The RUC (Police of NI) weren’t exactly popular among most Catholics during the Troubles.
Not only that, but being a policeman meant he was constantly living in danger. Many of his friends were killed during the Troubles. I’d understand if a family would have been reluctant to have their daughter date and marry a policeman during this time.
Ah yes, hadn’t thought of that angle. My uncle tried to join the RUC in the years before the Troubles but they wouldn’t have him. Just as well really in light of subsequent events.
Yes, an unfortunate but thankfully small number of Board members have revealed themselves to be white supremacists. From my experience, there is absolutely no use engaging that sort of person in dialogue of any sort whatsoever.
I think I was clear, but perhaps not. Your analogies don’t hold up. The categories we call “race” are essentially illusions born of ignorance and superficial judgments; they don’t hold up to biological examination. The differences between “white” and “black” are not at all like the differences between midtown and Lakeview Gardens (two Memphis neighborhoods).
Incidentally, the distinction between biological species is not as clear as you seem to think it is. If you wish to learn more, this Wikipedia article on the species problem is a good place to start.
Why is it so hard to answer my question? I’m simply trying to find out if your reasoning is universal or if you are engaged in special pleading.
You seem to be saying that since it is difficult to draw a clear line between races, any distinction between races is an illusion.
I’m trying to figure out if your argument applies to any groups or entities between which it is difficult to draw a clear line. Or, if you are engaged in special pleading.
It really is a very simple question.
Well what’s a test you could do to see whether races “hold up to biological examination”?
Lol, I don’t think it’s clear at all. And yet nobody seriously claims that species are “an illusion.”
I am not engaging in special pleading. I am saying that the various human races are not like the neighborhoods of a city. I am saying that your analogies are bullshit.
Nearly half of married black men in Minnesota are married to white women, one of, if not the highest rate in the US.
I think of that, smile deeply and laugh at backwater hell holes like Mississippi.
Ok, so according to you, any time it’s difficult to draw a clear line between two groups or entities, the distinction between them is an illusion. Do I understand you correctly?
And how exactly are they different?
Also, what’s a test you could do to see whether races “hold up to biological examination”?
I’m trying to nail down your position.
If they’re anything like the sole MN person I know, a black man who wants to marry me, that doesn’t mean they don’t absolutely despise them for being white.
It does kind of fly in the face of his party line about how Seattle black people are just whitewashed unlike awesome MN black people blah blah blah. Possibly MN people are just crazy? It’s a small sample size, I realize, but it’s a whole lot of crazy.
You are not stating my position correctly. Some groupings are not like other groupings. Neighborhoods are an example of groupings that hvae distinct differences. Central Gardens in Memphis has clear, quantifiable, and real differences from Lakeview Gardens in Memphis: location, average property value, proximity to amenities, etc. “White” persons and “black” persons have some superficial differences but far more similarities. There’s more genuineness to notions of culture than of race. I have more in common with a “white” person from Boston than I do with a “black” person from Nairobi.
Sure. Policemen were occasionally killed by Loyalist gangs, too, not just the IRA.
So that means no?
Ok, then what are your criteria for determining whether a grouping is illusory or not? Is it the presence or absence of quantifiable differences? The ease of drawing clear lines? Or something else?
Also, what’s a test you could do to see whether races “hold up to biological examination”?
Examine the genetic history to determine the most recent common ancestor of two “races” or ethnic groups. And scientists have done this- and found that there are “black” (or sub-Saharan African) populations that are more closely related, genetically, to non-“black” populations then to certain other far flung “black” populations. So any race that includes all black people will also include all non-black people (which makes just one race total for humans!).
I have nothing to prove, and I will not give people like you a platform if I can help it. Have a nice day!
Of course not.
Of course not.
You too.
From what I understand from knowing both Catholics and Protestant Irish during the troubles there was less trouble about mixed relationships among the middle classes. Working class areas were almost completely segregated so peole just didn’t mix in any way at all.
I hesitate to engage in conversation on this subject, sir or madam, because I suspect that your motives are somewhat distasteful and might lead me to being impolite. Well, that’s only half the reason; there’s also the fact that I’m really, really lazy. Anywho, someone in another thread has posted something that not only goes to my point but does so more competently than I could have, though with fewer wisecracks.
Lol. Either that or you do not want to admit your true criteria for holding that racial distinctions are an “illusion,” which is that you don’t like such distinctions.
If your position is based on reason and not emotion, then it should be easy enough to answer my question.
P.S. The quote you selected does not answer my question.
If somebody wants to make an argument rejecting racial distinctions, then they need to be explicit about their criteria for accepting or rejecting distinctions in general. Otherwise, they are just engaged in emotion-driven special pleading.
Which particular group do you belong to? How do you plan on preserving its identity in an American context?