I've been reading many posts by liberals saying that there in no such thing as race--that we're all part of the single human race, but at the same time and often in the same breath, those very liberals show little restraint or fore-thought in calling many of us racists. So, what is it, is there such a thing as race and or racists or not? I have no problem calling liberals socialists, for that's what they are, but I'm having a problem with liberals calling me a racist if there is no such thing as race. Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-09-2012 07:52 AM
I also find in rather amusing that most of the supporters of evolutionary theory are progressives, who demand that creationism not be taught in public schools. Yet these same progressives would never want to apply darwinism to humans. Humans may have evolved from animals, but any possible evolutionary divergence between different groups of humans is taboo. Or what about the progressives in academia, teaching public university students that "race does not exist", but then using racial quotas and racial preferences in the competitive admissions process?
Anyone who has a problem with me, solely on the Color of my Skin or the Political Party I Vote for every 4 years, all without ever actually knowing me, is ignorant! No one really knows if they are a Racist or not, but there’s no question that they are ignorant!
The liberals throw in racial subcontexts all the time, subconsciously or not. Take the Martin-Zimmerman case. I don't know why the media would air their show "what kids have to teach parents about race" immediately in the aftermath of the Florida shooting, as if arguing that people took sides in the uncertainty over what happened and who and who not is guilty of what severity of crime, based on race lines. So CNN's answer is that kids, who are supposed to be brainwashed in schools by now )i.e. that they resamble peaches rather than say, desert stone) got it right, and the solution is for races to blend in together so debates like the one over the Florida shooting will never again be race coloured. The media seem to forget though that they have been instrumental in creating race divisions here (and anywhere else pretty much) because of the outrageous, biased and dishonest ways they have reported on this incident, resorting even to inciting race riots. Seems the liberals have some utopian society in mind they wish to create, so for them the current society is transitional, expendible, and to be subjected to shake-down where all manner of liberal behaviour can be excused in the name of a noble-ideal.
Yeah, and I've seen plenty of conservatives do it as well. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/06/your-response-to-kids-on-race/ Apparently they've been working on it for over a year. The death of Travvyon was just concidental. . Yeah, that's how it should happen. . They haven't done anything that wasn't already there. Everyone thinks that. Everyone's trying to find that better future.
I support the idea of a utopian society, an end to poverty, and even egalitarianism, but at what cost? Racial mixing is essentially irreversible. Is it really worth throwing away our unique ethnic diversity in pursuit of a more equal world? If the only solution progressives can think of is to mix away all the different races into one, I must strongly oppose! Leftists are so busy focusing on what society does not have that they have completely disregarded one of the important gifts we do have: racial/ethnic purity and world racial diversity. As Charles Lindbergh wrote in Reader's Digest: And I believe this can apply to every race, especially those that still have their ethnic purity intact (unlike american blacks or hispanics). I could at least respect liberals if they truely believed that race did not matter. But the plain truth is that their leaders know it does matter. It is just a convenient ideology for them to further their own political ends. They are quick to temporarily abandon it whenever it suits them. Race has HUGE political implications, whether or not it is all just a "social construct".
In your mind there are different human races. Since we've eliminated your complaint about being labeled a racist can we presume you willingly accept the label (along with the rest of your crew)?
What is the measure of "ethnic purity"? Do you think none of your ancestors ever interbred with people of a different ethnicity (real or percieved), because I suggest that is highly unlikely?
I could at least respect liberals if they truely believed that race did not matter. But the plain truth is that their leaders know it does matter. Denying racial differences is just a convenient ideology for them to further their own political ends. They are quick to temporarily abandon it whenever it suits them. Race has HUGE political implications, whether or not it is all just a "social construct". And if "diversity" was so important, as the liberals initially claimed, then wounldn't you think they would want to preserve this diversity? Spending tax-payer money to promote racial mixing is not exactly going to promote diversity in the future, is it?
Who cares if we mix? Love's love. He's probably not one of the guys you want to quote. Yeah, it's not like whites don't have various skin tones as well. What are you talking about? The teachings are about understanding culture. It's not about making babies with just the same culture.
Obviously there was ethnic interbreeding going on tens of thousands of years ago, from which the modern ethnicities evolved. But this interbreeding was between groups that were much more genetically similar, who lived in adjacent lands. The world has now changed with modern transportation. Ethnic mixing between germanic peoples and slavic peoples is much different than racial mixing between Africans and Europeans. I still think modern ethnicities are worth preserving. Just like endangered species are worth preserving, even though they may only be a recent, and naturally transient, phenomena on the evolutionary scale of time.
Most liberals I know have no problem with creationism being taught in school, as long as it is kept as an elective and not required for non-religious students to take. I would also say that other religions aside from christianity should have the rigght to teach their beliefs, but that is something that most Christians don't beleive, since most of them are hipicrits who only want their own beleifs to be taught in school, but no one else's.
An American girl is never going to fall in love with an African living in Africa. People fall in love with the types of people they grew up with and are surrounded by. I am not advocating making interracial relationships illegal, just allowing parents to separate themselves and their children from other races, so their children will be very unlikely to fall in love with another race. Why should parents be taxed to pay for their children's school when racial integration is being forced in public schools? Not every parent can afford a private school.
No. People fall in love with people who they fall in love with. In other words, No, I'm not going to makie it illegal, I'm just going to make it morally illegal. Because it stops judging people based upon race, and instead promotes judging based upon abilities instead?
I feel sure you must already have heard about the consequences of inbreeding... Meanwhile, as an Euro married to a non-Euro, you're probably wrong about...everything else.
