Is a blue-eyed, blonde-haired girl not human race?
Another thing I have a problem with is this: Why does he have any say in who his daughter should marry? An opinion, yes, he can have an opinion, but as far as “preserving one’s physical phenotype”, that sounds as though he’s breeding puppies or something, not raising a daughter.
No it’s not.
Also, race is different from species.
To clarify, this person would be part of the “human” race, but not necessarily a specific race.
But the father was talking about endangered species (within human race), not endangered human race .
Race is not a “species”, it can not be endangered. In order to do so you would have to prove conclusively (IMHO) that their were substantial differences between races, which unless I didn’t get the memo, their aren’t.
What’s a race? The color of skin? With such a wide variety of different colors and such a huge diversity between those colors, don’t you think “skin color” is a little vague?
What is being endangered? Specific adaptations to certain geographical areas?
This smells of elitism, if not racism, but I do appreciate your candor. What makes, what I’m assuming, “white skin” so appealing that it should be perserved?
I don’t get it, I really don’t. The person’s father wants to try to perserve what he construes as race? Why? To what end would it ultimately get either him or his family ?
Their would be no ultimate end to be gotten, unless their were racist undertones for wanting to perserve the “race”.
To clarify, I’m not asking for a definition of “endangered”, I’m asking what is being endangered, what is feared to be lost.
An example, a horse is a horse, a zebra is also a horse. But they have a very distinctive look, therefore they are two different species.
The father holds the belief that the above idea is applicable to human being - i.e. when a zebra father wants his daughter to have another zebra, that should not be labelled ‘racist’.
No, a zebra is a zebra, a horse is a horse. While it is possible that they can interbreed (not sure) they are distinct species, or at least they have significant biological differences.
There is no such difference between various humans. The superficial exterior features (such as skin color) that you seem to be focusing on, vary widely among all humans. If you attempt to find a biological component of your “very distinctive look” you will be sorely disappointed. The concept of race as a biological construct is not supported by the facts. The sociological concept of race exists, but you shouldn’t try to support it with claims of “species purity”, which smacks of racists ignorance.
Ah, now we get to the “breeding stock” mentioned in the other thread.
Listen vbdog, if a father forbids his daughter to marry a black man because he doesn’t want black grandchildren, he is being racists. Pure and simple. No equivocating or rationalizations.
vbdog, you have this amazing tendency to assume your conclusion. You ask us to compare two people in terms of their bigotedness, and then, later on, tell us, as a precondition in your argument, that one of them is not bigoted.
Therefore there cannot be a discussion.
It sounds to me, overall, like you’re trying to convince yourself of something.
-Ulterior
Uh, no. A zebra is not a horse. If a zebra were a horse, zebras and horses would not be different species. A horse is a horse and a zebra is a zebra. They are two different species because they cannot interbreed (or at least cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring).
Then the father is a moron. He has confused completely different species who cannot interbreed with members of the same species who can interbreed perfectly well and produce healthy, fertile offspring but who just happen to vary slightly in pigmentation.
Oh, and zebras don’t give a damn what kind of kids their children have. I’d normally say this is because they aren’t as intelligent as humans, but they’re both brilliant geniuses and beacons of moral fortitude compared to the scheming, racist old lunatic of your hypothetical.
You sum the truth of the matter up quite nicely.
You’ve heard it from other posters about what is and is not a “species”.
What I want to know is, if he is not showing his racism, why does it matter what “race” his grandchildren are? Why does he want to “perserve” whatever he thinks he’s perserving?
The problem with the assumptions your father has been making is that they are racist assumptions. You don’t have to “hate” someone in order to be a racist, you know.
Can someone who knows something about human genetics (i.e., not me) speak to the odds that, **even if ** the daughter marries someone specifically chosen by her father to produce a grandchild resembling him, he won’t get his wish?
What would this (incredibly creepy, racist, and downright sexist) father do if the daughter wanted to adopt her children? Hypothetically, would he be upset if she wanted to adopt white babies who wouldn’t look like him, but would at least be caucasian? Would adopting black or Asian babies be worse?
verybdog
Wow, he’s automatically not a racist because he says the “right” things and has a few token black friends? So…if the son of one of his intelligent black heart surgeon friend wanted to ask out his daughter, he’d A). Welcome the young man into the family with open arms, or B). Run panicking into the night because you never know, right?
Wondeful! Now he’s a crypto racist.
Honestly, do you believe in this day and age most racists go around flaunting it? Anybody can decide not to use the word black (or Jewish, or Asian, or Catholic, or gay, or whatever), and most people who are smart probably don’t. Ever see the movie Far From Heaven? One character doesn’t exactly use the word gay (not at first), she merely says he’s, “Very light on his feet, dear.” There are many ways of tip-toeing around it. In fact, it’s almost sicker this way. Your hypothetical father is a bigot and a hypocrite. Personally, I prefer the Archie Bunker type. They’re at least honest with the rest of the world and with themselves.
I think you are interpreting only “hard” racists as being racist, while ignoring “soft” racists.
IMO a “hard” racist is similar (if not a) skinhead.
A “soft” racist can be just as devastating, but is harder to detect. A “soft” racist would not hire any African-Americans, for example. A “soft” racist would lump all white people into a category and then say that all white people are evil.
A “soft” racist would consider such things as purity when recommending whom their daughter should marry.
Thanks for the backstory on this thread.
What it looks like is this: Nearly everyone agrees that, if a parent expresses a wish that his daughter’s offspring will fit a certain visual stereotype (such as “blond and blue-eyed” or whatever), that is definitely some form of racism–hard or soft. Racism is evil, the guy is creepy, manipulative, awful, etc.
But most people don’t mean, by the word “racism,” that sort of wish, IMHO. Most people think it perfectly natural for parents to have fantasies about how the story of their children’s lives will turn out.
For example: it’s morally wrong to allow prejudice against gay people, or against disabled people, to lead to discriminatory behavior–in hiring and firing, accomodations, even just walking down the street. BUT it seems somehow inhuman to (to a degree) equate Mom or Dad with old Adolf because they hope their daughter won’t have a gay or disabled child. I say this as a proud, openly gay man.
I realize that some will disagree with that statement, and will want to talk about how these expressed “preferences” actually conceal genteel bigotries that ought not be accepted. I agree, but not wholeheartedly–or rather, I think other values are also in play besides egalitarianism and individualism.
I guess I feel that at some point we ought to cut a little slack for our petty human frailties. There are much much MUCH worse forms of bigotry than expressing an interest in who your daughter ought to marry; rolling the horrible together with the innocuous trivializes what ought not be trivialized.
You see verybdog, I told you not to use the word “racist”. If you had used the word prejudiced, your question might have made more sense. The reason B is prejudiced is because of why he wanted his daughter not to marry any blacks (which is what you said in the original thread) It presupposes that all blacks are unfit to marry for any reason. Thats prejudicial.
Whereas in the case of telling her to be a lawyer instead of a hooker, the reason is fairly obvious. The father doesnt want her to be a prostitute especially when she can be a lawyer. It may not be prejudicial to all prostitutes (altho it could be) but a life choice is towards the individual (the daughter) not towards a certain group (prostitutes). Choosing a career is not the same as choosing a group of people. A career is a choice. skin color isnt.
Congratulations, vbdog, in the latest iteration now you have turned dad into some sort of tinfoil-hat wacko who is under the impression that protecting the “caucasian” phenotype from miscegenation is preserving an endangered species.
You know, your original
had a nice, refreshing directness to it, when compared to all the succeeding elaborations. And I believe we provided direct answers (from our respective POV’s) on that one.
Of course, you’re welcome to keep spinning it over and over and over to see if at some point we’ll say “All right, now it’s OK for him to think/act that way” but all you’re likely to get is a thread dying from exhaustion.