Racism Discussion - what is race? what is racism?

[SaintsSeptember]

Ok so if i get an asian girlfriend but dont like Nyoongars, am i a racist?

Can i call them Nyoongars?

Not trolling or trying to be offensive. Srs.

Was Hitler racist? Apparently he didn't mind the English, especially the tall blonde blue eyed ones. In fact there were hardly any races that he tried to annihilate.
Now answer your own question.

You may also ask yourself what ALL Nyoongars have in common that you dislike. How do you know there are not some that you do like? Or are you simply saying you don't find their racial features sexually attractive?

 

[louismaxwell]

Was Hitler racist? Apparently he didn't mind the English, especially the tall blonde blue eyed ones. In fact there were hardly any races that he tried to annihilate.
Now answer your own question.

You may also ask yourself what ALL Nyoongars have in common that you dislike. How do you know there are not some that you do like? Or are you simply saying you don't find their racial features sexually attractive?

I tend to agree with you , some of our indigenous brethren have not been blessed in the looks department but that doesn't mean people should show any racism towards them for that reason, treat them as you would treat any other person regardless.

 

[vealesy]

I tend to agree with you , some of our indigenous brethren have not been blessed in the looks department but that doesn't mean people should show any racism towards them for that reason, treat them as you would treat any other person regardless.

Bullshit.

I thumb my nose at all those that are uglier than me.

I dont discriminate by skin colour.

 

[vealesy]

Are you a white straight male??

Yes but im poor and dumb.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes but im poor and dumb.

I'm racist against poor dumb white people, but I'm probably uglier than you, so you won't care.

 

[medusala]

Pointing out that a certain posters woeful efforts re correlation and causation (regurgitated from Crikey) re illegal immigrants were about as valid as a Damian Drum game plan is racist.

Ditto pointing out that Bringing Them Home conclusions weren't based on anything like a half decent standard of evidence and that when cases were brought to caught it all went Pete Tong.

 

[Old Spice]

Yes but im poor and dumb.

Got it half right I reckon.

 

[Old Spice]

These biological rationalisations for racism are pretty lame. As though we are all beasts of the jungle, bashing each other on the coconut to gain an advantage. If you want to go base on biological explanations, is raping a biological imperative because we biologically want to reproduce?

The fact is that humans are social creatures that rely more on co-operation to survive than individual prowess. As anyone even slightly familiar with biology will know, homo sapiens were the least equipped in the animal kingdom to survive alone by the equipment nature furnished them with. No talons, sharp teeth, lightning speed or strength. The capacity to survive was 1st, 2nd and 3rd a matter of working cooperatively together as a group to outwit stronger rivals. That is the deep biological imperative of the human condition - we are zoon politikon - social animals.

The concept of the solo-man owes a debt of gratitude not to the scientific fact of human co-operation, communication and trade but to the 19th century philosophical and literary concept of the individual, a Robinson Crusoe individual who apparently can live apart from his fellow man.

Similarly, racism is that idea that there exists a deep biological root to that idea, but in fact it arises again in the 19th century as the idea of the nation state takes hold and is pushed by a middle class who confect an idea of nation as an alternative way of thinking and challenging the state and monarchical power.

In ancient Rome you find figures like Septimus Severus becoming emperors, coming not from Rome but Libya, or a Marcus Aurelius from what would today be considered Spain. No-one particularly cared in the monarchies of Europe where someone was born in the middle to early modern era.

In short race is a modern ideological construct which attempts to explain the economic and social problems of a nation as resulting from race issues rather than political or economic problems.

 

[medusala]

Similarly, racism is that idea that there exists a deep biological root to that idea, but in fact it arises again in the 19th century as the idea of the nation state takes hold and is pushed by a middle class who confect an idea of nation as an alternative way of thinking and challenging the state and monarchical power.

In ancient Rome you find figures like Septimus Severus becoming emperors, coming not from Rome but Libya, or a Marcus Aurelius from what would today be considered Spain. No-one particularly cared in the monarchies of Europe where someone was born in the middle to early modern era.

In short race is a recent construct.

Yeah Rome was full of love for barbarians. What happened to your Lenin avatar or was it Stalin?

 

[Old Spice]

Yeah Rome was full of love for barbarians. What happened to your Lenin avatar or was it Stalin?

The Roman Empire was pretty ****ed for ordinary Romans, so you probably would have gotten on well there. But back to the point of the discussion, race was not an issue there. I can see that you also don't have any idea about the Roman empires attitude to 'Barbarians'.

At several points the Roman Empire not only co-opted and bought in multiple regions they made people from those regions emperors. Anyone who adopted the Roman model - Gauls, Visigoths etc - were then incorporated into the system. In fact the Roman army would become in large part staffed by the Barbarians.

It was purely pragmatic. There was no sense of a racial/cultural division.

 

[medusala]

The Roman Empire was pretty ****** for ordinary Romans, so you probably would have gotten on well there. But back to the point of the discussion, race was not an issue there. I can see that you also don't have any idea about the Roman empires attitude to 'Barbarians'.

At several points the Roman Empire not only co-opted and bought in multiple regions they made people from those regions emperors. Anyone who adopted the Roman model - Gauls, Visigoths etc - were then incorporated into the system. In fact the Roman army would become in large part staffed by the Barbarians.

Sure, they coopted them and could not have succeeded without them. See Arminius as one of many examples. Just because they forced them in to the army as part of a bargain doesn't mean they had a high opinion of them. Did decimation relate to Roman only legions?

See Brits and the Irish. Cannon fodder for a long time. Wellington's (born in Ireland IIRC) army in Spain had a very large % of Irish.

 

[Old Spice]

Sure, they coopted them and could not have succeeded without them. See Arminius as one of many examples. Just because they forced them in to the army as part of a bargain doesn't mean they had a high opinion of them. Did decimation relate to Roman only legions?

See Brits and the Irish. Cannon fodder for a long time. Wellington's (born in Ireland IIRC) army in Spain had a very large % of Irish.

Again, you show you don't have any idea about Roman history which is important here because there is a suggestion that race has a long and entrenched human history. The reality is that Roman emperors came from regions which are today France, Libya, Spain, Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.

The Roman army was always held together by money. In the period of the Republic farmers would fight but when they did their properties were bought up and became the basis of a land grab by wealthy individuals who instituted a latifundia system of production. The Roman Empire survived for hundreds of years after that and it was well established that the army was a paid and professional outfit actually from 30 BC during the Republican era.

What remains a fact is that, like the middle ages in Europe, there was no concern about race for the ruling class precisely because there was no concept of it. Most peasants never traveled more than 10 kms outside of their place of birth so the idea that they held some trenchant views about foreigners is utterly ridiculous. Racial ideas spring into fashion with middle-class nationalists of the 19th century because they desperately needed allies from the lower classes to buttress their political and economic ambitions.

 

[medusala]

Again, you show you don't have any idea about Roman history which is important here because there is a suggestion that race has a long and entrenched human history.

That is tosh. See the writing of history propagated by Romans that viewed everyone else as inferior. Just because they allowed some to become Romanised (hardly multicultural) didn't change that.

Do you think because the Poms had heaps of Indians etc in their army that they considered them as equal?

What remains a fact is that, like the middle ages in Europe, there was no concern about race for the ruling class precisely because there was no concept of it.

Its not like the Jews got a hard time in a number of European countries. Just as I am sure it was all beer and skittles in the Balkans as well as in Constantinople, Andalucía etc.

 

[Schache It Off]

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. - Ron Paul.

It's no wonder why the left are so keen on dividing up society to suit their agenda. Parasites.

 

[clogged]

That is tosh. See the writing of history propagated by Romans that viewed everyone else as inferior. Just because they allowed some to become Romanised (hardly multicultural) didn't change that.

See what?

Do you think because the Poms had heaps of Indians etc in their army that they considered them as equal?

What does a rhetorical question about the English have to do with Roman history.

 

[vealesy]

What the hell did i say that was racist??

This website is a ******* joke.

Bunch of leftist scum.

 

[SpuriousPea]

In short race is a modern ideological construct which attempts to explain the economic and social problems of a nation as resulting from race issues rather than political or economic problems.

It's nice to know differences in hormone levels, gestation time, brain size, eye size, genital size, hair type, bone density, fat distribution, age of puberty onset, lifespan, twinning rates, myopia rates, effectiveness of certain medications and disease rates are all simply due ideological constructs.

 

[Malifice]

It's nice to know differences in hormone levels, gestation time, brain size, eye size, genital size, hair type, bone density, fat distribution, age of puberty onset, lifespan, twinning rates, myopia rates, effectiveness of certain medications and disease rates are all simply due ideological constructs.

I am different in all of those factors to you.

What race am I?

 

[SpuriousPea]

I am different in all of those factors to you.

What race am I?

Jew?

 

[Malifice]

Jew?

Intresting choice of 'race'.

 

[Upgrayedd]

It's nice to know differences in hormone levels, gestation time, brain size, eye size, genital size, hair type, bone density, fat distribution, age of puberty onset, lifespan, twinning rates, myopia rates, effectiveness of certain medications and disease rates are all simply due ideological constructs.

Do you believe that certain people in every race could have differences in hormone levels, gestation time, brain size, eye size, genital size, hair type, bone density, fat distribution, age of puberty onset, lifespan, twinning rates, myopia rates, effectiveness of certain medications and disease rates?

The fact that a lot of this stuff is not exclusive to one race lends me to ask you how can you parade this as a potential fact in "races" when it only applies most the time? there can be huge differences between all these issues within "Races" from where you decended from, Irish/English can be just as different as asians/blacks, in terms of health/lifespan/bone density ect. Don't ask me to point out an irish and english bloke in a line-up.

Race is a social fact, It's hard to argue this, Due to social/cultural obsession with looks, however what people still struggle that scientificly, were the F**king same.

 

[vealesy]

We are NOT the same. Some are better than others.

Why dont people realise this?

Its called evolving. Get on board or die.

 

[vealesy]

I'm racist against poor dumb white people, but I'm probably uglier than you, so you won't care.

So does this guy get an infraction for this?

Or is it acceptable because its against whites?

 

[Old Spice]

It's nice to know differences in hormone levels, gestation time, brain size, eye size, genital size, hair type, bone density, fat distribution, age of puberty onset, lifespan, twinning rates, myopia rates, effectiveness of certain medications and disease rates are all simply due ideological constructs.

You forgot to mention earlobe size, baldness, second toes, cankles, hirsuteness, hand size, foot arches, bellybuttons, nostril size, protruding elbows, neck thickness, eyelash length and ear hair which of course are all as significant as the factors you mention in determining what 'race' is about, where race is considered physically limited and uniform.

But back to the original point which you seemed to have slipped over, someones language and physical attributes weren't considered important in the way they are from the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Hence why I state, as an historical fact, that not only Roman citizens, but Roman Emperors were drawn from all quarters of the Roman Empire.

Why some physical characteristics - that you seem to think are timeless distinctions and problems - did not matter then is a question you seem unable to address because you look for 19th century+ definitions of race which are of course to do with an aspiring middle-class looking to carve out a political sphere of influence on the basis of the idea of a nation state. You seem unable to comprehend the fact that nature doesn't provide any definitions of things but that people do that, arbitrarily. Nietzsche gives a good example regarding such specious reasoning where we think we uncover something but we just label it.

"When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal" I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value."

 

[Old Spice]

That is tosh. See the writing of history propagated by Romans that viewed everyone else as inferior. Just because they allowed some to become Romanised (hardly multicultural) didn't change that.

Do you think because the Poms had heaps of Indians etc in their army that they considered them as equal?

Its not like the Jews got a hard time in a number of European countries. Just as I am sure it was all beer and skittles in the Balkans as well as in Constantinople, Andalucía etc.

I think you're getting confused again comrade. The idea of the Barbarian was borrowed by the Romans from the Hellenic period but that was never a racial concept, it was a cultural concept. The Parthians, Egyptians and the Chinese held a similar view about the superior nature of their states and culture, but anyone who could continue that culture was not excluded, see the shifting capitals of Egypt and the tribal claimants to Chinese power.

Your parallel about Indians serving in the service of the allies is ridiculous because an Indian never did, and never had any chance of becoming the leader of the British empire, whereas Libyans, Turks, Gauls, Syrians, Bulgarians and Germanics certainly did in Rome/Holy Roman Empire. Read the same for China, Phillip II or Alexander the Great in the Hellenic period.