They people who wrote the reviews of the document ARE Photoshop experts. So your claim of it being bogus is based only on your worship of your messiah. Would you worship him if he was white? - - - Updated - - - BTW, it was YOU who invited the discussion about Obozo.
Are they? Do you know their names and credentials? I just gave you a rational basis for not trusting them and you accuse me of only denying them because I supposedly worship President Obama. You're not being reasonable. I don't worship him. Would you make all of these accusations if he was White? Actually Gatewood was the one who started talking about Obama. I debated him, he ignored me and then you joined in. The subject of the thread is the definition of racism. We can talk about Obama if you like but don't act like I'm trying to stifle debate by calling you a racist. I didn't even accuse you of racism. I called Mikemikev a racist (with evidence) and then you said you were a racist and asked me what the point of calling you it was. I'm not familiar with you as a poster. Your Obama hate is probably motivated by racism which has been my experience with Obama haters but I didn't accuse you of racism. You admitted it first.
Here is your racism for you. One more piece of history for you bigots, there were more Irish slaves brought to America than Africans. The Irish were taken by the invading Muslims and by the British and sold into slavery around the world. The earliest slaves in America were the Irish and they were sold and valued at a lower price because of the high prices at which the Muslims and Africans were selling the Africans.
I wonder if NaturalBorn or mikemikev would care to give their definition of racism. I think it would be illuminating.
And what is the point? Slavery has been around since the first civilizations. What does that have to do with modern racism?
Racism is hatred of someone with a different skin shade than the hater. People who consider themselves 'black' claim they are not racist but they can only be bigots. Horse-hockey! This is one more example of changing terminology to fit the agenda. - - - Updated - - - Self loathing victim status for people today who were never slaves and use it as a crutch and a whip.
Ok, racism is hatred of someone with a different skin shade. My question then is it overt hatred like going around beating up people of a different color, or is it a covert hatred such as not hiring people of a certain color? So you don't think that years living as slaves had any affect on modern African-Americans?
Assault is assault regardless of any conditions. As a quasi-libertarian, I am not for forced quotas or businesses forced to serve anyone. It obviously hasn't with a darker skinned people in positions of power and leadership wealth and fame.
No, I would say a history of slavery has literally no effect other than giving a lame excuse for every failure. Look at other colonised people, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. Look at failed Black states that have been free for all time or hundreds of years such as Haiti. What is their excuse? - - - Updated - - - I made post 3. Please read a thread before chiming in and wasting everybody's time.
Yes it is rather irrelevant what you do, probably has been for most of your life. If you are white and murder non-whites then it could be said that you are committing race based crimes. No it doesn't change the definition of racism .. as I keep on trying to get through to you pointing out the differences between people is not racist, what is-is using those differences as tools to demean them. I suppose you are going to make some inane comment about which others do I mean, well as the OP is about racism I reckon even you can figure out what 'others' I mean. I have not run away from anything, just not interested in your little games. It's only name calling if it is not true .. in your case it is true. doesn't matter if it is groups or individuals nope it isn't .. however if you were to say "Chinese are not good sprinters in general" which means they are inferior to [insert whatever here], then yes you would be racist, and that is what you do . .would you like me to quote some of your comments showing this?
A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racist someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/racist nope, pretty plain English term, do you have an issue with understanding English? The dictionary meanings are not restricted, they cover exactly what racism is. Yes you are Have not dodged a single relevant thing, your questions are mere attempts to go off on a tangent. sorry, can you post where I have stated "I win the debate", though you have spent most of your time trying to move away from what racism is. Yes I understand your frustration of not being able to sidetrack me in the way you want to.
Wow, what an assumption .. you assume that a person can only be a racist if it is aimed at blacks or that a black person cannot be a racist - even against their own race
Chinese are not good sprinters in general which means they are inferior to Blacks at sprinting in general. This is a racist statement?
Translation: somebody called me out on the manure I constantly spew, and in order to avoid making myself look worse than I already do, I'll ignore a poster willing to call me out on my drivel.
What Constitutes a “Race”? In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind. This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines. Ernst Haeckel, famous for popularizing the now-discredited idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” stated: At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes. Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo. Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike, elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.” As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people. http://tinyurl.com/n43hhoe
That is a Creationist website that rejects evolution as much as they do race. Notice that their first reference is to Rushton representing evolutionary theory as racist. Rushton did misuse Life History Evolution to make racialist arguments but his ideas are fringe when compared with what the bulk of evolutionary biologists believe. Here's a better article by Joseph Graves. What We Know and What We Dont Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race By Joseph L. Graves, Jr. Published on: Jun 07, 2006 Joseph L. Graves, Jr. is University Core Director and Professor of Biological Sciences at Fairleigh Dickinson University. His research concerns the evolutionary genetics of postponed aging and biological concepts of race in humans. He is the author of The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, and The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America. He was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1994. Even the devil can quote scripture: genetics for the human race A Family Tree in Every Gene by Professor Armand Leroi makes much of the Nature Genetics supplement entitled: Genetics for the Human Race. This volume originated in a symposium entitled Human Genome Variation and Race, held at Howard University in the spring of 2003. The conference was the brain child of the National Human Genome Center at Howard University, a historically African American institution, led by scientists who hail from different parts of the African Diaspora. At this time I was a member of its external advisory board and a participant at the conference. Leroi describes its results as signaling the end of race as a social construct: In the supplement . . . eneath the jargon, cautious phrases, and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data clearly shows that races exist. As an attendee of the conference, I can state that his characterization of both the conference and the supplement is not accurate. The Howard conference was anything but courteous or politically correct. Scientists presented state-of-the-art papers on genetic variation and the concept of race. The discussion of the papers was intellectually rigorous, many times heated and contentious, and in no way governed by attempts to avoid controversy. Genetics for the Human Race began with a commentary imploring researchers to change from socially constructed race-based to genetic population-based thinking. In fact, every one of the papers published in this volume discussed the limitations of present genetic data to reconstruct 19th century typological racial schemes. All recognized that geographic variation exists, and that this variation may play a role in specific diseases, but none expressed that race as classically defined was an appropriate way to classify individuals. The baby with the bathwater Leroi relies on a 2003 paper published in Bioessays by Cambridge statistician A.W.F. Edwards.1 Edwards shows that a single genetic locus is insufficient to classify the ancestry of individuals. If one looks at many loci it is possible to unambiguously identify an individuals geographic ancestry. This result is hardly new. So, why should anyone choose this time to marshal this fact as an assault on social construction theory? The impact of social construction theory in anthropology or sociology did not begin or end with Richard Lewontin in 1972. Charles Darwin raised similar issues in The Descent of Man (1871).2 He pointed out the difficulty inherent in human racial classification, showing that naturalists had failed to agree upon the most important taxonomic characters. Thus, the racial schemes of his time varied from 2-63 named races. The morphological theories of race employed in the Western world by pre-Darwinian naturalists were deeply influenced by their social views.3 Social construction theory is certainly evident in the thinking of Franz Boas and his student Ruth Benedict in the late 1930s. However, the first full and clear articulation of this was by Boass student Ashley Montagu. He was a physical anthropologist and wrote Mankinds Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1942). Montagu pointed out that the physical features found in populations were not consistently correlated with each other (the principle of discordance.) For example, sub-Saharan Africans, East Indians, and Australian aborigines have dark skin, but differ in other anatomical traits, such as body proportions, skull proportions, hair type, or ear wax consistency. Indeed if one attempts to take multiple physical characters to define racial groups, you arrive at categorizations that are not indicative of their evolutionary history. Montagu wrote a series of articles for both scientific and popular journals between 1939 and 1942 outlining this concept.4 In fact, Edwards himself published a paper showing that using 63 physical traits you would classify Eskimos closer to Swedes and French populations than Eskimos are to North American Indians, with North American Indians closer to Swedes, French, and Eskimos than they are to South American Indians. Similar errors were observed with other populations, such as linking Australian aborigines with sub-Saharan Africans. In the same paper published in 1964, he and Cavalli-Sforza showed a tree based on 20 genes did not match the tree based on physical featutres!5 Neither is the discordance between physical features and genetic variation a phenomenon only found in humans.6 C. Loring Brace, Curator of Biological Anthropology at the University of Michigans Museum of Anthropology, has shown that while physical features can be used to demonstrate the likely origin of an individual skeleton, these features do not allow unambiguous classification of races. Geneticist Sewall Wright made the same point concerning discordance in his discussion of the genetic differentiation of the races of mankind.7 Thus Leroi is mistaken when he claims that human physical characteristics are correlated with each other in ways that reflect genetic relatedness. The 1950 UNESCO statement on race was clearly influenced by the thinking of Ashley Montagu and embodies social construction theory. The UNESCO conference was reported on by The New York Times, on July 17, 1950. The article stated that a world panel of experts had concluded that race was less a biological fact, than a social myth.8 The panel included a number of pre-eminent geneticists and anthropologists. The 1951 UNESCO statement clarified and refined the definition of race, pointing out that race was a classificatory device that allowed various groups of mankind to be arranged and evolutionary processes studied. It also stated that there were various populations that could not be easily fitted into a racial classification.9 Continued
Are you using the differences to demean the Chinese sprinter . .nope.. very different from most of your comments relating to race, especially when commenting about blacks
