The difference

I'm sorry. What's "race"? Is that some sort of special category that entitles you to special treatment or special consideration?

Take your "race" and shove where the sun never shines because truly, I don't give two f*cks where your ancestors came from. This isn't your ancestors country, this is America. So speak American and act like an American, because you're no different than any of the 300 or so million other people living in this country.

You're not playing the game correctly.

If you are a darkie then you are oppressed, but if you are a whitey then you are the oppressor.....unless you are a darkie conservative, then you are an Uncle Tom.

Got it?
 
I'm sorry. What's "race"? Is that some sort of special category that entitles you to special treatment or special consideration?

Take your "race" and shove where the sun never shines because truly, I don't give two f*cks where your ancestors came from. This isn't your ancestors country, this is America. So speak American and act like an American, because you're no different than any of the 300 or so million other people living in this country.

You're not playing the game correctly.

If you are a darkie then you are oppressed, but if you are a whitey then you are the oppressor.....unless you are a darkie conservative, then you are an Uncle Tom.

Got it?

Denial of history doesn't erase that history. Whites have been given special consideration now for close to 242 years.
 
I'm sorry. What's "race"? Is that some sort of special category that entitles you to special treatment or special consideration?

Take your "race" and shove where the sun never shines because truly, I don't give two f*cks where your ancestors came from. This isn't your ancestors country, this is America. So speak American and act like an American, because you're no different than any of the 300 or so million other people living in this country.

You're not playing the game correctly.

If you are a darkie then you are oppressed, but if you are a whitey then you are the oppressor.....unless you are a darkie conservative, then you are an Uncle Tom.

Got it?

Denial of history doesn't erase that history. Whites have been given special consideration now for close to 242 years.

It seems to me that under the law blacks are the ones who have been given special consideration ever since Affirmative action was passed.

So what do you want exactly from "whites"? In fact, what is a "white" person? Was Obama white since his mother was white? Or was Zimmerman a white because he shot and killed a black man, even though he was really Hispanic?

Race is a social construct that was created by those in power to divide and conquer. And they continue to do so today with the help of people like you who are fixated on it.

The reality is, we are all such a mix of "races" that the term really is idiotic.

All you are considering is the pigment of ones own skin.
 
“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

I agree that the concept of race is an ephemeral concept and not really germane to modern society.

So... why won’t you stop talking about it?
 
“I'm sorry. What's "race"? Is that some sort of special category that entitles you to special treatment or special consideration?”

In America there are four races, here listed in order of appearance, using the names that The Economist gives them:



1. Native Americans – came from north Asia thousands of years ago. Accounts for one American in 100.



2. Whites – came from Europe, starting in the 1500s. Accounts for 80 Americans in 100.



3. Blacks – came from Africa, starting the 1600s. Most came as slaves. Accounts for 13 Americans in 100.



4. Asians – came from Asia, starting in the 1800s. Accounts for 4 Americans in 100.

The remaining 2% are mostly mixed race.

But that is according to the U.S. Census. The truth is probably more like this:

  • 66% white
  • 20% black
  • 8% mestizo
  • 4% Asian
  • 2% Native American
Some would add Hispanics to the current list. I do not because they are distinguished not by race but by speaking Spanish or having a Spanish family name.

The names The Economist uses are acceptable in mixed company in America in 2006. But by 2056 they are sure to seem old-fashioned, just as those from 1956 seem to us now: Indians, whites, Negroes and Orientals.

Even worse, some of these acceptable names obscure the truth:

People in America are treated differently according to the colour of their skin.

As if we were all still eight years old. We could all have a good laugh over it if the game was not played for keeps.

It may not be as bad as it was fifty years ago, but it is still bad enough.

For example, suppose you are looking for work. If you have a last name that seems Jewish and you sound like a white person over the telephone, then you might call up a company and they tell you they have six positions open. But when you get there an hour later, suddenly all six positions have been filled!

What happened? When you got there they saw that you are black. Your education and experience and everything they found out about you over the telephone suddenly does not matter. The colour of your skin now becomes everything.

I did not make up this story; I do not have to.

Not getting good work because of your colour has all sorts of consequences – on your health, your marriage, on where you can live, your children’s education and on and on. It is not amusing.

If you are black you are two times more likely to be out of work, to be in prison, to be poor and so on. You have to be two times as good as a white person before whites will admit that you are as good as they are. Ask Condoleezza Rice. You can even see it at work on television on “American Idol”. That is the way it works. Still.

White people act like they own America, like it is their country and no one else’s. Black people helped to build America and have given their lives to make it free, but it is as if they are ugly stepchildren.

Mod Edit -- copyright violation -- no link or credit. IM2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

I agree that the concept of race is an ephemeral concept and not really germane to modern society.

So... why won’t you stop talking about it?

Except it is germane to modern society since it is what modern society is built on, it is the foundation thereof and because of laws and policies based on race.
 
I'm sorry. What's "race"? Is that some sort of special category that entitles you to special treatment or special consideration?

Take your "race" and shove where the sun never shines because truly, I don't give two f*cks where your ancestors came from. This isn't your ancestors country, this is America. So speak American and act like an American, because you're no different than any of the 300 or so million other people living in this country.

You're not playing the game correctly.

If you are a darkie then you are oppressed, but if you are a whitey then you are the oppressor.....unless you are a darkie conservative, then you are an Uncle Tom.

Got it?

Denial of history doesn't erase that history. Whites have been given special consideration now for close to 242 years.

It seems to me that under the law blacks are the ones who have been given special consideration ever since Affirmative action was passed.

So what do you want exactly from "whites"? In fact, what is a "white" person? Was Obama white since his mother was white? Or was Zimmerman a white because he shot and killed a black man, even though he was really Hispanic?

Race is a social construct that was created by those in power to divide and conquer. And they continue to do so today with the help of people like you who are fixated on it.

The reality is, we are all such a mix of "races" that the term really is idiotic.

All you are considering is the pigment of ones own skin.

Apparently you have read no law. And you can stop with the stupid questions.
 
“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

I agree that the concept of race is an ephemeral concept and not really germane to modern society.

So... why won’t you stop talking about it?

Except it is germane to modern society since it is what modern society is built on, it is the foundation thereof and because of laws and policies based on race.

What current laws apply specifically to members of a specific race?
 
“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

I agree that the concept of race is an ephemeral concept and not really germane to modern society.

So... why won’t you stop talking about it?

Except it is germane to modern society since it is what modern society is built on, it is the foundation thereof and because of laws and policies based on race.

What current laws apply specifically to members of a specific race?

Stop asking idiot questions.

Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist.

Get it?
 
“Race” (1580), in the sense of a stock or breed of living things, goes back to 1580 in English. Its sense as “the races of mankind”, where humans are divided into a few fixed races, came later, in the 1700s.

The word came well after the start the of the Transatlantic slave trade. It came just after the words “Negro” (1555) and “Indian” (middle 1500s in the sense of Native Americans) entered English and just before whites became “whites” (early 1600s).

Far from being as old as human nature, “race” is newer than guns and ocean-going ships, newer than printed books and looking glasses.

It does not even appear in the King James Bible. There every race is a race to run – “the race is not to the swift”, etc. The King James Bible came out in 1611 but its English was old-fashioned even back then as it closely followed that of the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.

But you do see the word in Shakespeare: “happy race of kings”, “noble race”, “race of heaven”, etc. He applies it to men and horses. It clearly means a stock or breed, a bloodline, like in “Henry VI, Part 2” (1591):

Thy mother took into her blameful bed
Some stern untutor’d churl, and noble stock
Was graft with crab-tree slip, whose fruit thou art,
And never of the Nevils’ noble race.

Some say the word came from French, some say from Italian. No one knows for sure. Most likely it came from Spanish, which is where the English also got “Indian” and “Negro”. Back then the Spanish word for race would have sounded like “reazza” to the English, of which “race” is a reasonable anglicization. The Spanish word also had the same meaning as in Shakespeare: breeds of horses or men.

In Shakespeare’s time the Spanish applied it mainly to horses. Breeds of horses were known to be different in both appearance and behaviour. They could be crossed or kept apart. But the word was also starting to be applied to people, particularly to Moors and Jews who had converted to Christianity – who were one thing by faith, another by “race”. By the early 1700s the Spanish applied it mainly to people, not horses.

In English there are all sorts of words for dividing people one from another: nation, people, kind, variety, etc. Race was just another one of those words, like it is in Shakespeare. It did not become the main word for the divisions of mankind until the 1700s with the rise of scientific racism. That was when the word “Caucasian” (1795) was invented – to divide men into races.

The word “race” caught on because it fit the growing racism of the English-speaking world which, instead of dividing mankind by nation, language or religion like everyone else, divided it, strangely, into breeding stock – as if people (or at least some people) were just animals without soul or speech or country.

I agree that the concept of race is an ephemeral concept and not really germane to modern society.

So... why won’t you stop talking about it?

Except it is germane to modern society since it is what modern society is built on, it is the foundation thereof and because of laws and policies based on race.

What current laws apply specifically to members of a specific race?

Stop asking idiot questions.

Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist.

Get it?

So no laws then.
 
Well, I guess all those white Regressives should find another hobby, then.
Yes.

You should
Oops, triggered another one.

Well I dunno, I'm half white, do I get to choose?

You Regressives make all rules on skin color, after all.

I don't want to "offend".
.

All this talk of race by regressives, takes me back to Dr. Sues and the story of the Sneetches. It was written right after WW2 after the Jewish genocide and FDR locking up Americans cuz they had slanty eyes.

The Sneetches


Now, the Star-Bell Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.



Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.



But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And, whenever they met some, when they were out walking,
They’d hike right on past them without even talking.



When the Star-Belly children went out to play ball,
Could a Plain Belly get in the game? Not at all.
You only could play if your bellies had stars
And the Plain-Belly children had none upon thars.



When the Star Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts
Or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,
They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches
They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches.
They kept them away. Never let them come near.
And that’s how they treated them year after year.



Then ONE day, it seems while the Plain-Belly Sneetches
Were moping and doping alone on the beaches,
Just sitting there wishing their bellies had stars,
A stranger zipped up in the strangest of cars!



“My friends”, he announced in a voice clear and clean,
“My name is Sylvester McMonkey McBean. And I’ve heard of
Your troubles. I’ve heard you’re unhappy. But I can fix
That I’m the Fix-It-Up Chappie. I’ve come here to help
You. I have what you need. And my prices are low. And
I work with great speed. And my work is one hundred per cent guaranteed!”



Then, quickly, Sylvester McMonkey McBean
Put together a very peculiar machine.
And he said, “You want stars like a Star-Belly Sneetch? My friends, you can
Have them for three dollars each!”



“Just pay me your money and hop right aboard!”
So they clambered inside. Then the big machine roared.
And it klonked. And it bonked. And it jerked. And it berked.
And it bopped them about. But the thing really worked!
When the Plain-Belly Sneetches popped out, they had stars!
They actually did. They had stars upon thars!



Then they yelled at the ones who had stars at the start,
“We’re still the best Sneetches and they are the worst.
But now, how in the world will we know”, they all frowned,
“If which kind is what, or the other way round?”



Then up came McBean with a very sly wink. And he said, “Things
are not quite as bad as you think. So you don’t know who’s who.
That is perfectly true. But come with me, friends. Do you know
what I’ll do? I’ll make you, again, the best Sneetches on the beaches.
And all it will cost you is ten dollars eaches.”



“Belly stars are no longer in style”, said McBean.
“What you need is a trip through my Star-Off Machine. This
Wondrous contraption will take OFF your stars so you won’t
Look like Sneetches that have them on thars.”
And that handy machine working very precisely
Removed all the stars from their tummies quite nicely.



Then, with snoots in the air, they paraded about. And they opened
Their beaks and they let out a shout, “We know who is who! Now there
Isn’t a doubt. The best kind of Sneetches are Sneetches without!”



Then, of course, those with stars got all frightfully mad.
To be wearing a star was frightfully bad. Then, of course, old
Sylvester McMonkey McBean invited THEM into his Star-Off Machine.



Then, of course from THEN on, as you probably guess,
Things really got into a horrible mess.



All the rest of that day, on those wild screaming beaches,
The Fix-It-Up Chappie kept fixing up Sneetches.
Off again! On again! In again! Out again!
Through the machines they raced round and about again,
Changing their stars every minute or two. They kept paying money.
They kept running through until the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
Whether this one was that one or that one was this one. Or which one
Was what one or what one was who.



Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
The Fix-It-Up Chappie packed up. And he went. And he laughed as he drove
In his car up the beach, “They never will learn. No. You can’t
Teach a Sneetch!”



But McBean was quite wrong. I’m quite happy to say.
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches.
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether
They had one, or not, upon thars.
asdfadsfadsf.jpg
 
Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist.
So you're saying that we shouldn't worry about voter fraud, illegal immigration and welfare abuse? :cuckoo:
 
Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist.
So you're saying that we shouldn't worry about voter fraud, illegal immigration and welfare abuse? :cuckoo:

.Classic dumb ass.
 
Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist.
So you're saying that we shouldn't worry about voter fraud, illegal immigration and welfare abuse? :cuckoo:

.Classic dumb ass.
Can't answer the question. Got it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top