of precious little use to us. Aside from postulating that the Watusi would beat the Pygmy in basketball most of the time, ascribing abilities to certain races is more misleading than useful, and ignores and obfuscates the much more critical role played by culture.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|