I'm White And I'm Proud?

[Psychic Missile]

Can you be more specific? I don't see much of a relationship between resources and success.

Vague. What historical events?

How? I mean other than altering the genetics of the population.

I guess I should have been more specific. What types of metals and the quality of those metals a society has access to could matter. This can determine the quality of weapons (and thus military success and even survival) or the types of tools and chemical processes available. Whether two societies intermingled or what effects a war has on a society could matter. Two societies that join together could introduce new ideas born from their disparate works. A war could wipe out or hinder a society that would have flourished, or a war can force a society to innovate (like with U.S. history). If a climate is harsh a society may not be as prosperous, or maybe a society is prosperous because it is in a geographically advantageous position (like a popular port city or trade route nexus). What types of plants and animals a society is near can influence what medicine they can make and the animals they can use for food or labor (which supply their own advantages). A disease might wipe out a society, or a society might build up immunity.

[seer]

I'm actually somewhat glad that he's openly come out as a racist. No need to spend time analyzing coded language or weighing racially based emphases. He flat-out stated that he believes the white race is the best and most advanced race in the world. That's pretty much as open-and-shut of a case of racism as you'll ever see. You might as well frame it and put it in a textbook.

Why would it be racist if it was true? Besides like I made clear I'm half Italian and Brazilian. What race does that make me?

[seer]

That's a hell of a way to do it: pretend you're proud of achievements you really think are hoaxes.

What hoaxes? Good grief I'm in the electronics field.

[seer]

I really don't see how the fact that you're Brazilian and Italian is relevant to anything that anyone said, and you didn't expose any hypocrisy. Nor did anyone say anything "leftist."

No square, most of you are clearly uncomfortable with "white pride" but clearly have no problem with "black pride." How about just "human pride." BTW - I started this thread because this issue was brought up on another thread on this board.

[rogue06]

All biological distinctions are artificial constructs based on observable characteristics. The tree life is one giant multi-branching spectrum. "Race" is no different.



Yep. We are also "remarkably homogeneous genetically" compared to chimps. 96%. That's why we don't classify things by genetic homogeneity and why this factoid only pops up in anti-rayciss boilerplate speeches.



I prefer the term "breed" myself. Darwin apparently didn't like "race" and preferred "sub-species".

Like many biologists of his time he tended to use race, variety, species and sub-species in an interchangeable manner^[1] when discussing animals and plants. That is why he could speak, for instance, of "races" of cabbage.

You are quoting dishonestly.

Darwin was arguing against the idea that the different races constituted separate species, he never argued there are no races or that there is no difference between them.



You'd be pretty hard pressed to find, even among the most hardcore of racists, individuals who think all black people are dumb, for example. So your entire post is one giant strawman that'll probably persuade nobody who's not already persuaded.

Darwin gently poked fun at those who tried to divide humans into different races.

Source: Descent of Man" Chptr 7

Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

© Copyright Original Source

First note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from virulent racists like Louis Agassiz^[2] who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that “Negroes” were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

Second, as noted, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And as an aside note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another with those still alive at the time when Darwin wrote this generally opposing evolution.

Third, again as I have previously noted, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

"So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage much like someone still talks about sunrise and sunset while aware that the sun is not orbiting the earth.

Fourth, notice how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." To elaborate a bit further on what I said earlier, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any racial boundaries. Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race is not a valid biological classification.











1. On page 33 of the "On the Origin of the Species" we can even see an instance where he does this a couple times in the same sentence:

Source:

When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.

© Copyright Original Source

2.

Source: Louis Agassiz, letter to family in Switzerland

“It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type [genre] and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race ―to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact.”

© Copyright Original Source

[fm93]

Why would it be racist if it was true?

Well, it's not true.

Besides like I made clear I'm half Italian and Brazilian. What race does that make me?

Italian and Brazilian aren't races. They're ethnicities. You identified yourself as a white person. If that's you in the profile picture, you'd appear to others to be white. You're white.

No square, most of you are clearly uncomfortable with "white pride" but clearly have no problem with "black pride."

But as I already explained, what's generally meant by "black pride" is not what you meant in the OP by "white pride." If black pride meant what you seemed to be defining white pride as, I'd condemn it as well.

[seer]

Well, it's not true.

What is not true? That western civilization (populated by mostly "white" folks) gave us the greatest medical, scientific, and technological innovations in the history of man. The best political systems. The best philosophers, etc... What other culture comes close? Why shouldn't we be proud of that?

[Teallaura]

I'm actually somewhat glad that he's openly come out as a racist. No need to spend time analyzing coded language or weighing racially based emphases. He flat-out stated that he believes the white race is the best and most advanced race in the world. That's pretty much as open-and-shut of a case of racism as you'll ever see. You might as well frame it and put it in a textbook.

That isn't the definition of racism. Racism is judging or hating others solely on the basis of their race. You can hold the position that one race is superior to the other without actually being racist - illogical though it may be, merely presuming superiority doesn't mean the person necessarily judges or hates anyone else on that basis.

The real racists in this world count on people like you to overblow the definition to the point that everyone eventually stops considering the term as valid. The constant cries of racism dilute the impact of the term - and the more it is misapplied, the more invalid it appears. You should rethink this line of argumentation - but if not, you should send the KKK a bill for services rendered.

[Teallaura]

What is not true? That western civilization (populated by mostly "white" folks) gave us the greatest medical, scientific, and technological innovations in the history of man. The best political systems. The best philosophers, etc... What other culture comes close? Why shouldn't we be proud of that?

Being white is a correlation - and a minor one at that. It's Christianity that allowed most of the advances you are touting - and the Family of God comes in a kaleidoscope of skin color, none of which means a danged thing.

It's okay to be 'proud' of the culture(s) you come from and it's okay to be happy about the benefits you enjoy from those origins. It is NOT okay to be prideful, least of all about a silly thing like skin color that you have zero control over.

You're better advised to do what Paul said - if you must boast, boast in the Cross of Christ.

[Teallaura]

I guess I should have been more specific. What types of metals and the quality of those metals a society has access to could matter. This can determine the quality of weapons (and thus military success and even survival) or the types of tools and chemical processes available. Whether two societies intermingled or what effects a war has on a society could matter. Two societies that join together could introduce new ideas born from their disparate works. A war could wipe out or hinder a society that would have flourished, or a war can force a society to innovate (like with U.S. history). If a climate is harsh a society may not be as prosperous, or maybe a society is prosperous because it is in a geographically advantageous position (like a popular port city or trade route nexus). What types of plants and animals a society is near can influence what medicine they can make and the animals they can use for food or labor (which supply their own advantages). A disease might wipe out a society, or a society might build up immunity.

Um, Japan, which is resource poor, has invaded China, which is resource rich. This is way over-simplified.

[seer]

You're better advised to do what Paul said - if you must boast, boast in the Cross of Christ.

That I agree with...

[fm93]

What is not true? That western civilization (populated by mostly "white" folks) gave us the greatest medical, scientific, and technological innovations in the history of man.

Why point out race at all? People in Western civilization achieved great things, yes, but it wasn't because many of the people were white. They couldn't have accomplished what they did without building off the inventions and discoveries of other civilizations, who were not white. And in recent years, Western civilization has been losing its technological and educational edge over the nonwhite civilizations.

The best political systems. The best philosophers, etc...

Highly subjective.

What other culture comes close?

If you really want to play that game, the Chinese culture (of which my family has a part) comes close. But that's hardly something worth boasting about.

Why shouldn't we be proud of that?

Because you had nothing to do with it. Congratulations, people who had a similar skin tone to yours did great things long before you were born. You never accomplished anything like that.

[fm93]

That isn't the definition of racism. Racism is judging or hating others solely on the basis of their race.

This is incorrect. By definition, racism is the belief that there exists inherent superiority of certain races. If a person believes that he or she should be nice to black people specifically because he thinks they're inferior to white people and need to be treated like mentally disabled children (rather than being nice because black people are human beings and therefore are of equal worth and dignity), that belief is still technically racism.

The real racists in this world count on people like you to overblow the definition to the point that everyone eventually stops considering the term as valid.

Except that I've used the very definition of the word.

[Teallaura]

This is incorrect. By definition, racism is the belief that there exists inherent superiority of certain races. If a person believes that he or she should be nice to black people specifically because he thinks they're inferior to white people and need to be treated like mentally disabled children (rather than being nice because black people are human beings and therefore are of equal worth and dignity), that belief is still technically racism.


Except that I've used the very definition of the word.

No, it is not. You're equating a logical stupidity with a malice - and not surprisingly, getting no where.

Also, Seer said none of that crap - that's all your invention. Given that it's where your little brain runs to maybe you might wanna have a chat with that guy in the mirror. As for the definition, it falls in the 'judging' category which is why your definition is wrong and mine is superior!

[fm93]

No, it is not. You're equating a logical stupidity with a malice - and not surprisingly, getting no where.

I have used the dictionary definition and anthropology textbooks in reference to the word. From where do you get the definition that strictly involves hatred?

Also, Seer said none of that crap - that's all your invention

I was giving a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. I wasn't claiming that he said it.