Real World Event Discussions

How Can I Prove I am Not a Racist?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 05:20
VIEWED: 17920
PAGE 11 of 20

KPO

Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:52 AM

Quote:
I agree with a lot you said. But I still believe "discriminatory" or, if you will "nationalistic" applies better to what you are talking about.

Or 'Xenophobic'. Definitely a natural human instinct, though not one of our better ones. I agree with Rap on the (primary) definition of racism, and that there's a distinction to be made there.

It's not personal. It's just war.

PEACEKEEPER

Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:39 AM

Yes, I concur with Niki about Rappy's last post.Well put and entirely in keeping with the discussion. You see what can happen when the back biting ceases and we post to each other with a little respect and articulation?. Works wonders doesn't it?

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, July 18, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Perhaps what I am really trying to say is that we are all discriminatory on a racial level to a certain degree.
Any middle ground here, Rappy?

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

We discriminate, we prejudge... so yes, at a very basic physical ( racial ? - still not comfortable with that word, but I'll play along ) level, we are quick to pick up on visual differences which distinguish one group from another. It not only includes physical features, but the clothes we wear, the manner in which we speak, how we communicate ( via hand gestures, etc.. ) all sorts of things.

This was brought up ( man, I hate to even go here ) on what I think was the very first REAL WORLD, on MTV. Kevin, a black guy, and Julie, a white girl from the South, didn't exactly see eye to eye on some things. One key component was in how different each person acted while engaged in an argument. Kevin would get very loud ( from the perspective of Julie ) and stand very close to that person. In Julie's view, that crossed the line from "arguing " to intimidation. Kevin was simply doing what seemed normal to him, and wasn't overly trying to threaten anyone, but Julie saw the exact same thing through different eyes, and had quite a different take.

My point is, clearly we are quick to point out differences on a visual scale, but we also notice differences of culture as well. In fact, it's my personal view that culture goes further to distance people, even of like lineage , more than just race. From the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, to the Protestants and Catholics of N.Ireland, culture ( or religion, as it's practiced ) will pit same looking, same sounding, same damn near everything people against each other where otherwise it would seem they're pretty much the same.

How do we judge how advanced or " progressive" a culture is ? The Chinese were far more advanced than the Europeans for centuries. And the Egyptians predated the Greeks in all manner of technological prowess.... and yet many wrongly assume that mankind made some sort of quantum leap - when ? Only during the EUROPEAN Renaissance, as recent as a few hundred years ago.

Looking at a timeline of great human accomplishments, from art, to science and architecture, it's sorta laughable to think that white Europeans are the "height" of human evolution. Western European ancestors were likely living in huts or occupying caves when the Pyramids were being built. The Mongols were all but at western Europe's door step and ready to conquer the continent, until they called off their armies, and headed home. The halt came not due to some great defense by the Europeans, but from political infighting between the Mongols.

Anyway..... the idea that how much light one's skin reflects is any indicator of genetic superiority.... is, by all measure, absurd.

One sad development, around 20 years ago, was the devolution of the definitions in your statement, and in the overall arguement.
I learned then that Public Schools had begun teaching that the definition of Prejudice had been changed to mean the same as Discrimination.
Prior to that, Prejudice was the natural evolutionary instinct of survival, and only when the Prejudice was unfairly applied and actions were altered did Discrimination occur.
When walking down the street and you see a Bengal Tiger on the sidewalk, is you very first instinct to wonder, ooooh, that poor big kitty wandered off from the local zoo and must be looking for somebody to pet him, and scratch behind the ears? If so, your genetic code is worthy of the Darwin Awards as soon as you are removed from the gene pool. If you instead think, gee, I should get my kids, spouse, and then myself and anybody else less abled than me behind some protective barrier, and notify somebody trained to capture large carnivores, then congratulations, you have just used the Prejudging instinct to protect your genetic code and keep it in the gene pool. You will later

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Yes, I concur with Niki about Rappy's last post.Well put and entirely in keeping with the discussion. You see what can happen when the back biting ceases and we post to each other with a little respect and articulation?. Works wonders doesn't it?

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

Just giving an honest view on the situation, and not having to defend myself against partisan attacks, false claims and straw man arguments.

I agree, sure does make things run more smoothly 'round here.

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 18, 2010 1:57 PM

To clarify...

Quote:
I thought you were Hungarian(?) - just on one side of the family...?

No, hubby was born in Hungary. Dad was born in Poland. For a white dude brought up in a backward peasant culture, he was pretty (small "c") catholic.

KANEMAN

Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Perhaps what I am really trying to say is that we are all discriminatory on a racial level to a certain degree.
Any middle ground here, Rappy?

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

We discriminate, we prejudge... so yes, at a very basic physical ( racial ? - still not comfortable with that word, but I'll play along ) level, we are quick to pick up on visual differences which distinguish one group from another. It not only includes physical features, but the clothes we wear, the manner in which we speak, how we communicate ( via hand gestures, etc.. ) all sorts of things.

This was brought up ( man, I hate to even go here ) on what I think was the very first REAL WORLD, on MTV. Kevin, a black guy, and Julie, a white girl from the South, didn't exactly see eye to eye on some things. One key component was in how different each person acted while engaged in an argument. Kevin would get very loud ( from the perspective of Julie ) and stand very close to that person. In Julie's view, that crossed the line from "arguing " to intimidation. Kevin was simply doing what seemed normal to him, and wasn't overly trying to threaten anyone, but Julie saw the exact same thing through different eyes, and had quite a different take.

My point is, clearly we are quick to point out differences on a visual scale, but we also notice differences of culture as well. In fact, it's my personal view that culture goes further to distance people, even of like lineage , more than just race. From the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, to the Protestants and Catholics of N.Ireland, culture ( or religion, as it's practiced ) will pit same looking, same sounding, same damn near everything people against each other where otherwise it would seem they're pretty much the same.

How do we judge how advanced or " progressive" a culture is ? The Chinese were far more advanced than the Europeans for centuries. And the Egyptians predated the Greeks in all manner of technological prowess.... and yet many wrongly assume that mankind made some sort of quantum leap - when ? Only during the EUROPEAN Renaissance, as recent as a few hundred years ago.

Looking at a timeline of great human accomplishments, from art, to science and architecture, it's sorta laughable to think that white Europeans are the "height" of human evolution. Western European ancestors were likely living in huts or occupying caves when the Pyramids were being built. The Mongols were all but at western Europe's door step and ready to conquer the continent, until they called off their armies, and headed home. The halt came not due to some great defense by the Europeans, but from political infighting between the Mongols.

Anyway..... the idea that how much light one's skin reflects is any indicator of genetic superiority.... is, by all measure, absurd.

One sad development, around 20 years ago, was the devolution of the definitions in your statement, and in the overall arguement.
I learned then that Public Schools had begun teaching that the definition of Prejudice had been changed to mean the same as Discrimination.
Prior to that, Prejudice was the natural evolutionary instinct of survival, and only when the Prejudice was unfairly applied and actions were altered did Discrimination occur.
When walking down the street and you see a Bengal Tiger on the sidewalk, is you very first instinct to wonder, ooooh, that poor big kitty wandered off from the local zoo and must be looking for somebody to pet him, and scratch behind the ears? If so, your genetic code is worthy of the Darwin Awards as soon as you are removed from the gene pool. If you instead think, gee, I should get my kids, spouse, and then myself and anybody else less abled than me behind some protective barrier, and notify somebody trained to capture large carnivores, then congratulations, you have just used the Prejudging instinct to protect your genetic co

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:06 PM

Oh Kaneman, I see you're late to the party. Too bad! Everyone has already agreed that Rappys' post was insightful and valuable. But yours??? Not so much. Here, have some leftovers. I'm sure there are a few empty beer bottles you can pour together.

KANEMAN

Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh Kaneman, I see you're late to the party. Too bad! Everyone has already agreed that Rappys' post was insightful and valuable. But yours??? Not so much. Here, have some leftovers. I'm sure there are a few empty beer bottles you can pour together.

Hey signy bitch.....Thanks for setting me straight, I hadn't noticed I was late. But no-thanks on the leftovers you can shove those empty bottles in your vagina...

KPO

Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:24 PM

Quote:
If they constantly have IQ's lower than whites and Asians all over the world. How can it be anything other than genetics. Environment has been debunked.

Except by the majority of scientists.

Quote:
White poor inbred hillbillies still have a higher IQ. Read the post about what it takes to move out of Africa and shun gratification. It only makes sense that whites and Asians are smarter. And all the data proves this. I say it's genetic...You say what exactly? Are they lazy, is it my fault, or is it Bush's fault? Or are you going to tow the "it's years of oppression" line. That may sound plausible here in America, however there is a whole world of dumb blacks....Well, it's true........

In my country interestingly, white working class students form the bottom rung of the ladder:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/mar/27/schools.uk4

Quote:
Statistics from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, show just 15% of white working-class boys finish compulsory education with basic skills in reading, writing and arithmetic.

For black boys from similar backgrounds, the figure is 22%, while it is 29% for Asian boys and 52% for Chinese boys.

Some 20% of white working-class girls left with the basic skills.

So black students outperforming white students from comparable backgrounds - that must boggle your racist mind a little bit. One can also break down the black population into 'African' and 'West Indian' students, and there is a clear gap between them (maybe lending some credibility to the 'legacy of slavery' argument) - Black African girls outperform white boys I believe. The UK doesn't have a perfect racial history but I think it's a bit better than the U.S's, and that helps.

Here's some despicable, wooly, liberal obfuscation, filled with social and cultural excuse-making for the white working class:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article641312.ece

Quote:
Read the post about what it takes to move out of Africa and shun gratification. It only makes sense that whites and Asians are smarter. And all the data proves this. I say it's genetic...You say what exactly?

My view is of large human potential, across races. But that it requires an excellent education and culture to bring it out (as well as social comfort and harmony). Most of the black people in the world are living in underdeveloped Africa, or in other countries as historically oppressed minorities (sometimes both).

I don't know what tiresome conservative sermonising this 'shunning gratification' is, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference is genetic - I think it was culture that evolved to meet new challenges, while African culture remained relatively stagnated. The culture evolved, and made fuller use of the human potential that was always there.

Think how much white society has been transformed going back to about 400 years ago, when we were all pretty much peasants. Civilisation and culture has made massive leaps and developments - have we have evolved from that backwards culture into a new race of genetic supermen in that short time? No, but the potential was always there. My view, at least.

And with IQ scores, get out of your head that they are measures of genetic intelligence, and see them as 'realised brain potential', or something along those lines.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KANEMAN

Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
If they constantly have IQ's lower than whites and Asians all over the world. How can it be anything other than genetics. Environment has been debunked.

Except by the majority of scientists.

Quote:
White poor inbred hillbillies still have a higher IQ. Read the post about what it takes to move out of Africa and shun gratification. It only makes sense that whites and Asians are smarter. And all the data proves this. I say it's genetic...You say what exactly? Are they lazy, is it my fault, or is it Bush's fault? Or are you going to tow the "it's years of oppression" line. That may sound plausible here in America, however there is a whole world of dumb blacks....Well, it's true........

In my country interestingly, white working class students form the bottom rung of the ladder:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/mar/27/schools.uk4

Quote:
Statistics from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, show just 15% of white working-class boys finish compulsory education with basic skills in reading, writing and arithmetic.

For black boys from similar backgrounds, the figure is 22%, while it is 29% for Asian boys and 52% for Chinese boys.

Some 20% of white working-class girls left with the basic skills.

So black students outperforming white students from comparable backgrounds - that must boggle your racist mind a little bit. One can also break down the black population into 'African' and 'West Indian' students, and there is a clear gap between them (maybe lending some credibility to the 'legacy of slavery' argument) - Black African girls outperform white boys I believe. The UK doesn't have a perfect racial history but I think it's a bit better than the U.S's, and that helps.

Here's some despicable, wooly, liberal obfuscation, filled with social and cultural excuse-making for the white working class:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article641312.ece

Quote:
Read the post about what it takes to move out of Africa and shun gratification. It only makes sense that whites and Asians are smarter. And all the data proves this. I say it's genetic...You say what exactly?

My view is of large human potential, across races. But that it requires an excellent education and culture to bring it out (as well as social comfort and harmony). Most of the black people in the world are living in underdeveloped Africa, or in other countries as historically oppressed minorities (sometimes both).

I don't know what tiresome conservative sermonising this 'shunning gratification' is, but I disagree with the conclusion that the difference is genetic - I think it was culture that evolved to meet new challenges, while African culture remained relatively stagnated. The culture evolved, and made fuller use of the human potential that was always there.

Think how much white society has been transformed going back to about 400 years ago, when we were all pretty much peasants. Civilisation and culture has made massive leaps and developments - have we have evolved from that backwards culture into a new race of genetic supermen in that short time? No, but the potential was always there. My view, at least.

And with IQ scores, get out of your head that they are measures of genetic intelligence, and see them as 'realised brain potential', or something along those lines.

It's not personal. It's just war.

I would just say they don't have the ability to create a decent culture...Thus, they will languish at the bottom forever. Proof is there in basic black and white general observation. The bottom line is they have lower IQ's and a shitty community..Why?