(moved) "RACE" IS AN ARTIFICIAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

[rturner76]

The idea the race is a social construct is sheer foolishness. To define race as an idea or to deny the existence of it is a denial of nature. I have a feeling that explaining this to you would be a waste of time, but I'm going to anyway for the sake of those with an open mind reading this, and because I'm a nice guy So let me break it down for you:

Skin color is not the only factor when it comes to racial identity, but also skull structure, intelligence, culture, behavior, etc. Just by lining up a man of each race side by side you can easily distinguish the differences. It's not rocket science. Not even all White people are the same race. Obviously a Celtic man is not the same race as a Nordic man. There are even different races among Native Americans. Take a look at the different cultures of each race. There are different customs and traditions in every culture. How is this so if we're all the same? Some of these differences are environmental, but most of them are social and ideological. There are stark differences in European culture, Asian culture, African culture, etc. There's even differences in the cultures within those continents. British culture, for example, is not the same as German culture. Chinese culture is not the same as Thai culture.

Does the word “heritage” mean anything to you? Heritage consists of racial traditions and history. Everyone has a natural right to observe their racial heritage. Different races have made certain accomplishments. The Chinese invented gun powder and the printing press. The French invented photography. The Germans invented the globe. The Norse were the first to discover North America, and they invented skiis. But inventions are only a part of racial culture. Racial cultures consist of a lot more, such as religion, philosophy, writing systems, and lifestyles – all of which are a part of that race's identity. Your race is a part of who you are, believe it or not.

To say “we're all one” is to take credit for the accomplishments and customs made by people who are not a part of your ancestry. It is to steal the identities of multiple races. Multiculturalism exists to erase racial identity from human history, particularly White identity/culture. This is why there is no White culture in America. It is considered a social and political evil for any White person to make a public appearance announcing their White pride. But Black people can get any with it. When a Black person announces he/she is proud to be Black, it's not only socially acceptable, but encouraged, hence Black History Month. But yet we're all one? Yeah right. Back to the point, multiculturalism does away with cultures. It also promotes miscegenation (interracial mingling). If every White person took a Black partner, or vice-versa, then they'd procreate black/white hybrids. In fact if every race mingled and procreated with another then eventually over time all the current races will die out and everyone will literally be the same and racial identity will be forgotten. No more White people and no more Black people. It's all a scheme set up by the powers that be to homogenize the human species. In the days of Moses, this wasn't tolerated.

In Sweden, Arab immigrants are entering the country and forcing their Islamic customs on the native inhabitants. They've actually gotten away with private beheadings. In some areas, Swedish women are being forced to wear hijabs. Think about how they feel. Centuries of hard work that shaped their culture and identity is being destroyed. The future generations are going to think that they have always been an Islamic culture and their real history will be forgotten. This is also happening in parts of Britain and France. Oh, but you say multiculturalism makes peace? You're so full of s***.

I think if you wrote this and replaced the word "race" with "ethnicity" it would be more acceptable and more accurate. What you are talking about are ethnic differences. Race is a much more crude way to classify people i.e. black, white, red, yellow. At least that is how I grew up understanding race.

As for the Northern and Western Europeans plight.....They still way way outnumber the Arab influences in their countries. You underestimate the Western European's scope of power and influence on planet Earth. Yes, The Western European is not the sole seat of power in the world today and must share the riches of the Earth with some other peoples at this moment. Fret not, Europeans and European Americans still have the power to control everything. At the moment it is not to their advantage to do so. Through diplomacy and trade agreements,they will continue to pick the world clean of it's natural resources and when all the worlds natural resources are collected and world wide instability ensues, they will reassert power and dominate the world.

 

[Vicomte13]

There is no such thing as race. There are no "breeds" of human beings. Race is an artificial construct invented by SLAVE MASTERS in order to create better, more obedient SLAVES. Dont believe me? Ask Hitler.

As a Catholic/Christian I believe in mankind. The sons and daughters of Adam.

Thoughts?

We all descend from Noah and his wife. Therefore, we are all first cousins, however many times removed.

The ones living towards the equator are browner, the ones living towards the pole are whiter.

Within the cousinage, the difference between the sexes is much more important than the differences in skin color.

Of course since we're all first cousins, all human relationships are incestuous to some degree.

Being a very pale Saami/Basque racial mix myself, I tend to prefer darker skin tones or more exotic eyes. The more recessive traits that look like my own, the more aware I am that I am inbreeding.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that I married a West Indian. We're still first cousins, but maybe 137 times removed, instead of the usual six degrees of separation.

It isn't that I went out to find somebody as different as possible. It's that the more different, the more beautiful and interesting. This is natural - the drive to mix the genes if one can and to not inbreed.

If your family tree looks like a phone pole, you're doing it wrong and will end up with weaker offspring.

 

[Vicomte13]

At the moment it is not to their advantage to do so. Through diplomacy and trade agreements,they will continue to pick the world clean of it's natural resources and when all the worlds natural resources are collected and world wide instability ensues, they will reassert power and dominate the world.

Not if they don't have the numbers they won't. Demography is destiny. Whites are not having babies, are well below replacement, and are dying out.

The future of the USA is to be Los Estados Unidos Norte Americanos.

The future of Europe is Sharia 2080.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I think it's drawn attn. bc it's attn.-grabbing ignorance, & bc it's being promoted as a featured thread. IRL I don't think it's really a hot topic. Racial tension obviously is, but that's not the same as what's being argued here.

Are you serious? People love to debate stupid things like whether there is only one race or many races! (I do recognise that I speak partially against myself, though.)

I don't think it's left-wing propaganda. Or right-wing, really. I think it's just way out there. It's something that people should have learned in their HS biology classes.

Actually, the whole idea of political correctness (like insisting that you cannot call a group of people with similar physical characteristics a ‘race’ [which actually flies right in the face of the dictionary], because ‘there is only one race’, and that such a group must be called a ‘people’ or a ‘community’ or an ‘ethnicity’) is typically left-wing. Right-wing ideologies have no problem using the term ‘race’ as it has historically been used and is retained in dictionaries. Only left-wingers, with their newborn idea of ‘political correctness’, complain about this. This, of course, is not to say that OP or anyone who agrees with him is a left-winger, but they do accept this leftist idea.

I think it has to do with context tbh.

Like how?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I think if you wrote this and replaced the word "race" with "ethnicity" it would be more acceptable and more accurate. What you are talking about are ethnic differences. Race is a much more crude way to classify people i.e. black, white, red, yellow. At least that is how I grew up understanding race.

That is your problem. The term ‘race’ is not crude in any way; it is recorded in the dictionary precisely with that meaning, with no derogatory connotations. It is synonymous with ‘ethnicity’.

 

[rturner76]

That is your problem. The term ‘race’ is not crude in any way; it is recorded in the dictionary precisely with that meaning, with no derogatory connotations. It is synonymous with ‘ethnicity’.

https://wi-recordcheck.org/help/racecodes.htm

This is what I mean about race as a description. The way the government uses it:

W-White B-Black A-Asian I-Indian U-Unknown

It's a crude way to quickly classify someone.

 

[jeager016]

https://wi-recordcheck.org/help/racecodes.htm

This is what I mean about race as a description. The way the government uses it:

W-White B-Black A-Asian I-Indian U-Unknown

It's a crude way to quickly classify someone.

Well what would you suggest to change that?

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

W-White B-Black A-Asian I-Indian U-Unknown

It's a crude way to quickly classify someone.

Why on Earth is it crude? It is not crude at all; it is merely factual. If my skin is white, why can I not be classified as ‘White’? If my friend's skin is black, why can he not be classified as ‘Black’? It is simply descriptive, not negative in any way.

The only reason why you perceive it to be crude is (I suspect) the fact that, for example, black people have historically been seen as inferior to white people. However, that is not at all what we are saying. We are only describing their skin colour, not stigmatising them or reducing their value. So long as we can agree that being black has no less value than being white, then using such labels to classify people (based on their observable skin colour) is not a problem.

Actually, more than being just descriptive, it is actually quite helpful. For example, if the police want to identify a criminal, a useful piece of information to get from eyewitnesses is the individual's skin colour: it helps narrow down the search field for the wanted person.

Saying, ‘I am white and my friend is black’ should not be a problem nowadays. I am by no means implying that he is inferior to me; if you think I am, then you are the one inserting such an idea into my words, because I completely disagree.

 

[jeager016]

https://wi-recordcheck.org/help/racecodes.htm

This is what I mean about race as a description. The way the government uses it:

W-White B-Black A-Asian I-Indian U-Unknown

It's a crude way to quickly classify someone.

How would police and government agencies classify people
for descriptive purposes.
Would police put out a description of a wanted person by:
"It" is a something foot, something inch, tall, white, black, brown,
oriental, male, female person, with a tattoo of something on it's somewhere".
Really?
There is race, color, creed, national origin, religion, etc. so get a grip and get over it.
Describing some person as a white male with a religious tattoo
isn't racism.
A black female with a Hajib isn't very descriptive.

 

[jeager016]

^^^that could be anyone or any sex.

 

[rturner76]

Why on Earth is it crude? It is not crude at all; it is merely factual. If my skin is white, why can I not be classified as ‘White’? If my friend's skin is black, why can he not be classified as ‘Black’? It is simply descriptive, not negative in any way.

The only reason why you perceive it to be crude is (I suspect) the fact that, for example, black people have historically been seen as inferior to white people. However, that is not at all what we are saying. We are only describing their skin colour, not stigmatising them or reducing their value. So long as we can agree that being black has no less value than being white, then using such labels to classify people (based on their observable skin colour) is not a problem.

Actually, more than being just descriptive, it is actually quite helpful. For example, if the police want to identify a criminal, a useful piece of information to get from eyewitnesses is the individual's skin colour: it helps narrow down the search field for the wanted person.

Saying, ‘I am white and my friend is black’ should not be a problem nowadays. I am by no means implying that he is inferior to me; if you think I am, then you are the one inserting such an idea into my words, because I completely disagree.

You said race and ethnicity were synonymous and I was showing that they are clearly not.

 

[jeager016]

Thinking of that a person dressed that way could hide a LOT
of explosives.
Sorry. Was that racist?
Or just my paranoia?

 

[rturner76]

How would police and government agencies classify people
for descriptive purposes.
Would police put out a description of a wanted person by:
"It" is a something foot, something inch, tall, white, black, brown,
oriental, male, female person, with a tattoo of something on it's somewhere".
Really?
There is race, color, creed, national origin, religion, etc. so get a grip and get over it.
Describing some person as a white male with a religious tattoo
isn't racism.
A black female with a Hajib isn't very descriptive.
View attachment 181863

I was responding to someone who said ethnicity and race were synonymous and I was showing that they are clearly not

 

[rturner76]

Thinking of that a person dressed that way could hide a LOT
of explosives.
Sorry. Was that racist?
Or just my paranoia?

That was probably both actually

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

You said race and ethnicity were synonymous and I was showing that they are clearly not.

Why are they not? I fail to understand.

And I still fail to understand why it is crude to identify people by their skin colour. I wonder whether it is also crude to identify people by their eye colour, hair colour, hair length, height, weight or even gender, for that matter.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Thinking of that a person dressed that way could hide a LOT
of explosives.
Sorry. Was that racist?
Or just my paranoia?

I think it was a mix of your paranoia and a false social stigma that Muslims are terrorists. Not racism, because Islam is not a race.

 

[rturner76]

Why are they not? I fail to understand.

And I still fail to understand why it is crude to identify people by their skin colour. I wonder whether it is also crude to identify people by their eye colour, hair colour, hair length, height, weight or even gender, for that matter.

Because it's not skin color it's a caricature of skin color. People are brown, light brown dark, brown, tan, pink.

 

[Received]

I'll give you an example. I'm a male, so a growth in my abdomen that is genetically different to me is probably a problem, but if I was a female it probably wouldn't be a problem.

Here's another example. I'm a white Anglo-Celtic, so if I was found to have sickle-cell anaemia, that would be a worry. But if I was a black-skinned person from sub-Saharan Africa, then it's pretty normal.

So people aren't people. We are all equal, be we ain't all the same.

It's important to distinguish what makes us all the same. That would none other than ol' consciousness itself. From a fancy theological point of view, you might say the soul is consciousness, and since we all have the same consciousness, we all share the same ground of the soul -- what makes my soul mine is etched out by my physical limitations and how they confer my experience of the world phenomenologically. And what's the ground of the soul? God. "The same eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me." -- Meister Eckhart

Once we see that we all see through the same see-er, and that the foundation of this capacity to see is shared by God, then it's pretty much impossible to argue for differences when it comes to what really matters. Everything else, from the genes we're born with to the phenotypes which express them and the epigenetic variables that help express them, are all contingent; they help make us who we are, distinct from one another, but on the deepest level we're all the same, man.

 

[rturner76]

Not if they don't have the numbers they won't. Demography is destiny. Whites are not having babies, are well below replacement, and are dying out.

The future of the USA is to be Los Estados Unidos Norte Americanos.

The future of Europe is Sharia 2080.

The "mongrel races" will out populate the Europeans but the will be ruled from Ivory towers by the inbred. /sarcasm

 

[jeager016]

The "mongrel races" will out populate the Europeans but the will be ruled from Ivory towers by the inbred.

Please define "mongrel races".
The dictionary says...
mon·grel1
/ˈmäNGɡrəl, ˈməNGɡrəl/
noun

1. a dog of no definable type or breed:

Pardon me but that is a poor and rude way to describe humans.
Am I a "mongrel"?
I have a bit of American Indian and Oriental in my genetic
background.
I suspect many if not much, of the citizens of the U.S.
have a very mixed racial, ethnic, background.
One of my cousins into Ancestry e-mailed me and said
our "white" family has some sub Saharan genes.
I dunno.