What are your thoughts on "Race"?

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Whyte.Devyl, Aug 12, 2009.

?

Which label do you most strongly identify with?

  1. NULL

    43.8%
  2. RACIALIST

    43.8%
  3. RACIST

    6.3%
  4. GENOCIDAL SUPREMACIST

    6.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Whyte.Devyl
    Offline

    Whyte.Devyl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    What are your thoughts on "Race"?
    Which label do you most strongly identify with?

    (You may vote for more than one)

    NULL
    You deny that there is even such a thing as 'race'. Perhaps you believe that the biological characteristics used to define 'race' are not biological, rather "social constructs".
    (Perhaps you are in this subforum by mistake?)

    RACIALIST
    You maintain that even though 'races' are indeed different, such differences do not include any inherent superiority/inferiority. You may acknowledge that genetically inheritable biological characteristics are indeed real.

    RACIST
    You believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior or inferior to others. You believe that a particular 'race' has the right to exploit another based on culture, history, or simple biology.

    GENOCIDAL SUPREMACIST
    You believe that the world should or will be "the same race someday". You support whatever measures neccesary to ensure that a particular 'race' or 'races' cease to exist, even if it is your own 'race'.

    *Note that these labels do not neccesarily coincide with contemporary definitions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2009
  2. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    The second one, I guess.
     
  3. Whyte.Devyl
    Offline

    Whyte.Devyl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Forgot to include my own vote.

    Kalam,
    Any caveats to your vote?
     
  4. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,300
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,307
    You could also believe that certain races are superior/inferior to others in some way (e.g., certain sports, thicker skull (Australians), higher IQ, etc.), but do not believe that a particular race has the right to exploit another.
     
  5. Whyte.Devyl
    Offline

    Whyte.Devyl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    xsited1,
    Interesting point of view. What you have described is a contemporary definition of "racialist", that is one who subscribes to the notion that not only are 'races' different, but that there are inherent superior/inferior qualities within each given 'race'.

    The differentiation I made was that, just because one beleives that certain traits are 'racial', it does not mean that any individual of a particular 'race' is guaranteed to be superior/inferior to another individual of another 'race' solely on the basis of 'racial' characteristics. When I refer to 'racial' characteristics I am including taxonomical traits such as skin color, hair color, eye color, prognathism, skull shape, inheritable diseases, etc.

    IMHO - Within any given population, possessing any given set of 'racial' traits, there always remains the potential for "high/low IQ", or "fast/slow runners" depending upon the individual. So by contemporary definition, I guess I am only ½ a "racialist".

    Hope that makes sense.

    Oh one other thing, Why no vote?
     
  6. Kalam
    Offline

    Kalam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,866
    Thanks Received:
    773
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +773
    Perceived differences between races seem to have far more to do with cultural factors than biological factors.
     
  7. Yukon
    Offline

    Yukon BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,025
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +99
    I believe the whiteman is superior as God demands.
     
  8. publicprotector
    Offline

    publicprotector Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    320
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    The source ofracism has always been constant and always will unless certain factors change. That constant is progress, highly developed civilisations always have seen themselves as superior to any that are not as developed. That has been the case throughout history, it not a white thing or a black thing.

    It is that which sets all others part, thrown into the mix is religion. But the answer is simple, remove religion, bring everyone up to the same level of development, give people what they need and the majority of problems that humans have with each other will vanish.

    It is for that reason that the perps keep things the way they are. Ignorance, war and want make lots of money.
     
  9. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,430
    Thanks Received:
    12,698
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,862
    Your definition for racist is incorrect.

    from Websters:

    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
     
  10. Whyte.Devyl
    Offline

    Whyte.Devyl Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    ravi,
    No kidding, that may be why I posted this:
    That said, the definition provided of "racist" still fits within the boundaries of Websters definition does it not?

    One other thing, why no vote?
     

Share This Page