Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

I'm White And I'm Proud?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So black pride is basically OK...
    Read what I said again.

    You can't possibly be proud of achievements you've admitted being skeptical of. You're a transparently angry white guy trying to make a lame point. It backfired on you.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So black pride is basically OK...
      This is slightly divergent from the OP, but I believe this is an essential point to understand. The terms "Black" and "White," in regard to race, don't simply refer to skin color. There's also a social aspect of it.

      Throughout American history, people with dark skin have frequently been denigrated by a white majority who tried to destroy them and portray blackness as something shameful and evil. So when they speak of "black pride," they mean that they refuse to feel the shame that oppressors tried to cast upon them, that they'll instead view themselves with honor and esteem, knowing that to the contrary, it's not at all shameful or evil to be black. When they speak of black pride, they mean that they're grateful and content to be part of a racial group that kept persevering against oppression despite all the obstacles. Though some extremist groups may try to twist it into something different, that is the historical meaning of and reason for the term. Unless one is a relatively recent immigrant to America, to be black in this nation is not only to have dark skin, but also to be a member of that which was societally viewed as inferior, evil and powerless, the historic underdog. That sort of pride isn't "Look at what other black people did hundreds and thousands of years ago!" but rather "I share a characteristic with many other people who have been horrendously denigrated and oppressed precisely because of that characteristic, but I will not let myself be shamed and thereby continually oppressed by this characteristic. I will instead view myself and my fellow people who share this characteristic with esteem and honor."

      Meanwhile, white people in America have never been an oppressed minority group; they were never counted as essentially only 3/5ths of a person or told that they're naturally inferior to other races and that their skin color is something shameful and evil. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for them to have "white pride." An important distinction here is that there have been some people in America who had white skin and were legitimately mistreated, such as the Irish, but as crazy as it may sound, the Irish weren't considered "white" back then. By "white people" I don't simply mean "people who have light skin tones," but rather people who are considered to be the default of a nation, the "pure" setting, the majority that holds the power. When speaking of race, "white" never simply means skin color, but also power. It's perfectly legitimate for descendants of oppressed groups who happen to have light skin tones to have Irish pride or German pride or Italian pride, but never "white" pride. To be Irish or German or Italian in America didn't always mean to hold power and be lumped into the default group, but being considered "white" has always meant that.

      As Zymologist pointed out earlier, there's no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of having certain physical features or skin tones. After all, you didn't choose or "achieve" those features. You were simply born into them; it was essentially a genetic accident. There's also no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of boasting that people who aren't related to you and lived hundreds of years before you did achieved great things. There's no inherent feature in Europeans that made them capable of achieving all those things. As with most great works, they had to build off the prior accomplishments and discoveries of people from all over the world, many of whom weren't light-skinned. And as I've explained, that's not what black people mean by "black pride."
      Last edited by fm93; 10-16-2014, 03:58 PM.
      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Geneticists have demonstrated that race is an artificial construct, that we are remarkably homogeneous genetically and that Darwin was correct when he observed that far larger differences could be seen within a "so-called race" (a term that he often employed) than between them. In pointing out the problems with even trying to divide humanity into separate races he emphatically stated that, "they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them" as well as "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”
        Then there's the fact that Darwin also said the opposite.

        Source: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

        The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Then of course there is this.

        Source: Charles Darwin

        - At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Oh, and at the introduction of the book, you have an endorsement of the conclusions of Ernst Haeckel, who was supporting infanticide, and eugenics in said book.

        Source: Charles Darwin

        If this work had appeared before my essay [The Descent of Man] had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.

        © Copyright Original Source



        So yeah, bring out the one or two "nice" statements of Charles Darwin, and ignore the rest, as well as his praise of those who were actively dividing up humanity into different groups, all but one to be exterminated. Of course Charles Darwin was doing the same, but not many people let the facts bother them.

        Source: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist

        ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start–‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted this much.

        Source: Ontogeny and Phylogeny

        ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

        © Copyright Original Source



        I wonder why that happened.

        So, who should I believe, Charles Darwin, or Charles Darwin? Maybe someone who he knew could shed some light on this. Oh yeah, we have Ernst Haeckel the racist, eugenicist, about whom Darwin said this.

        Source: Charles Darwin

        Dear & Respected Sir

        You must permit me to thank you sincerely for the present of your paper & for the Stettin Newspaper. I am delighted that so distinguished a Naturalist should confirm & expound my views, and I can clearly see that you are one of the few who clearly understand Natural Selection.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Let's see what Haeckel said about the topic.

        Source: Ernts Haeckel:History of Creation Volume 2

        Even many Christian missionaries, who, after 366 long years of fruitless endeavours to civilize these lowest races, have abandoned the attempt, express the same harsh judgment, and maintain that it would be easier to train the most intelligent domestic animals to a moral and civilized life, than these unreasoning brute-like men. For instance, the able Austrian missionary Morlang, who tried for many years without the slightest success to civilize the ape-like negro tribes on the Upper Nile, expressly says: “that any mission to such savages is absolutely useless. They stand far below unreasoning animals; the latter at least show signs of affection towards those who are kind towards them, whereas these brutal natives are utterly incapable of any feeling of gratitude.”

        Now, it clearly follows from these and other testimonies, that the mental differences between the lowest men and the animals are less than those between the lowest and the highest men; and if, together with this, we take into consideration the fact that in every single human child mental life develops slowly, gradually, and step by step, from the lowest condition of animal unconsciousness, need we still feel offended when told that the mind of the whole human race has in like manner gone through a process of slow, gradual, and historical development?

        © Copyright Original Source



        Does the underlined sound familiar? Oh, and there is this too.

        Source: Ernst Haeckel

        “All these five [speaking of an earlier classification than Haeckel’s own] races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have descended from ‘a single pair’—Adam and Eve, and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. … The excellent paleontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very distinct species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence.”

        © Copyright Original Source



        I think that Darwin's buddy certainly adds some context to this. Don't you?

        Yeah, I'll admit right now, this topic upsets me greatly. When I see a few of Darwin's "nicer" things said without the contrast of the other things he said, which he backed up with scientific citations, and in the case of eugenics, stated that the scientific case for it was 100% accurate(you won't see people admit that, but he did do it). It sickens me to my core.

        This is going to be my last post in this thread, I only wrote this because I had to get this anger out of my system.

        Comment


        • #34
          Why did a thread responding to seer's racism require a lengthy post about Charles Darwin?
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by square_peg View Post
            This is slightly divergent from the OP, but I believe this is an essential point to understand. The terms "Black" and "White," in regard to race, don't simply refer to skin color. There's also a social aspect of it.
            But the social aspect is solidarity based on skin color.
            So when they speak of "black pride," they mean that they refuse to feel the shame that oppressors tried to cast upon them, that they'll instead view themselves with honor and esteem, knowing that to the contrary, it's not at all shameful or evil to be black. When they speak of black pride, they mean that they're grateful and content to be part of a racial group that kept persevering against oppression despite all the obstacles. Though some extremist groups may try to twist it into something different, that is the historical meaning of and reason for the term. Unless one is a relatively recent immigrant to America, to be black in this nation is not only to have dark skin, but also to be a member of that which was societally viewed as inferior, evil and powerless, the historic underdog. That sort of pride isn't "Look at what other black people did hundreds and thousands of years ago!" but rather "I share a characteristic with many other people who have been horrendously denigrated and oppressed precisely because of that characteristic, but I will not let myself be shamed and thereby continually oppressed by this characteristic. I will instead view myself and my fellow people who share this characteristic with esteem and honor."
            That doesn't describe "pride" at all; it also appears to be extremely naive. Pride has a tendency to be negative, which is perhaps why it is one of the seven deadly sins.
            Meanwhile, white people in America have never been an oppressed minority group; they were never counted as essentially only 3/5ths of a person or told that they're naturally inferior to other races and that their skin color is something shameful and evil. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for them to have "white pride." An important distinction here is that there have been some people in America who had white skin and were legitimately mistreated, such as the Irish, but as crazy as it may sound, the Irish weren't considered "white" back then. By "white people" I don't simply mean "people who have light skin tones," but rather people who are considered to be the default of a nation, the "pure" setting, the majority that holds the power. When speaking of race, "white" never simply means skin color, but also power. It's perfectly legitimate for descendants of oppressed groups who happen to have light skin tones to have Irish pride or German pride or Italian pride, but never "white" pride. To be Irish or German or Italian in America didn't always mean to hold power and be lumped into the default group, but being considered "white" has always meant that.
            That makes no sense whatsoever.
            As Zymologist pointed out earlier, there's no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of having certain physical features or skin tones. After all, you didn't choose or "achieve" those features. You were simply born into them; it was essentially a genetic accident. There's also no rational reason to be proud of one's race in the sense of boasting that people who aren't related to you and lived hundreds of years before you did achieved great things. There's no inherent feature in Europeans that made them capable of achieving all those things. As with most great works, they had to build off the prior accomplishments and discoveries of people from all over the world, many of whom weren't light-skinned. And as I've explained, that's not what black people mean by "black pride."
            I agree that it makes no sense to be proud of one's race.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by whag View Post
              Read what I said again.

              You can't possibly be proud of achievements you've admitted being skeptical of. You're a transparently angry white guy trying to make a lame point. It backfired on you.
              BTW idiot I'm half Brazilian and half Italian. I just love exposing the hypocrisy of you leftists....
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                Then there's the fact that Darwin also said the opposite.

                Source: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

                The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Then of course there is this.

                Source: Charles Darwin

                - At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Oh, and at the introduction of the book, you have an endorsement of the conclusions of Ernst Haeckel, who was supporting infanticide, and eugenics in said book.

                Source: Charles Darwin

                If this work had appeared before my essay [The Descent of Man] had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.

                © Copyright Original Source



                So yeah, bring out the one or two "nice" statements of Charles Darwin, and ignore the rest, as well as his praise of those who were actively dividing up humanity into different groups, all but one to be exterminated. Of course Charles Darwin was doing the same, but not many people let the facts bother them.

                Source: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist

                ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start–‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted this much.

                Source: Ontogeny and Phylogeny

                ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

                © Copyright Original Source



                I wonder why that happened.

                So, who should I believe, Charles Darwin, or Charles Darwin? Maybe someone who he knew could shed some light on this. Oh yeah, we have Ernst Haeckel the racist, eugenicist, about whom Darwin said this.

                Source: Charles Darwin

                Dear & Respected Sir

                You must permit me to thank you sincerely for the present of your paper & for the Stettin Newspaper. I am delighted that so distinguished a Naturalist should confirm & expound my views, and I can clearly see that you are one of the few who clearly understand Natural Selection.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Let's see what Haeckel said about the topic.

                Source: Ernts Haeckel:History of Creation Volume 2

                Even many Christian missionaries, who, after 366 long years of fruitless endeavours to civilize these lowest races, have abandoned the attempt, express the same harsh judgment, and maintain that it would be easier to train the most intelligent domestic animals to a moral and civilized life, than these unreasoning brute-like men. For instance, the able Austrian missionary Morlang, who tried for many years without the slightest success to civilize the ape-like negro tribes on the Upper Nile, expressly says: “that any mission to such savages is absolutely useless. They stand far below unreasoning animals; the latter at least show signs of affection towards those who are kind towards them, whereas these brutal natives are utterly incapable of any feeling of gratitude.”

                Now, it clearly follows from these and other testimonies, that the mental differences between the lowest men and the animals are less than those between the lowest and the highest men; and if, together with this, we take into consideration the fact that in every single human child mental life develops slowly, gradually, and step by step, from the lowest condition of animal unconsciousness, need we still feel offended when told that the mind of the whole human race has in like manner gone through a process of slow, gradual, and historical development?

                © Copyright Original Source



                Does the underlined sound familiar? Oh, and there is this too.

                Source: Ernst Haeckel

                “All these five [speaking of an earlier classification than Haeckel’s own] races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have descended from ‘a single pair’—Adam and Eve, and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. … The excellent paleontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very distinct species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence.”

                © Copyright Original Source



                I think that Darwin's buddy certainly adds some context to this. Don't you?

                Yeah, I'll admit right now, this topic upsets me greatly. When I see a few of Darwin's "nicer" things said without the contrast of the other things he said, which he backed up with scientific citations, and in the case of eugenics, stated that the scientific case for it was 100% accurate(you won't see people admit that, but he did do it). It sickens me to my core.

                This is going to be my last post in this thread, I only wrote this because I had to get this anger out of my system.
                Ignoring Haeckel because what he said or didn't say has nothing whatsoever to do with my post, let's concentrate on the implied nonsense that Darwin was calling for the extermination of anybody.

                Darwin never promoted the extermination of anyone. Such a thing is diametrically opposed to everything he stood for. In fact, during his travels on the HMS Beagle Darwin witnessed actual attempts to exterminate indigenous populations most notably in Argentina where he describes the perpetrators as "villainous," "banditti-like" and "inhuman" and asked "Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?"

                It boils down to the simple truth that technologically advanced societies either exterminate or assimilate more primitive cultures. It happens over and over, again and again and that is an unfortunate fact that Darwin was merely pointing out.

                Let's look at the quote in a bit more context rather than a snippet:

                Source: Descent of Man, Chptr. 5


                The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

                © Copyright Original Source



                This is extracted from a relatively technical argument concerning the reality of species wrt to humans and whether or not there still should be distinct species. Darwin was ultimately concluding the answer is no and is basically contending here that there is no simple unbroken line of intermediary forms since breaks are formed by extinction.

                And it appears that after 140 years since publishing Descent Darwin was correct at least in his assessment that the “anthropomorphous apes” are indeed being driven into extinction as their numbers rapidly dwindle as do their habitats as well. It appears that they will, at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, be no longer around.

                His experience with Tasmania while sailing aboard the Beagle after that island’s so-called Black War which exterminated the aboriginal population of Tasmania[1] certainly justified his concerns that the same thing would happen to other native peoples at the hands of the "civilized races."

                Further, atrocities like the forcible deportation of Native American tribes, resulting in the Trail of Tears was also taking place about this time and the forced Long Walk of the Navajo had taken place just a few years before Descent was published while Argentina’s Conquest of the Desert was just gearing up. There are other examples that I could also cite.

                No, Darwin had many reasons to fear that natives will end up getting exterminated by the "civilized races." Further, he wasn't entirely wrong. I don't think that anyone can deny that even today we can still see more technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either destroying or replacing the less advanced ones.

                As an aside, Darwin was also merely echoing a common view of both humanitarians and apologists for imperial expansion that was already many decades old that primitive people were inevitably doomed at the hands of the “civilized races.” Going back to the genocide committed against the native Tasmanians it was casually described by Edward Curr as having ended “as all such matters have ended in other parts of the world, by the extermination of the weaker race."

                OK, now that we established the context and some background, perhaps it should next be noted that Darwin was not in any way urging anyone to commit genocide. In fact, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) the implied claim made by those misquoting him here that he wanted anyone exterminated.

                Instead, he was merely noting what appeared to him to be an obvious fact, based as noted above in no small part on the atrocities being committed in the name of conquest whether it was for European imperialism and colonial conquest or American “Manifest Destiny.”

                Darwin constantly listed what he thought were facts about the prospects of any given race, culture or society, but this was in no way an endorsement of what he thought should happen. In fact, and to the contrary he clearly states that to act in a way so as to eliminate an "inferior" would result in doing enormous damage to our better natures:

                Source: Descent of Man, Chptr. 5


                The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind

                © Copyright Original Source



                Further, his comments near the conclusion that...

                Source: Descent of Man, Chptr. 21


                Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, etc, than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.

                © Copyright Original Source



                ...show that while such oppression comes to the human race as a force of nature, other forces like morality, religion, and the capacity for reason are still far more important in determining how we treat each other.

                To continue to assert that Darwin was urging the extermination of others here is at the very least committing the naturalistic fallacy of confusing statements of "what is" with those about "what ought to be." The way things are does not imply that’s how they ought to be. That’s akin to arguing that if someone broke their leg then it should stay broken. Again “is” does not mean “ought.”

                I guess the overall point being that evolution is descriptive. It is ignorant to think that evolution prescribes or proscribes the use of brute strength to resolve every problem that comes up whether in nature, society or whatever.

                IOW, evolution describes, not prescribe. It merely attempts to tells how things are, not how they should be.





                1. Who Darwin described as being evolutionarily more fit to inhabit the environment than the European colonists who slaughtered them were.
                Last edited by rogue06; 10-16-2014, 07:57 PM.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                  Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted this much.

                  Source: Ontogeny and Phylogeny


                  ‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  This is a quote mine from a chapter of the book Ontogeny and Phylogeny on the notion of recapitulation (not evolution).

                  Note also that the quote by Gould states that "biological arguments for racism" had increased not that racism itself had increased. Moreover, it is also important to note that he doesn't say it was actually a result of the theory.

                  In fact Gould goes on to say that

                  Source:

                  But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups--a meaningless notion anyway since environments cannot be standardized. If the chorus of racist arguments did not follow a constraint of data, it must have reflected social prejudice pure and simple--anything from an a priori belief in universal progress among apolitical but chauvinistic scientists to an explicit desire to construct a rationale for imperialism.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  And if the racists had bothered to actually check what evolutionary theory proposed -- namely that all of humanity was one species descended from a common ancestor -- then they probably would have never tried using it but would have denounced evolution like all of the major white supremacy groups have done.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Pride should be in accomplishments. Even that is dubious. What pride is there in being white, or black, or homosexual, or straight? All silliness in my opinion.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      One last derail post in response to cere's statements, this one concerning Darwin's views on the intellectual differences between the "so-called races." It'll be short.

                      Darwin compared the intellect of the Brazilian slaves with Europeans, and notes that the slaves are mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of the Roman generals in his "Voyage of the Beagle"

                      He wrote Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the commander of the Union's first battalion of freed slaves in the American Civil War, after reading his book "Army Life in a Black Regiment" (in which Higginson concluded that blacks weren't biologically inferior to whites) saying "I always thought well of the negroes" and how "delighted [he was] to have my vague impressions confirmed" concerning "their character and mental powers."

                      He wrote in a letter to John Stevens Henslow in 1834 that "I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

                      Darwin's earliest encounter with a black person was when he spent 40 hours learning bird-stuffing (taxidermy) from a freed Guyanese slave named John Edmonston, while at the University of Edinburgh. John became, in Darwin’s own words, an "intimate" and (in his autobiography) "a very pleasant and intelligent man." Visiting Americans were appalled at the sight of blacks being treated as equals on British streets, but Darwin showed no sense of ignominy at being taught by a “full-blooded negro.” His interaction with Edmonston confirmed Darwin’s belief that white people and black people possessed the same essential humanity. In “Descent” he cited their friendship as evidence for the close similarity between the minds of men of all races.

                      Darwin claimed that all of humanity was one species descended from a common, shared ancestor (something that actual white supremacists like the Klan vehemently denounce and oppose).

                      Finally, he wrote "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites." Japhethites are generally equated as being Caucasians or those who settled in Europe[1]. IOW, blacks aren't as smart as whites.

                      Oh wait. That last quote comes from Henry Morris, the "father of the modern creationist movement" and founder of the young-earth Institute for Creation Research which he wrote in 1991.





                      1. From Ken Ham's AnswersinGenesis Creation "museum": http://www.realbiblestories.com/wp-c...3/hamite1.jpeg

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post

                        I agree that it makes no sense to be proud of one's race.
                        It is silly to be proud of something you had absolutely nothing to do with.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          BTW idiot I'm half Brazilian and half Italian. I just love exposing the hypocrisy of you leftists....
                          That's a hell of a way to do it: pretend you're proud of achievements you really think are hoaxes.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            But the social aspect is solidarity based on skin color.
                            Not what I meant. It also involves an association of power, which is why the Irish initially weren't considered "white" in America.

                            That doesn't describe "pride" at all; it also appears to be extremely naive. Pride has a tendency to be negative, which is perhaps why it is one of the seven deadly sins.
                            This is "pride" in the sense of not being ashamed more so than a feeling of satisfaction from personal accomplishments.

                            That makes no sense whatsoever.
                            The discussion about power might be a bit complex, but the simpler point is that "black pride" ultimately derives from a defensive response to oppression, which white people (as a whole, not specific nationalities) have not experienced. Hence, it makes no sense to have "white pride" in the sense in which black people talk about black pride.



                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            BTW idiot I'm half Brazilian and half Italian. I just love exposing the hypocrisy of you leftists....
                            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."
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                              If we're the most advanced race in history, why do we abort so many of our own?
                              Despite the legality of abortion white people probably abort fewer of their kids per capita than most other races (arabs and possibly south asians fare better thanks to Islam).
                              Last edited by Darth Executor; 10-16-2014, 10:43 PM.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Geneticists have demonstrated that race is an artificial construct,
                                All biological distinctions are artificial constructs based on observable characteristics. The tree life is one giant multi-branching spectrum. "Race" is no different.

                                that we are remarkably homogeneous genetically
                                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.

                                and that Darwin was correct when he observed that far larger differences could be seen within a "so-called race" (a term that he often employed) than between them.
                                I prefer the term "breed" myself. Darwin apparently didn't like "race" and preferred "sub-species".

                                "Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterised would probably deserve to rank as man."

                                In pointing out the problems with even trying to divide humanity into separate races he emphatically stated that, "they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them" as well as "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”
                                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.

                                But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. 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. (18. See a good discussion on this subject in Waitz, 'Introduction to Anthropology,' Eng. translat., 1863, pp. 198-208, 227. I have taken some of the above statements from H. Tuttle's 'Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man,' Boston, 1866, p. 35.) 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.

                                Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he cannot define. Cases of this kind occur in the Order which includes man, namely in certain genera of monkeys; whilst in other genera, as in Cercopithecus, most of the species can be determined with certainty. In the American genus Cebus, the various forms are ranked by some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical races. Now if numerous specimens of Cebus were collected from all parts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to be specifically distinct, were found to graduate into each other by close steps, they would usually be ranked as mere varieties or races; and this course has been followed by most naturalists with respect to the races of man. Nevertheless, it must be confessed that there are forms, at least in the vegetable kingdom (19. Prof. Nageli has carefully described several striking cases in his 'Botanische Mittheilungen,' B. ii. 1866, ss. 294-369. Prof. Asa Gray has made analogous remarks on some intermediate forms in the Compositae of N. America.), which we cannot avoid naming as species, but which are connected together by numberless gradations, independently of intercrossing.

                                Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the same degrees of difference. Unfortunately this can rarely be done: for the larger genera generally include closely- allied forms, which can be distinguished only with much difficulty, whilst the smaller genera within the same family include forms that are perfectly distinct; yet all must be ranked equally as species. So again, species within the same large genus by no means resemble each other to the same degree: on the contrary, some of them can generally be arranged in little groups round other species, like satellites round planets. (20. 'Origin of Species,' 5th edit. p. 68.)
                                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.
                                Last edited by Darth Executor; 10-16-2014, 10:49 PM.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                401 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X