How Can I Prove I am Not a Racist?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 05:20
VIEWED: 17920
PAGE 10 of 20

PEACEKEEPER

Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:36 PM

Rappy, was it not you that pulled me up on Semantics? Was it not you who brought up the use of The Redundant Noun? And in which part of your post did you indicate whether or not you think I answered your question or have expressed any indication to discuss it?
I appreciate that I am not a major contributor to these discussions;but when i do enter into a discussion I tend to make myself succinct and to the point and try to reply to the point with a reasonably informed and intelligent POV. Am i right in thinking that you haven't given me a serious reply because you cannot, in point of fact, debate with me because I am right.And BTW, I have no personal gripe with you on this matter;so please don't take this as a personal attack.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

AURAPTOR

Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:55 PM

Quote:

---

We are all, in some form or another, INHERENTLY RACIST.

---

Quote:

---

What makes us progressive and more intelligent than the overt proponents of this, is to accept our failings and ATTEMPT to reconcile those thoughts with some enlightened civility.I use the word "Discriminatory" simply because it sounds less offensive.So I am saying that I probably accept that I am a racist, but I don't like it and try to compensate by applying some educated logic and reason so as to not offend my fellow man.So yes, you are being pedantic and my argument still stands. As for using the "Redundant noun" argument(ATM), I fail to see the relevance. We all do that as well. It is purely a technical point on English grammar. It has nothing to do with this argument.As I said,INVALID.
You cannot prove that you are not a racist OR discriminatory. Because all of us are both. We can only TRY to temper ourselves so as to achieve self awareness and compromise on that fact. Now does THAT answer your original question?

---

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

NIKI2

Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:26 PM

Yes, the Wikipedia link isn’t at all persuasive, given it is prefaced by "The neutrality of this article is questioned because of systemic bias (April 2010”) and “This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (April 2010)”

So a disputed article in Wikipedia, which itself ADMITS “Several culturally-based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available." and” However, a review of candidate genes for intelligence published in 2009 by Deary et al. failed to find evidence of an association between these genes and general intelligence, stating "there is still almost no replicated evidence concerning the individual genes, which have variants that contribute to intelligence differences", AS WELL AS questioning, in another article, the objectivity of the organization funding the study, is more credible than scientific findings? Your belief that “If they constantly have IQ's lower than whites and Asians all over the world. How can it be anything other than genetics” is YOUR belief, but that doesn't make it fact.

Try an excerpt from what KPO posted...actually READ IT, then tell me genetics has to be the cause, or even just read the underlined parts, they alone question your theory:

Quote:

---

On average, African-Americans score 7 to 15 points lower than European-Americans on IQ tests. Many conservatives believe this is because blacks are genetically inferior to whites. But liberals believe that the IQ gap is the result of nearly three centuries of slavery and yet another 130 years of segregation and institutionalized racism. Even the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action have not eliminated discrimination against blacks -- they've merely reduced it somewhat. The result of this discrimination is that a disproportionate percentage of blacks work at lower-paying jobs, live in poverty and squalor, lack health care and child care, and do not receive the quality of education and personal development available to richer members of society. All these deprivations work to suppress IQ and educational achievement in children during their critical developmental years.

Which viewpoint is correct? The answer becomes obvious when you compare the lower IQ results of other discriminated minorities around the world, many of whom are of the same genetic stock.

Perhaps the most dramatic example is the Northern Irish. Even though they come from the same ethnic group, Catholics (the discriminated minority) score 15 points lower on IQ tests than Protestants.

In the U.S., both Korean and Japanese students score above average in IQ tests; many scholars agree that, genetically, they are about as close as two ethnic groups can get. But the Korean minority living in Japan scores much lower on IQ tests than the Japanese. Why? The Japanese are extremely racist towards Koreans; they view them as stupid and violent, and employ them only in the dirtiest and lowest-paying jobs. Tensions are so great between the two groups that violence often erupts in the form of riots.

In the U.S., Polish Jews arriving before 1910 were also perceived as stupid (for no other reason than they were accustomed to a different culture and spoke another language). So many "Pollock" jokes arose that Americans still tell them to this day, even if no one remembers why. The Polish Jews suffered heavy job discrimination and suspicion of criminality; not surprisingly, their children suffered low grades and IQ test scores. Today, of course, many Americans hold the opposite prejudice; Jews are viewed as the most brilliant of ethnic groups.

---