Racism Or Human Preference?

Racism Or Human Preference?

  • Racism

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Human Preference

    Votes: 11 78.6%

  • Total voters
    14
He said the races shouldn't interbreed and that people who do inerbreed hate their own race.

He did indeed. But why do I suspect that if the same sentiments were expressed by a white man, they'd be verbally assaulted with accusations of racism?
True, but those days were fraught with a lot of civil strife. It was only 3 years before that Martin Luther King was assassinated, only one year after the Kent State massacre and the war in Viet Nam was still going. Tough times all around. Fortunately, we've grown up as a society a bit since then.
 
It is obvious that Ali can get away with asserting racist things because he is black, and most charges of racism are used to silence whites opposed to the left's agenda, not black sports heroes.

Not all racism requires an assertion of racial superiority. That one wants the law to distinguish between one race and another is racist in and of itself and that due to the idea that race-ism is to advocate policies and laws in which a person is processed primarily on the basis of their race.

Affirmative action is racism.

Bussing for school integration is racism.

A person choosing to marry someone of their own race is NOT racism.

A person prefering their own kind to socialize is NOT racism.

A member of a race organizing to protect their won interest is not racism. The hypocrisy of the left is that they will assert the last three are racist only when a white person does it. And that is why the term racism is losing both its clear meaning and its sting.
 
It is obvious that Ali can get away with asserting racist things because he is black, and most charges of racism are used to silence whites opposed to the left's agenda, not black sports heroes.

What's clear from listening to the interview is that Ali didn't "get away with" what he said in the only sense anyone ever does: not being challenged on it.

Not all racism requires an assertion of racial superiority. That one wants the law to distinguish between one race and another is racist in and of itself and that due to the idea that race-ism is to advocate policies and laws in which a person is processed primarily on the basis of their race.

Racism is a motive or set of motives. As such, it cannot be objectively defined in terms of actions, even if certain actions seem to be typical of it. The motives of racism include a desire to promote the social, political, economic, and/or cultural supremacy of one race over another, or to preserve racial purity. Anything done from these motives, and any belief arising from and empowered by these motives, is racist. Anything that does not include these motives is not.

Affirmative action is racism.

Bussing for school integration is racism.

As neither of these is undertaken from the motives of racism, no, they are not.

A person choosing to marry someone of their own race is NOT racism.

A person prefering their own kind to socialize is NOT racism.

A person choosing to marry someone who happens to be of their own race is not racism, but a person choosing a priori "I will only marry someone of my own race" is. It's motivated by a desire to preserve racial purity.

A member of a race organizing to protect their won interest is not racism.

By that logic, the secession of the South, designed to preserve the "won interest" of rich white people in owning black slaves, was not racist. By that logic, Jim Crow, designed to preserve the "won interest" of whites enjoying a superior social position, was not racist.

The hypocrisy of the left is that they will assert the last three are racist only when a white person does it. And that is why the term racism is losing both its clear meaning and its sting.

What's absolutely obvious here is that you are attempting to define and bracket the concept of racism so that many things which obviously are racist become non-racist (and justifiable), while many attempts to rectify racism or its lingering effects become themselves racist and so open to condemnation.

It's quite transparent.
 
laila-ali-muhammad-ali-335a0612071.jpg


The funny thing is Muhammed Ali is not exactly the darkest shade of Black, whether he likes it or not someone had interracial sex in his lineage, his daughter is light skinned too. His whole views on the subject are pretty ignorant.
 
It's sad to see that he had by then been so infected with elijah muhammed's bullshit
 
And until you post credilble links that map a rapidly growing trend in favour of interracial over homogeneous relationships across the world, I refuse to believe that young people across the world are increasingly disagreeing with and abandoning the views and values expressed by Muhammad Ali.

Is this really news to you?
 

Attachments

  • $post_full_1276105956interracialmarriage.jpg
    $post_full_1276105956interracialmarriage.jpg
    28.4 KB · Views: 59
What part of "across the world" do you not understand, Unkotare? Regional (US in this case) data doesn't even come close to giving us a fair overview of the bigger picture.
 
What part of "across the world" do you not understand, Unkotare? Regional (US in this case) data doesn't even come close to giving us a fair overview of the bigger picture.


You are, of course, being deliberately disingenuous in order to promote your racist agenda.
 

Forum List

Back
Top