White college fraternity in Oklahoma shut down for overt racism

[Ravi]

So you don't like the bible as a reference, how about the Chinese?

Pejorative statements about non-Han Chinese can be found in some ancient Chinese texts. For example, a 7th-century commentary to the Hanshu by Yan Shigu on the Wusun people likens "barbarians who have green eyes and red hair" to macaque monkeys.[1]

Some conflicts between different races and ethnicities resulted in genocide. Ran Min, a Han Chinese leader, during the Wei–Jie war, massacred non-Chinese Wu Hu peoples around 350 A.D. in retaliation for abuses against the Chinese population, with the Jie people particularly affected.[2]

Rebels slaughtered many Arabs and Persian merchants in the Yangzhou massacre (760). The Arab historian Abu Zayd Hasan of Siraf reports when the rebel Huang Chao captured Guang Prefecture, his army killed a large number of foreign merchants resident there: Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Parsees, in the Guangzhou massacre.[3] Foreign Arab and Persians residing in Quanzhou were massacred in the Ispah Rebellion.

In the 20th century, the social and cultural critic Lu Xun commented that, "throughout the ages, Chinese have had only two ways of looking at foreigners, up to them as superior beings or down on them as wild animals." [4]

Those all sound like they came after the comments by Aristotle.


"Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians, and so does also too white a complexion, as you may see from women. So the hue that makes for courage must be intermediate between these extremes. A tawny colour indicates a bold spirit, as in lions; but too ruddy a hue marks a rogue, as in the case of the fox. A pale mottled hue signifies cowardice, for that is the colour one turns in terror. "
-Aristotle 322 B.C.E

I don't think so, especially the second example. According to this, knowledge of Aristotle came to China after 599 AD.

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Knowledge of Aristotle may have came to China after 599 AD but the sentiment of racism expressed may have come prior to that and not have necessarily been attributed to Aristotle having being displayed as a social norm of white people. Also you have to remember that whites and China probably go back a long way. Whites had plenty of time to teach them how to be racists.

LOL! They wouldn't have taught them to be racist against whites. Your theory is very far fetched.

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

 

[Asclepias]

Those all sound like they came after the comments by Aristotle.


"Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians, and so does also too white a complexion, as you may see from women. So the hue that makes for courage must be intermediate between these extremes. A tawny colour indicates a bold spirit, as in lions; but too ruddy a hue marks a rogue, as in the case of the fox. A pale mottled hue signifies cowardice, for that is the colour one turns in terror. "
-Aristotle 322 B.C.E

I don't think so, especially the second example. According to this, knowledge of Aristotle came to China after 599 AD.

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Knowledge of Aristotle may have came to China after 599 AD but the sentiment of racism expressed may have come prior to that and not have necessarily been attributed to Aristotle having being displayed as a social norm of white people. Also you have to remember that whites and China probably go back a long way. Whites had plenty of time to teach them how to be racists.

LOL! They wouldn't have taught them to be racist against whites. Your theory is very far fetched.

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

 

[Ravi]

I don't think so, especially the second example. According to this, knowledge of Aristotle came to China after 599 AD.

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Knowledge of Aristotle may have came to China after 599 AD but the sentiment of racism expressed may have come prior to that and not have necessarily been attributed to Aristotle having being displayed as a social norm of white people. Also you have to remember that whites and China probably go back a long way. Whites had plenty of time to teach them how to be racists.

LOL! They wouldn't have taught them to be racist against whites. Your theory is very far fetched.

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

 

[Asclepias]

Knowledge of Aristotle may have came to China after 599 AD but the sentiment of racism expressed may have come prior to that and not have necessarily been attributed to Aristotle having being displayed as a social norm of white people. Also you have to remember that whites and China probably go back a long way. Whites had plenty of time to teach them how to be racists.

LOL! They wouldn't have taught them to be racist against whites. Your theory is very far fetched.

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

 

[Ravi]

LOL! They wouldn't have taught them to be racist against whites. Your theory is very far fetched.

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

 

[Asclepias]

Whites taught Blacks to be racist against whites. I'm sure it was not intentional but just a result of interaction with whites.

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

 

[Ravi]

You are kind of making everyone stupid and unable to resist white people. That doesn't sound logical.

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

 

[Asclepias]

That doesnt make people stupid. It would be a natural reaction to the racism of whites. If whites are committing genocide against you and not respecting your culture you start thinking all whites are heathens or sub human because thats the characteristic they all share.

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

 

[Steinlight]

Fraternity member says mean words, gets expelled. Football player fractures a woman's jaw, get's reinstated on team.

Oklahoma football Joe Mixon continues to earn his way back on the football team News OK

What a chickenshit university.

 

[Asclepias]

Now all the racists are mad at the university. ^^^^

 

[Dot Com]

sadly, sports (uneducated oafs running around on the grass) is a universities primary cash cow because of the idiots who will pay top dollar to attend their games. THAT is why football and basketball players get a pass.

Deford NCAA Fans Continue To Drink Deeply Of The Sports Spirits NPR

 

[Toro]

No, you would have to be stupid to think ALL ANYTHING = THIS.

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats not true. Categorizing is a natural instinct. We wouldnt be here if humans didnt have the instinct to categorize. Now that we are past the danger point, the evolution is realizing that there is no such thing as "all" when it comes to different groups of people.

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

This is where etymology comes into to play. An "ism" is a system or philosophy. Racism is a system based on race. What I meant by best of society is the opportunities and access to resources. Racist is the belief that one race is superior to another. Has nothing to do with income level. Its a different word than racism.

 

[Conservative65]

What you are saying then is that racism is instinctual and not invented by white people.

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

This is where etymology comes into to play. An "ism" is a system or philosophy. Racism is a system based on race. What I meant by best of society is the opportunities and access to resources. Racist is the belief that one race is superior to another. Has nothing to do with income level. Its a different word than racism.

That means you're a racist. You have claimed that your being black makes you better than whites.

 

[Asclepias]

No thats what you are saying. I said "categorizing". Whites took that to another level. I have heard theories that point to a racial inferiority complex as the reason.

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

This is where etymology comes into to play. An "ism" is a system or philosophy. Racism is a system based on race. What I meant by best of society is the opportunities and access to resources. Racist is the belief that one race is superior to another. Has nothing to do with income level. Its a different word than racism.

That means you're a racist. You have claimed that your being black makes you better than whites.

Being better than you doesnt make me a racist. It just means you are a pitiful example of a white boy.

 

[Conservative65]

Categorizing to discriminate is the same as racism.

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

This is where etymology comes into to play. An "ism" is a system or philosophy. Racism is a system based on race. What I meant by best of society is the opportunities and access to resources. Racist is the belief that one race is superior to another. Has nothing to do with income level. Its a different word than racism.

That means you're a racist. You have claimed that your being black makes you better than whites.

Being better than you doesnt make me a racist. It just means you are a pitiful example of a white boy.

Claiming it's because you're black does.

At least this white boy didn't have family members that were held as slaves. If blacks were as good and strong as you claim, they wouldn't have been slaves for 300 years under white people.

 

[Asclepias]

No its not. Racism is a system by where the presumed superior race is afforded the best of that society at the detriment to all other races.
Categorizing to discriminate may be preferring boots over high heels. Or in the example I used, One white tribe not trusting another white tribe because they live in the valley instead of the mountains.

That's not racism.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice based on race. That's it.

"The best of society" would preclude the backward, uneducated poor white hicks living in trailers who hate blacks.

Like Shootspeeders for instance.

Your definition means these people can't be racist by definition because they are economically disadvantaged. That, of course, is wrong.

This is where etymology comes into to play. An "ism" is a system or philosophy. Racism is a system based on race. What I meant by best of society is the opportunities and access to resources. Racist is the belief that one race is superior to another. Has nothing to do with income level. Its a different word than racism.

That means you're a racist. You have claimed that your being black makes you better than whites.

Being better than you doesnt make me a racist. It just means you are a pitiful example of a white boy.

Claiming it's because you're black does.

At least this white boy didn't have family members that were held as slaves. If blacks were as good and strong as you claim, they wouldn't have been slaves for 300 years under white people.

Another dumb racist white boy bites the dust.

 

[Steinlight]

Now all the racists are mad at the university. ^^^^

No I am just laughing at how American universities are a joke. You expel students who say mean words that hurt black people's precious feels but allow violent thugs on campus because they make you money.

Oklahoma is a joke school and America is a joke country.

 

[Liminal]

Now all the racists are mad at the university. ^^^^

No I am just laughing at how American universities are a joke. You expel students who say mean words that hurt black people's precious feels but allow violent thugs on campus because they make you money.

Oklahoma is a joke school and America is a joke country.

It seems apparent that you never went to any kind of university, American or otherwise.

 

[Steinlight]

Now all the racists are mad at the university. ^^^^

No I am just laughing at how American universities are a joke. You expel students who say mean words that hurt black people's precious feels but allow violent thugs on campus because they make you money.

Oklahoma is a joke school and America is a joke country.

It seems apparent that you never went to any kind of university, American or otherwise.

That Joe Moxon looks like a real scholar. You should be proud you have football playing thug, no racist meanie for you guys, only the top minds for you guys . Really top caliber education system you Americans have