of facts vs. opinion?
insisting that "race" must be biologically real in order for racISM to be real?
or that there is such a thing as antiwhite racism?
The first is a fundamental failure of logic generally, so no amount of facts will make any difference.
The second is disproven by the easy and common observation that people are capable of being mistaken; thus there is no requirement that one must have accurate information in order to take action...people routinely act upon false or mistaken information. If you want to get more specific than that, you're welcome to visit the appropriate thread(s) where that issue is actually the topic (done here, it would be a derail).
The third claim has already been demonstrated here, by Luna Tick, who has articulated instances of being on the receiving end of antiwhite racism. Unless you're denying his experience outright, that's already enough demonstration of the fact that there exist one or more persons on earth who subscribe to racism and behave in a racist manner against people assigned as "white."
I'm asking you to show me where and how race doesn't exist.
Wow, 77 vs 3 voters, @ 5/30/2012.
The issue needn't be complicated. Assuming race exists all races can be targetted by the racism of other races.
That has already been asked and answered. As cmakaioz already noted
And in this post of yours, even you acknowledge that the existence of race is just an assumption, not a scientific fact.
I don't believe Cmakaioz has explained it well enough.
Race may exist. It may not. Assuming race does exist then obviously they can be targetted by racism. Even if race doesn't exist, they can still be targetted by this notion we've termed "racism."
Is there any empirical scientific data that race does or doesn't exist? Why do black people have darker skin to protect from UV rays? Why is it that some Asians supposedly are unable to digest milk well? If race does not exist then why does it seem that there are some large groups of people that have a higher average of certain traits than others, like skin color?
Well, at least you provided a general link to the scholarly articles I was reading earlier. Thanks.
I was more wanting to hear Cma's concise reasoning why he believe race doesn't exist. It's that simple.
Well, at least you provided a general link to the scholarly articles I was reading earlier. Thanks.
I was more wanting to hear Cma's concise reasoning why he believe race doesn't exist. It's that simple.
Would you like someone to hold your hand and give you a lollipop while you're at it, or can you manage to go there on your own?
One need not be in power to harbor or act upon racist ideology. One does have to have political power, however, to participate in racist oppression.
Racism is indeed bad, but it's neither universal nor impulsive.
It is widely taught.
Institutionalized practices, on the other hand, do not require ideological commitment for their impact.
And yet here we are, already poised on the edge of where I expected the thread to go: it was framed as a nonsensical opinion poll about a factual matter, and within a short time it has already turned to a growing case of denial of obvious privilege, promotion of implied false equivalency, serial intellectual dishonesty (in preemptively "responding" to claims never made, and projection of stances and views not actually held by posters participating in the thread).
I've seen this movie a thousand times.
I happen to agree with him. The majority of folk, if it were put to referendum, would not have voted for the passage of the civil rights act, and the trans-formative effects it has had on American society. It was therefore, naturally, a more powerful minority (lawmakers) overpowering majority opinion.
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.
Of course there is anti-white racism. Does it happen on a systematic level? No. Does it happen at a social level? Absolutely.
15 yrs ago I would have said you were 100% right....today your just half right. There is systematic anti white racism, not to the level of white on black racism but it is there now....Eric Holder is one example...
15 yrs ago I would have said you were 100% right....today your just half right. There is systematic anti white racism, not to the level of white on black racism but it is there now....Eric Holder is one example...
Actually, there are countless examples of systemic anti-white racism in the media, as well as in employment and education. The anti-white racism in the media is most readily observable in the news media's reporting of certain crimes, the death of Trayvon Martin being the most recent. The Christian-Newsom murders are another example, as was the Duke Lacrosse Fiasco. Of course, the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies results in thousands of instances where more qualified whites are deliberately passed over for admissions, employment, and promotions in the name of ensuring racial diversity of opportunity. Thus, while it can certainly be argued that minorities are often the victims of institutionalized racism, it cannot be argued that whites are not also such victims.
Somebody does not know the difference between systemic and systematic. Actually, they don't even know what Affirmative Action is.
Perhaps, you would like to explain?
Systemic and systematic are not the same thing, a dictionary could explain why.
Systematic antiwhite racism doesnt exist.
Not on any visible scale at least.
The media (at least in the US context) is primarily owned by whites so how can there possibly be a systematic antiwhite prejudice in it?
As far as your little swipe at Obama and holder. You just see it(the racism) now that a black president and AG are around. Not that they´ve done anything significantly different than the president or AG before them. Actually, most policies of the Bush administration are still firmly in place.
There is such a thing as Race (as both Wake and You state and we all know on some level), but is Un-PC to say so. Its also less technically correct than using "indigenous peoples".Actually, there are countless examples of systemic anti-white racism in the media, as well as in employment and education. The anti-white racism in the media is most readily observable in the news media's reporting of certain crimes, the death of Trayvon Martin being the most recent. The Christian-Newsom murders are another example, as was the Duke Lacrosse Fiasco. Of course, the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies results in thousands of instances where more qualified whites are deliberately passed over for admissions, employment, and promotions in the name of ensuring racial diversity of opportunity. Thus, while it can certainly be argued that minorities are often the viectims of institutionalized racism, it cannot be argued that whites are not also such victims.
Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically Valid and Real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
... Partly this is because for more than a decade now U.S. national and regional forensic anthropology organizations have deemed it necessary to quantitatively test both traditional and new methods for accuracy in legal cases. I volunteered for this task of testing methods and developing new methods in the late 1980s. What have I found? Where do I now stand in the "great race debate?" Can I see truth on one side or the other—or on both sides—in this argument?
Bones don't lie
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a High Degree of Accuracy in determining geographic Racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon justone of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations. ... My students ask, "How can this be? They can identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in race!"...
"The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me
Seeing both sides
Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. Yet I do see why many other physical anthropologists are able to ignore or deny the race concept.... Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc....."
On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.
How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?..."
Well, in fairness... We're #1!!
American ingenuity and all that.
Go America!!
See that, whites were forced to drink from a different water fountain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?