acceptable Racism ?

Dades

sceptre wrote:

1980, though of course there was a good reason for that.

Cheers for that - I actually meant to go look that up.

The Corinthian

Blub2k4 wrote:

Ah so I see, I have to post from the wiki for it to be the accepted reference?

No, but giving more comprehensive sources than a simple definition from Dictionary.com is desirable if you want your position to be taken seriously. Wiki isn’t a bad start in this regard, but you’re welcome to suggest other credible sources.

I was suggesting that to take any of the terms used and define them you could come up with your definition, if you “cherry-picked” the definitions, or you could come up with mine.

Not really. Of the various definitions of race you cited pretty much all of them followed a genetic or biological definition, with the exception of the single one you cited. Let’s face it, of the six interpretations you cited, three concurred with the genetic definition, two were linguistic (e.g. “human race”) and one concurred with you.

So I didn’t really need to cherry pick anything as the evidence you presented actually favoured my definition.

The point is that you are trying to tie the argument to your definition and seek to discount other definitions as “misunderstanding” which is either 1/ a isunderstanding of the multiple definitions possible or 2/ an attempt to mislead, I I believe you are trying to mislead.

Actually I would discount them as ignorant rather than as any kind of misunderstanding. It’s ill educated and fanciful definitions such as your own that are the reason that paediatricians get lynched.

You are attempting to write off the broader definitions, I am rebutting where you said I misunderstood remember, of the topic with which you disagree and substitute them with your own narrower definition, this does not an argument make.

You can reinvent the definition of the term race by cherry picking definitions that agree with you all you want, but it’s not going to change reality. By all means cite credible evidence if you disagree.

rsynnott

I'm rather disconcerted to find myself agreeing with TheCorinthian

Dades

I'm rather disillusioned with the direction this thread has taken.

nesf

*shrugs*

tfd.com isn't bad for a free dictionary.

If you're serious about it, pick up a good Oxford one imho. The Shorter Oxford is available on DVD and isn't too expensive iirc.


Although, I would argue dictionary.com is fine for the vast majority of cases when you are not looking for a comprehensive definition.

KnowItAll

The Atheist wrote:

:rolleyes:

You're forgetting the fact that America was already inhabited.
So by your reckoning Native Americans (i.e American Indians) are only true Americans.
They were there first and they're still there.

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Er, 17,000 years ago people migrated from modern day Russia to modern day Alaska and Canada ... so that is kinda like saying Europeans are actually part African and part Middle Eastern, which while technically correct, kinda misses the point.

Though I suppose you could argue that the only true "native" people are sub-sahara Africans and everyone else are in fact immigrants, so we should all shut up about immigration cause we all at one point in our family history used it. Good point BTW...

Dades

KnowItAll wrote:

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Have you read your own posts?
Did Irish people grow from mushrooms, or was the country originally settled by migrants from another continent?

Oops double posted with Wicknight...

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Er, 17,000 years ago people migrated from modern day Russia to modern day Alaska and Canada ... so that is kinda like saying Europeans are actually part African and part Middle Eastern, which while technically correct, kinda misses the point.

Well there's a (pretty good)theory that humans were in the Americas long before 17,000 years ago. There's some evidence that some came from Europe along the ice sheets and settled in the east of Nth America(genetic marker in the blood similar to Europeans in eastern native populations). There are even sites in sth America that have been dated to as far back as 60,000 yrs, but it doesn't really fit with the accepted theory and for various reasons has been largely ignored. It's rather like the evidence for Neandertals in Ireland has been ignored in some quarters. In Britain they have evidence for even earlier humans going back 100's of thousands of years ago. Yet the current theory hold that humans only came to Ireland after the last ice age. That's for another thread in another place though.

Human evolution and migration patterns are still poorly understood, mainly due to the rarity of early human fossils etc. We're all an amazing bunch all the same. The first Africans who looked at a cold Europe and said " ah sure we'll nip over there" had some balls on them, that's for sure. Amazing. Don't even get me started on the Polynesian civilisation and their migrations. Wow isn't in it.

Though I suppose you could argue that the only true "native" people are sub-sahara Africans and everyone else are in fact immigrants, so we should all shut up about immigration cause we all at one point in our family history used it. Good point BTW...

Only partly true, especially if you don't agree with the total replacement out of Africa theory. But yea, we're all immigrant Africans with local bits added. So if you're not an Ethiopian hill tribesman you're a blow in.

The Bouncer

Megatron wrote:

thats my point, which you just didn't get.

Racism is about RACE .... i'm how many Irish people do you know who use the term N1gger to each other on a regular basis ?

Probably just a guess but those Irish people of Afro/Caribbean descent may do or do we need to prove our lineage as suggested in other posts to be Irish in your little world? In which case even then you are not Irish as the original inhabitants were not celtic but pics (stand to be corrected here)

rsynnott

The Bouncer wrote:

Probably just a guess but those Irish people of Afro/Caribbean descent may do or do we need to prove our lineage as suggested in other posts to be Irish in your little world? In which case even then you are not Irish as the original inhabitants were not celtic but pics (stand to be corrected here)

No, no, in his little world "Irish" means "him".