What is Racism?

[Science Girl]

What is Racism? by Thomas Jackson

The following article was Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8, see http://www.amren.com/

What is Racism?

Everyone talks about "racism" but no one ever defines it.
AR's assistant editor has given it a try.

by Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.

For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reports that black students are less well qualified than white students, it sets off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Complete text at http://www.commonsenseclub.com/racism.html

[Science Girl]

By the way, I should mention that I myself am "a person of color," but I still found this article to have some merit when pointing out the many double standards within the whole field of racism activism.

Science Girl

[Nobody]

I'm confused, what's the debate?

[Science Girl]

I'm confused, what's the debate?

Are Whites uniquely critisized for ethnocentrism when all other racial groups display the same ethnocentrism for their own group?

[Nobody]

Are Whites uniquely critisized for ethnocentrism when all other racial groups display the same ethnocentrism for their own group?
Ah yes, this is something I've thought about myself (and not that this makes any difference, but I'm about as white as they come.)

Anyway, I've noticed that minorities are allowed to express points of view that would get whites into trouble. For example, a white who expresses the opinion that whites should only date and marry other whites is deemed a racist (and usually they are), but if a black person says that blacks shouldn't date/marry non blacks, well, that's OK. Or if a white person spouts off all of the things that are great about being white, again, they're usually pegged as racist (and again, they usually are), but a black person who does that is simply expressing "black pride", or for Native American it would be Native American pride, and so on.

I also wanted to post as to why I think this double standard exists, but I've been stuck for 5 or 10 minutes unable to do so. Not because I don't have an opinion on the subject, but because I am having the hardest time typing it out. All I can mange to get out is that it's my belief that this is due in part to things like this countries racist past as well as other factors like political correctness and.... Hell, I'm going to have to post back later when I can get my thoughts in order.

[Science Girl]

. All I can mange to get out is that it's my belief that this is due in part to things like this countries racist past

All races have been racist in the past. But only white racist history is taught in schools and shown in the media: the racism of all other races in the past are hidden from public view. So, why are Whites the only ones who feel bad about it? Well, I guess it's part genetic, see http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/host.htm

My parents are very racist, they hate White people, they believe in Brown pride.

[Nobody]

All races have been racist in the past. But only white racist history is taught in schools and shown in the media: the racism of all other races in the past are hidden from public view. So, why are Whites the only ones who feel bad about it? Well, I guess it's part genetic, see http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/host.htm

My parents are very racist, they hate White people, they believe in Brown pride.
First, not that it matters, what ethnic group do you belong to? I'm just curious.

Second, wow, it's 12:30AM from where I'm posting right now and I'm getting too tired for coherent thought. I'll have to get back to this post tomorrow after I've had a good night sleep.

[Zagadka]

All races have been racist in the past. But only white racist history is taught in schools and shown in the media: the racism of all other races in the past are hidden from public view. So, why are Whites the only ones who feel bad about it?

I assume that you are speaking on a national level, not a global one, though you don't specify it.

The reason only white racism is taught in history courses in school is fairly simple - it is because (despite what your neoeugenics friends think about the Jewish NWO controlling everything) whites have been the only dominating race in the nation's history. Other races simply haven't had the chance to dominate history and cause a real large-scale effect.

As for the media, I disagree with you completely. The fact that even in a liberal state like California, something like "Affirmative Action" can be overturned so easily does not speak of media repressing reverse-racism.

[Kimstu]

SG: All races have been racist in the past. But only white racist history is taught in schools and shown in the media: the racism of all other races in the past are hidden from public view.

?? Really? I learned about lots of kinds of racism and ethnic discrimination in general in school and college and from the media, from the ancient Spartans' prejudice against the "helots" to present-day Japanese discrimination against the Ainu. White racism may be the most visible and most significant type of racism in contemporary US culture, but I'd hardly say that other types are "hidden from public view".

MC: For example, a white who expresses the opinion that whites should only date and marry other whites is deemed a racist (and usually they are), but if a black person says that blacks shouldn't date/marry non blacks, well, that's OK.

OK with whom? Plenty of people (including me) are offended by anybody's trying to make rules about whom other people should be allowed to marry.

What I think you're trying to get at is that although there are examples of racial chauvinism and prejudice in pretty much all racial groups, racism from the politically/socially dominant group gets the most attention and the most disapproval. ISTM that this is a natural consequence of the fact that usually only the racism of the dominant group has a significant impact on the legal/social status of other groups. All prejudice and hatred is bad, but in practical terms it's worse when it's expressed as institutionalized oppression and discrimination.

[EasyPhil]

By the way, I should mention that I myself am "a person of color," but I still found this article to have some merit when pointing out the many double standards within the whole field of racism activism.

Science Girl

What are the double standards? You mention you're "a person of color", what color would that be? Where are your parents from and what's their cultural background?

PS: I think you're a white person.

[Science Girl]

First, not that it matters, what ethnic group do you belong to? I'm just curious.

Brown ethnic group.

[Zagadka]

Brown ethnic group.
Brown is not an ethnicity, it is a color. Do you need us to explain what "ethnicity" is to you, or can you find a definition in your catalog?

[Science Girl]

PS: I think you're a white person.

LOL. Ya, wouldn't that be something, me a White girl. Actually, I'm glad I am not White, I'd just be part of the White sheep masses waiting to go to "Heaven" where you get year round free buffet of pork ribs and beer.

Actually, if I had to pick a race, I'd want to be Jewish, I'd have high intelligence, great wealth, and great social status.

[Kimstu]

SG: Actually, if I had to pick a race, I'd want to be Jewish, I'd have high intelligence, great wealth, and great social status.

Unless, of course, you turned out to be one of the many Jews who are dumb, poor, and/or lower-class. Science Girl, you are not exactly covering yourself with glory so far in the fight against ignorance.

[mascaroni]

I've heard it often on the board that race is a 'social construct'...
Being English, I'm not 100% sure about what that means (because you lot over the pond speak a different language...) but, from what I can gather, it means that race is an artificial invention to distinguish people with different skin colour.
So where does that leave 'Racism'?
Another 'social construct'?

What about...
Tutsis v Hutus... Racist?
Serbs v Croats... Racist?
Tottenham v Arsenal... Racist?

From my own point of view, I think culture is more important than race in regards to people 'fitting in'. I tend to have far more in common with my friends of Jamaican or Indian ancestry than I do with the French...

[Kimstu]

SG: Actually, I'm glad I am not White, I'd just be part of the White sheep masses waiting to go to "Heaven" where you get year round free buffet of pork ribs and beer.

Well, you said you intended this thread to draw attention to the phenomenon of non-white racism against whites, and I guess you're succeeding, although perhaps not quite in the way you intended.

[Nobody]

I assume that you are speaking on a national level, not a global one, though you don't specify it.

The reason only white racism is taught in history courses in school is fairly simple - it is because (despite what your neoeugenics friends think about the Jewish NWO controlling everything) whites have been the only dominating race in the nation's history. Other races simply haven't had the chance to dominate history and cause a real large-scale effect.

As for the media, I disagree with you completely. The fact that even in a liberal state like California, something like "Affirmative Action" can be overturned so easily does not speak of media repressing reverse-racism.
Well said. Now that I've gotten my sleep, I was going to post something similar, but since you already posted this, it would make my post redudnant. :cool:

[Nobody]

MC: For example, a white who expresses the opinion that whites should only date and marry other whites is deemed a racist (and usually they are), but if a black person says that blacks shouldn't date/marry non blacks, well, that's OK.

OK with whom? Plenty of people (including me) are offended by anybody's trying to make rules about whom other people should be allowed to marry.

What I think you're trying to get at is that although there are examples of racial chauvinism and prejudice in pretty much all racial groups, racism from the politically/socially dominant group gets the most attention and the most disapproval. ISTM that this is a natural consequence of the fact that usually only the racism of the dominant group has a significant impact on the legal/social status of other groups. All prejudice and hatred is bad, but in practical terms it's worse when it's expressed as institutionalized oppression and discrimination.
Good point. I wasn't trying to say that it's OK for minority members to be racist, just that they're less likely to be called on it than whites. Either that, or their views get rationalized as having a good reason behind them, whereas there's no good reason for whites to talk like that. And I agree 100% with you reason for this.

[Nobody]

Brown is not an ethnicity, it is a color. Do you need us to explain what "ethnicity" is to you, or can you find a definition in your catalog?
I'm sure that she knows what ethnicity is, she's just not giving a straight answer. I guess for some reason, she doesn't want us to know.

[panache45]

By the way, I should mention that I myself am "a person of color," but I still found this article to have some merit when pointing out the many double standards within the whole field of racism activism.

Science Girl
If you're a "person of color," why does your website contain the phrase "pro-White"? Unless, of course, you consider white to be a color.

[Nobody]

Are Whites uniquely critisized for ethnocentrism when all other racial groups display the same ethnocentrism for their own group?
You mean like this one?
LOL. Ya, wouldn't that be something, me a White girl. Actually, I'm glad I am not White, I'd just be part of the White sheep masses waiting to go to "Heaven" where you get year round free buffet of pork ribs and beer.
And I'm sorry to tell you but
Actually, if I had to pick a race, I'd want to be Jewish, I'd have high intelligence, great wealth, and great social status.
Jews ARE white. At least here in the states. In Israel, or other parts of the Middle East, you might find ones who are swarthy, but they still probably be considered "white".

[tomndebb]

All races have been racist in the past. But only white racist history is taught in schools and shown in the media: the racism of all other races in the past are hidden from public view. Oh, piffle.

Every time Farrakhan makes one of his idiotic claims about race (or sends one of hius bully boys out to a college campus to do the same) his racism gets reported in the news. Al Sharpton has been keeping his head down on the issue since he decided to play in politics, but he was routinely pointed out as a black racist when he was at trhe height of his demagoguery. There are a number of posters on this board who habitually attack Jesse Jackson for perceived racism.

The reason that racism is a big deal in the U.S. is because the U.S. is currently dealing with the effects of racist policies that were written into law using race as their criteria. People do enjoy fragmenting along various social/class/ethnic/religious/etc. lines. Few places have enshrined race in law the way that the U.S. has.

That makes the topic of race more pertinent to the study of history in the U.S.

Speaking as a white guy, I do not "feel bad" about past racism and I certainly do not feel any shame for actions in which I have not engaged. On the other hand, since I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a better world than the one in which I live, I believe that addressing current racial issues (which often requires understanding past racial actions) is important.

[John Mace]

Was there something lacking in the thread, "Define what racism really is" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247566) that made it necessary to open another one on exactly the same subject?

[gobear]

Once again, show tunes show us the path to wisdom:

Everyone's a little bit racist, alright?
Alright!
Bigotry has never been exclusively white
If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit
Even though we all know that it's wrong
Maybe it would help us get along!

"Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" from Avenue Q

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: Science Girl, please see this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4693079#post4693079).

[Science Girl]

SG: Actually, if I had to pick a race, I'd want to be Jewish, I'd have high intelligence, great wealth, and great social status.

Unless, of course, you turned out to be one of the many Jews who are dumb, poor, and/or lower-class. Science Girl, you are not exactly covering yourself with glory so far in the fight against ignorance.

Statistically speaking, Jews are the most successful ethnic group.

[Science Girl]

SG: Actually, I'm glad I am not White, I'd just be part of the White sheep masses waiting to go to "Heaven" where you get year round free buffet of pork ribs and beer.

Well, you said you intended this thread to draw attention to the phenomenon of non-white racism against whites, and I guess you're succeeding, although perhaps not quite in the way you intended.

I didn't say I myself am not an ethnocentrist; I just said Whites are the only ones criticized for it when in fact all races are ethnocentric.

[Science Girl]

You mean like this one?

And I'm sorry to tell you but

Jews ARE white. At least here in the states. In Israel, or other parts of the Middle East, you might find ones who are swarthy, but they still probably be considered "white".

American Jews are mostly Ashkenazi, a Semetic group, not White. Jews and Arabs are from the same original Semitic group.

[Zagadka]

American Jews are mostly Ashkenazi, a Semetic group, not White. Jews and Arabs are from the same original Semitic group.
What? American Jews are, to a large degree, eastern European.

[Joe Random]

I just said Whites are the only ones criticized for it when in fact all races are ethnocentric.Incorrect. Some members of all races are ethnocentric. You're making it sound like everyone believes that their own race is superior, which is simply not true.

[Science Girl]

What? American Jews are, to a large degree, eastern European.

They allowed a very small percentage of Eastern Whites into their gene pool, but they have maintained their genetic uniqueness. Judaism, the religion of ethnic Jews, never sought converts, like Christianity and Islam. It has been thought of as a religion for Semites and only Semites. But on the rare occasion when a Gentile really wants to convert, if he completes all the requirements, he may be allowed in, but rarely given full status as an official Jew. Professor Kevin MacDonald discusses this in detail, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm

[Science Girl]

Incorrect. Some members of all races are ethnocentric. You're making it sound like everyone believes that their own race is superior, which is simply not true.

I did not use the word "superior" but rather people have an affinity for their own ethnic group and culture. Just look at who is marrying who: interracial marriages are rare compared to intra-racial marriages. Sure there are exceptions, but I am looking at averages, not absolutes.

[Zagadka]

They allowed a very small percentage of Eastern Whites into their gene pool, but they have maintained their genetic uniqueness. Judaism, the religion of ethnic Jews, never sought converts, like Christianity and Islam. It has been thought of as a religion for Semites and only Semites. But on the rare occasion when a Gentile really wants to convert, if he completes all the requirements, he may be allowed in, but rarely given full status as an official Jew. Professor Kevin MacDonald discusses this in detail, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm
I'm sure my Jewish friends would be interested in hearing that, including the large populations of Jews in Europe and central Asia. But then, your scope seems to be limited to whatever book you're reading at the time, so...

[Zagadka]

I did not use the word "superior" but rather people have an affinity for their own ethnic group and culture. Just look at who is marrying who: interracial marriages are rare compared to intra-racial marriages. Sure there are exceptions, but I am looking at averages, not absolutes.
People also have an "affinity" for their own political group, fiscal class, statehood, etc. Sure, there are exceptions, but I am looking at averages, not absolutes. I don't know personally of one person (other than you, I guess) who would think twice about dating someone outside of their ethnicity. In fact, many people consider different ethnicities sexy, such as the "asian fetish."

[Joe Random]

I did not use the word "superior" but rather people have an affinity for their own ethnic group and culture.One of the definitions of "ethnocentric" is "Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group", so using that word in a thread about racism is bound to give people the wrong impression.

Perhaps another, made up word (like "ethnophilic") would be more appropriate.

[Bricker]

But on the rare occasion when a Gentile really wants to convert, if he completes all the requirements, he may be allowed in, but rarely given full status as an official Jew. Professor Kevin MacDonald discusses this in detail, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm


Not true. Jewish law requires that a person fully converted be treated exactly as any other Jew. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 268:12 .) So does Israeli secular law (Cite (http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0804/jpn0804e.htm)).

You offer "Professor Kevin MacDonald" as a cite for your claim, but the page you link to has no such information.

- Rick

[tomndebb]

American Jews are mostly Ashkenazi, a Semetic group, not White. Jews and Arabs are from the same original Semitic group. Semitic is a linguistic category, so being Semitic does not preclude being white. The peoples of the Levant and the lands extending Eastward have always been categorized as Caucasian in the outmoded "racial" groupings--meaning that they are white by any normal categorization.

But on the rare occasion when a Gentile really wants to convert, if he completes all the requirements, he may be allowed in, but rarely given full status as an official Jew. This is simply false. There are no rights or responsibilities bestowed or imposed on Jews by Jewish law that do not apply equally to all. (The single exception would be that a non-Jew could never become a priest, since that is a charter handed from father to son. However, the same is true of all other Jews who are not born Levites.) When considering "Professor" MacDonald's anti-Jewish polemics, one should take note of such obvious lies and consign his silliness to the trash bin where they belong.
It is entirely possible that some small number of people who have converted to Judaism have not been welcomed by all (any more than Jews who have converted to Christianity have always been welcomed). However, within a generation, the conversion of one's ancestors are forgotten and the children of people who have converted are not segregated in any way. The Jewish people do not have any secret lists of "real" Jews vs converts.

[Science Girl]

Not true. Jewish law requires that a person fully converted be treated exactly as any other Jew. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 268:12 .) So does Israeli secular law (Cite (http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0804/jpn0804e.htm)).

You offer "Professor Kevin MacDonald" as a cite for your claim, but the page you link to has no such information.

- Rick

Well, since you are not interested in taking the time to go through MacDonald's works, here is a compilation of relevant exerpts from his book: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ethnic.htm Judaism has been a very ethnocentric religion.

[tomndebb]

here is a compilation of relevant exerpts from his book: They arte, indeed, relevant. They demonstrate that there is nop scholarship in his series of cherry-picked phrases from Scripture and no historical evidence for any of his sweeping claims. For example:When the Jews were in Egypt, they inserted themselves between the ruling class and the masses, acting as a tight, cohesive, and literate tribe that became wealthy by acting collectively. When they were exiled to Babylon about 2600 years ago, they polished up their religious/tribal strategy in religious texts that have been used since then to produce a religion that is "this worldly." This is simply false. There is no evidence at all for his claims regarding the period in Egypt, so he is simply making up lies. (There are a number of scholars--some Jewish--who even doubt that the Jewish people were actually captive in Egypt, and there is certainly no evidence that "inserted themselves between the ruling class and the masses, acting as a tight, cohesive, and literate tribe that became wealthy.")
Similarly, while the period in Babylon saw efforts by Ezekiel to remind the Jews that they were a people whom God could restore to their place near Jerusalem, it also saw very clear calls by Isaiah to the Jews to recognize that they needed to extend their message justice to all the other nations--hardly a call to clannishness. In fact, following the return from the Babylonian exile, Jews began to take up roles as traders across the entire Euro-Asian-North African world and eventually, partially by accepting (not seeking) converts, grew to a position where they were the largest distinct minority scattered across all the the Ptolomaic and, later, Roman world. So much for exclusivity and ethnocentricity.

If his "scholarship" is based on lies and cherry-picked statements, and since nothing on that page actually demonstrates factual support for his broad claims, I see no reason to accept any of his other errors.

[Science Girl]

If his "scholarship" is based on lies and cherry-picked statements, and since nothing on that page actually demonstrates factual support for his broad claims, I see no reason to accept any of his other errors.

I trust Professor MacDonald's work. But I believe you are entitled to your opinion.

Regards.

[asterion]

Brown ethnic group.

UPS workers are a racial group now?

[Nobody]

UPS workers are a racial group now?
Hahahaha, that's a good one. :D

I'm going to guess that she's either Latino (or for women, would it be Latina?) or from India.

[RickJay]

Well, since you are not interested in taking the time to go through MacDonald's works, here is a compilation of relevant exerpts from his book: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ethnic.htm Judaism has been a very ethnocentric religion.
This isn't a "Compilation and relevant exerpts" from his book, it's an essay by a guy named Matt Nuencke, with precious few quotes from MacDonald.

Frankly, you should be openly skeptical of an author who claims Jews "turn Whites against themselves." MacDonald's frequent use of lies is a bit problematic, too. He's a notorious anti-Semite and has openly called for Jews to be excluded from universities, heavily taxed, and disadvantaged in other ways.

McDonald's entire theory seems to be that Jewish society is eugenics in action, a theory completely and utterly refuted by any reasonable examination of either history of basic biology, and based on "Facts" that MacDonald seems, in many cases, to have just totally made up off the top of his head. Jews (of any stripe) are not a distinct genetic race or even close to it, and the very concept of race is scientifically problematic. Do a few searches on the SDMB; we've beaten this horse to death.

I don't mean to be rude or engage in ad hominems, but you seem to have a way of citing racists with questionable academic qualifications as experts and "professors," based on their off-brand books and Web site ramblings. A student, as you claim to be, shouldn't be looking to Web sites that don't cite any primary sources as reasonable sources.

And I admit it does give me pause that MacDonald openly calls for Jews to be disenfranchised; your other source, the "Birdman," refers to Jews as a "malarial swamp" that "must be drained." If you're going to position yourself as anti-Jew you may as well come out and make your position on this matter clear, because your bibliography is sure tilted that way.

[Belowjob2.0]

Science Girl,

the site that you linked belongs to Matt Nuenke. He used to post a lot on Salon.com's message board. He's an avowed racist and white supremacist, anti-Semite, fiercely opposed to interracial marriage, the whole Stormfront program.

You also linked to American Rennaisance, another site produced by avowed racists, white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers.

I've come to believe that people like this pose a greater danger to white Americans than black Americans and other peoples of color. Why? Because they distract white Americans from the real issues. They encourage white Americans to think of themselves as victims, and withdraw from the real struggle to achieve something meaningful in a country that offers white people more opportunity for success than anywhere in the world. The Stormfront types have been misled, and seek to mislead others, with what Stanley Crouch calls the "Decoy of Race".

It goes almost without saying that the "scientific" evidence claimed by Nuenke, MacDonald, Jared Taylor, Rushton, et al. is pathetic stuff, debunked endlessly by legitimate scientists.

One of the big struggles that many black Americans go through is avoiding the bitterness and frustration that result from encounters with racism. It's difficult but crucial to focus on making the most of the opportunities that one does have, and not be consumed with bitterness over the opportunities that one doesn't. Black Americans still face racial discrimination in housing, employment, public education, and the justice system. The persistence of this discrimination has been proven by extensive testing as well as statistical analysis. Black Americans are constistently treated worse than whites in situations ranging from getting a table in a restaurant to house hunting to hiring and promotion on the job. One disparity I find particularly striking is difference in sentencing for homicide depending on whether the victim is white or black. Criminals who kill whites consistently get stiffer sentences than those who kill blacks.

Even with the discrimination that still exists, there are more opportunities for black Americans to succeed than have ever existed before. In her controversial book, The End of Blackness, Debra Dickerson argues that black Americans owe it to themselves to take full advantage of the opportunities that do exist, in spite of the fact that a lot of white people will never get it, never give up their racism or recognize how wrong it is.

The stormfront types aren't satisfied with the significant advantage that they already enjoy over black Americans and other peoples of color. They want an even greater advantage. They're not willing to jump in the game til they get a guarrantee that the refs will never call a foul against them. More and more this strikes me as an admission that they don't really want to play the game - they want to stand on the sidelines and complain about how the rules are stacked against them. It may be a tacit admission that they can't play the game at all.

[tomndebb]

I trust Professor MacDonald's work. But I believe you are entitled to your opinion. Well, I'm going to hold my informed opinion, regardless, but I am curious as to why you would choose to "trust" the work of someone who has proven himself a liar. Is there something comforting in the lies he tells that makes you feel good? It seems odd that someone who would choose the usename "Science Girl" would deliberately prefer lies to facts.

[Bricker]

I trust Professor MacDonald's work. But I believe you are entitled to your opinion.


His "work," at least insofar as can be determined by the links you have provided, is remarkably bereft of citations to evidence or source. It is, in other words, merely a collection of gratuitous assertions, which, as a student of debate, you yourself understand may be equally gratuitously denied.

On the other hand, even for the short claims I made, you will notice that I provided independent citations that directly support the factual claims I was making.

Based on that, for the moment I shall chose not to repose much trust in Mr. MacDonald's work. I am certainly open to other evidence of his scholarship, however.

- Rick

[Science Girl]

Well, I'm going to hold my informed opinion, regardless, but I am curious as to why you would choose to "trust" the work of someone who has proven himself a liar. Is there something comforting in the lies he tells that makes you feel good? It seems odd that someone who would choose the usename "Science Girl" would deliberately prefer lies to facts.

I don't believe he lied, rather I believe the sources you used are based on lies and perhaps you don't realize it

Regards.

[Zagadka]

I don't believe he lied, rather I believe the sources you used are based on lies and perhaps you don't realize it

Very scientific.

"Nyah nyah, you're wrong!" would be a more simple way of stating your "facts."

[Gaudere]

Science Girl
Actually, I'm glad I am not White, I'd just be part of the White sheep masses waiting to go to "Heaven" where you get year round free buffet of pork ribs and beer.

[Moderator Hat ON]

This is NOT the forum for race-bashing, Science Girl. You can get banned for hate speech here. Cool it.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Science Girl]

Science Girl


[Moderator Hat ON]

This is NOT the forum for race-bashing, Science Girl. You can get banned for hate speech here. Cool it.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

I had already apologized for my original posting style.

Regards.

[castaway]

By the way, I should mention that I myself am "a person of color," but I still found this article to have some merit when pointing out the many double standards within the whole field of racism activism.

Science Girl

Hello Science girl.

While I understand the historical context of "colored people," that to is kind of misleading the way it's used in the media these days.

To be blunt, "white people" who are typically defined, I would guess, as the colorless people, have the largest variety of color on the planet given their various shades of pigmentation. Eyes, skin and hair are all the most colorful on the planet.

It's kind of funny when you really think about how media covers things.

[tomndebb]

I don't believe he lied, rather I believe the sources you used are based on lies and perhaps you don't realize it. Go back and read his claim. He lied. He made a specific statement that the Jews in Egypt somehow "inserted" themselves between the Egyptian rulers and the poor people in Egypt and garnered wealth in that manner. However, that is pure invention. If we consider the Scriptures, we see that the Hebrews were the poorest of the peoples, not wealthy, at all. We also see that they were not "between" any other group and the Egyptian rulers. What he has done is project the lies of the anti-semitic racists of the late 19th and early 20th century who claimed that Jews were controlling the money and getting rich off the poor of Europe(and later the U.S.) and projected that propaganda back to the story of the sojourn in Egypt without providing any evidence and in direct contradiction of all know information. If he has an actual "source" for his claim, can you actually find it? Or will we simply see more lies? One distorted story of Joseph, coming up.

[Science Girl]

Hello Science girl.

While I understand the historical context of "colored people," that to is kind of misleading the way it's used in the media these days.

To be blunt, "white people" who are typically defined, I would guess, as the colorless people, have the largest variety of color on the planet given their various shades of pigmentation. Eyes, skin and hair are all the most colorful on the planet.

It's kind of funny when you really think about how media covers things.

Yes, that's true. I though am just one color: brown.

Regards.

[Zagadka]

Yes, that's true. I though am just one color: brown.

The same color as... wood.

Too bad Science Girl and castaway can't mate. They'd be perfect for each other.

What does this have to do with "what is racism" again?

[Science Girl]

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on race relations:

America in 2050: Another country

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

In 1960, when JFK defeated Nixon, America was a nation of 160 million, 90 percent white and 10 percent black, with a few million Hispanics and Asians sprinkled among us.

We were one nation, one people. We worshipped the same God, spoke the same English language, studied American history and English literature, honored the same heroes, read the same books, watched the same TV shows, went to the same movies, and saw ourselves as defenders of Western Civilization against the godless communism of the Soviet Empire.

Complete text at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37720

Regards

[Zagadka]

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on race relations:

We were one nation, one people. We worshipped the same God, spoke the same English language, studied American history and English literature, honored the same heroes, read the same books, watched the same TV shows, went to the same movies...
...sig-heiled the same leaders, had the same colored skin, thought the same way, repressed the same people, committed the same crimes, ignored the same social ills...

and saw ourselves as defenders of Western Civilization against the godless communism of the Soviet Empire.
hehe. Yea. That was pretty funny.

What exactly does that have to do with anything, Science Girl? Are you trying to show what racism is? Because that is a pretty admirable cite for racism.

[Atticus Finch]

Here is Pat Buchanan's take on race relations

Damn, you've won me over! Who could have guessed that such a distinguished commentator, universally recognized for his unbiased attitudes would support white supremacist arguments. I'm throwing in the towel right now!

Science Girl, I don't believe you're brown. I'm brownish myself, but I don't refer to myself as being of "brown ethnicity". Also, you appear to hold views held by white supremacists, which is uncommon for people of "brown ethnicity".

I don't believe you're a girl. I sure don't believe you're scientific, though maybe that's just a bit of artistic licence in your name. Your material, your style of argument and the way you end your posts with "Regards" make me think you're the sock of some banned poster. Why don't you have the courage to post as yourself?

[Zagadka]

Science Girl, I don't believe you're brown. I'm brownish myself, but I don't refer to myself as being of "brown ethnicity". Also, you appear to hold views held by white supremacists, which is uncommon for people of "brown ethnicity".
I believe the contrary. I believe she is "brown" - but she hates being brown, and carries deep guilt and regret for being born in such a poor position. It happens sometimes.

I don't believe you're a girl.
I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise, though I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way.

I sure don't believe you're scientific
I dunno, her well-rounded rebuttals of, "I don't believe that is true" and "You just don't believe my sources are true because you're a sheep of the Jewish NWO" are pretty convincing.

Your material, your style of argument and the way you end your posts with "Regards"
Y'know, you'd think someone would be able to figure out how to use the god damned .sig instead of typing that out every time, much less making everyone delete it when replying.

I'll say it again, the polite and nice ones like SG and castaway are what you have to watch out for. They make up for their controversial beliefs with pleasantries to make themselves appear more moral and upstanding than the unwashed, uneducated masses. It is part of their psychology.

[Science Girl]

Damn, you've won me over! Who could have guessed that such a distinguished commentator, universally recognized for his unbiased attitudes would support white supremacist arguments. I'm throwing in the towel right now!

Science Girl, I don't believe you're brown. I'm brownish myself, but I don't refer to myself as being of "brown ethnicity". Also, you appear to hold views held by white supremacists, which is uncommon for people of "brown ethnicity".

I don't believe you're a girl. I sure don't believe you're scientific, though maybe that's just a bit of artistic licence in your name. Your material, your style of argument and the way you end your posts with "Regards" make me think you're the sock of some banned poster. Why don't you have the courage to post as yourself?

I respect your opinioin.

Regards.

[Zagadka]

See, she's going for the martyrdom of the kind and generous angle now. She'll probably walk away from this board thinking about how abused she was, and be sad that we weren't open minded enough able to accept her new wisdom. Self-dellusion can be a powerful thing, but unfortunately, this'll probably only fuel her beliefs.

[Atticus Finch]

I respect your opinioin.

It's not respect if you answer arguments and accusations with nothing but meaningless phrases. It is not possible for you to respect my opinion that you are the sock for some banned poster.

[Science Girl]

It's not respect if you answer arguments and accusations with nothing but meaningless phrases. It is not possible for you to respect my opinion that you are the sock for some banned poster.

I believe debates should be objective and rational. As such, I am polite and don't use insults, name-callings, or ad hominem attacks. Others are the opposite, as has been evident in the threads I have started.

Regards.

[Atticus Finch]

If you want rational and objective, don't cite freaking Pat Buchanan and similar racist nutcases.

I am not attacking your character because your arguments are too tough for me to handle. I am attacking your character because I think that is why your "arguments" were screwed from the start. They were never going to launch any real debate, because there is no "Science Girl" but just some white supremacist who came in here to preach.

If you're not a sock, why not just deny it?

[Science Girl]

If you want rational and objective, don't cite freaking Pat Buchanan and similar racist nutcases.

I am not attacking your character because your arguments are too tough for me to handle. I am attacking your character because I think that is why your "arguments" were screwed from the start. They were never going to launch any real debate, because there is no "Science Girl" but just some white supremacist who came in here to preach.

If you're not a sock, why not just deny it?

Okey, I have never been to this forum before, this is my first time. I discovered this forum through http://www.big-boards.com/ And anyway, have you ever seen a White person with my personality? I am pretty sure you would not find a single White person who is as cool-headed and objective as I at Stormfront.org, where REAL "White Supremacist" types hang out. Most Whites are very sentimental by nature, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has studied in his works on differential psychology. Unless I am one of those rare statistical anomolies, I can only be non-White.

Regards

[Zagadka]

I think it would be more fair to classify SG as a racial supremecist guilt-ridden minority, rather than as a white supremecist. She clearly is racist, for whatever logical reasons she cites.

In fact, though, once again, SG, your vaunted "logic" is faulty. There are a number of "cool headed" and "objective" (though if you were truly objective, you would never use such terms as, "this is wrong because I don't agree with it" and freely admit that you are not using primary sources - and I prefer to thinj of that personality type as berift of personality) racists, including white supremecists who use the same "data" that you have been spewing. So, no, it does not mean that you can "only" be non-white.

[Karmagun]

Most Whites are very sentimental by nature, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has studied in his works on differential psychology.

Could you be so kind as to tell me how exactly you came to discover the theories of this 'Prof. MacDonald' person, please.

[RickJay]

Okey, I have never been to this forum before, this is my first time. I discovered this forum through http://www.big-boards.com/ And anyway, have you ever seen a White person with my personality? I am pretty sure you would not find a single White person who is as cool-headed and objective as I at Stormfront.org, where REAL "White Supremacist" types hang out. Most Whites are very sentimental by nature, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has studied in his works on differential psychology. Unless I am one of those rare statistical anomolies, I can only be non-White.
That is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted in the history of the SDMB.

I would ask for proof white people are disproportionately sentimental, but I have a feeling you don't have one. I can't even imagine how you would measure that.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Most Whites are very sentimental by nature, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has studied in his works on differential psychology. Unless I am one of those rare statistical anomolies, I can only be non-White.


What fascinats me is that when a white racist wants to impersonate someone who's not white, they can onlyimpersonate a non-white racist.

This failure of imagination may explain a lot of how they justify their beliefs: they cannot conceive that a person of a different skin color could possibly be less racist than they themselves are. Were they to realize that some brown, tawny, mahagony, and russet people DIDN'T care much about skin color, then maybe they would call pink people like myself race traitors.

They're similar to anti-racists, inasmuch as they believe everyone is the same under their skin. They just think everyone is, deep down, equally racist.

Fighting ignorance is one thing, but it can't be done when the opposition is dishonest. You can't play basketball with someone who tucks the ball under her arm and sprints across the parking lot to her car and drives away; you can't debate with someone who starts from a deceitful position.

Daniel

[Duck Duck Goose]

Just on the off-chance that the OP was asking a genuine question...

Q: "What is racism?"
A: "This. This is racism."


Most Whites are...

Any time you categorize people--make judgements about them--solely on the basis of their skin color, that is "racism".

Saying, "Most Whites are very sentimental by nature" is exactly the same thing as saying, "Most Blacks are very sentimental by nature".

Which as a matter of fact was something that did used to be said. In earlier eras Blacks were considered child-like and emotional creatures, who wept easily over things.

[jimmyjimmy]

In earlier eras Blacks were considered child-like and emotional creatures, who wept easily over things.

hey, just like women!

[Little Nemo]

Okay, let's have a quick show of hands. Anyone believe Science Girl's claim that she's a "person of color"? Anyone?

[Lemur866]

Eh, he/she's not "lying" when she they says she is a "person of color". And she's not lying when claiming to be brown. But she is certainly very very very very light brown. And since very very very very light brown is a color, she is therefore a "person of color". A color that most of us would call "white", but of course that is inaccurate! White people aren't really white skinned! Black people aren't really black skinned! She isn't anti-semitic because she doesn't hate Arabs, just Jews! She isn't a racist, she is a white separatist! She doesn't hate other races, she just loves her own race!

For some reason white racists like to play these semantic games when posting on non-racist parts of the internet. Almost like they're ASHAMED of themselves.

[Atticus Finch]

Science Girl is the sock of someone who came here with their idiotic white supremacist ideas in full view and got shot down in flames.

Therefore, he decided not to change his views but rather just come back, change his 'appearance' and spew the same kind of hateful nonsense but attempt to look more lovable while doing it.

The reason this irritates me so much is that he's too much of a coward to speak his mind and be himself. Come on out, Science Gir, you're not fooling anyone. You might as well take off the Klan hood and let us see your true colours.

[Zagadka]

Science Girl is the sock of someone who came here with their idiotic white supremacist ideas in full view and got shot down in flames.
I seem to recall something about a Razor... being simple... Oh well, doesn't matter, I'm sure.

Look. Whatever Science Girl may be, it displays an equal bias against all races on grounds of assumed logic. Labelling it a white supremecist because it has similar arguments to one is asinine, and ignores several key facts, one of which is that racism exists in other cultures and colors besides white. It is, in fact, rather ignorant to presume so - this is especially important here because SG has actually been arguing that East Asians are statistically superior to everyone, and whites are the median.

As I said, I don't find reason to doubt its claims at being "ethnic" from a white point of view. She likely holds a deep sorrow and regret at being "brown," hating herself and her society for it, which makes her more malleable to these arguments. It isn't the first time in history that someone has hated their ethnicity, and racial guilt is certainly nothing new, especially to white folk like, I presume, most of you, who immediately perceive all forms of racism as being white supremacy.

[Atticus Finch]

I disagree. It is using techniques commonly used by white supremacists - it appears to be following tactics mentioned in the recent pit thread. It cites white supremacist authors, displays a knowledge of Stormfront etc.

Ockham's Razor, in this case - If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[vetbridge]

Okay, let's have a quick show of hands. Anyone believe Science Girl's claim that she's a "person of color"? Anyone?


The "girl's" as white as her sheet. :(

[Gaudere]

Science Girl is the sock of someone who came here with their idiotic white supremacist ideas in full view and got shot down in flames.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Discssion of who is a sock or a troll should not be done in the forums; please email a mod if you suspect someone is a sock or troll. Wanna get back to the debate here?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Duck Duck Goose]

...there's a debate here? :D


The OP had nothing but a link and excerpts from an article. When pressed for a debateable OP, it provided the following:Are Whites uniquely critisized for ethnocentrism when all other racial groups display the same ethnocentrism for their own group?Seems we've spent most of the thread discussing the possible gender(s) and skin color(s) of the OP. So, shall we get back to that?

One vote here for "null gender" and "pixel-colored".

:D

[Nobody]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Discssion of who is a sock or a troll should not be done in the forums; please email a mod if you suspect someone is a sock or troll. Wanna get back to the debate here?

[Moderator Hat OFF]
Sure thing. What was the debate again? :confused:

In the beginning, I think it was about non white's not being condemned for racist statements, whereas whites are, I think, but as this thread has gone on, I'm beginning to wonder if it's lost all meaning. Is there a clear debate here, and if so, what is it?

[Nobody]

...there's a debate here? :D


The OP had nothing but a link and excerpts from an article. When pressed for a debateable OP, it provided the following:Seems we've spent most of the thread discussing the possible gender(s) and skin color(s) of the OP. So, shall we get back to that?

One vote here for "null gender" and "pixel-colored".

:D
I have no clue about her gender, but I'll assume she is female, for now. And I won't accuse her of being a sock puppet or troll, because I honestly don't know, and even if I suspected, as Gaudere mentioned, you're not supposed to go around accusing somebody of that openly.

However, what I will question, is her skin color. She claims to be brown, but won't say what ethnicity she belongs too. Ironic in a thread where she's talking about how proud she is of her heritage. If she's so proud, then she should have no problem saying "I'm black" or "I'm Mexican" or "I'm Indian" or whatever. But yet, she refuses, leading me to believe that the charges made against her that she's white are true, or that the other charges about her being ashamed of her race are true.

As for the OP, I already responded to it earlier, when I knew, or thought I knew what the debate is about. It's seemed to have changed though, seeing as how I have no clue why she posted a link to something that Pat Buchanan said about race relations.

Has this debate changed to being about race relations in general? And if so, where's the debate?

[vasyachkin]

Are Whites uniquely critisized for ethnocentrism when all other racial groups display the same ethnocentrism for their own group?

yes we are uniquely criticized. you know why ? because that is what we want. we want to take the credit for beign so damn openminded and proactive. stop trying to take it away from us.

if you are "a person of color" you probably need to get a life.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

If you want to talk at length about whether a poster is as she represents herself, please take it to the Pit. Some minor comments in GD, fine, but don't make the whole thread about if she is really "brown" or not. Which seems to be what has happened here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]