Doryman said:
:roll: What makes you think I'm being offended on someone else's behalf, Doryman? I find racism and petty minded bigotry offensive on my own account.
What is racism?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
:roll: What makes you think I'm being offended on someone else's behalf, Doryman? I find racism and petty minded bigotry offensive on my own account.
Cut throat,
Your post has been deleted and posted in the moderator forum for the administrator of this site. As well as your hateful site, I stand by my decision, and the administrator can view your site for himself. I repeat to you again, and don't bother arguing with me, do not link your site to this one, or I will ban you. The final decision will be made by the administrator, until than, do not link that site to canadian content!
Your post has been deleted and posted in the moderator forum for the administrator of this site. As well as your hateful site, I stand by my decision, and the administrator can view your site for himself. I repeat to you again, and don't bother arguing with me, do not link your site to this one, or I will ban you. The final decision will be made by the administrator, until than, do not link that site to canadian content!
peapod said:
What exactly did you find hateful about it. I've read over all the posts again and it seems more like a bunch of old college buddies horsing around. Do you even know what I hate site is or did you just call it that cause you don't like what I have to say?
Its just strange because you have seen the sig and the page and it was fine until I made a comment under this topic. Then all of a sudden I have a hate site and my sig isn't allowed. If you are going to censor people with a point of view you don't like why not just come out and say it instead of lying about the website?
Last time! I am not discussing this with you. I have made my decision and until the administrator views your site, you are not linking to this site!
Hard-Luck Henry said:
And what instance of "petty-minded bigotry" was it that you chose to be offended by? Cutthroats argument that charges of racism are almost always levelled at caucasian people to the exclusion of anyone else?
And I have rarely seen any "ethnic" people get insulted by racial jokes; it's always nosey, loudmouth after-school-anarchists who are desperately looking for a cause to champion who get offended when they hear anything of the sort. Hell, I was once labelled a racist by some Vegan Feminazi because I wouldn't agree that interracial marriages are morally superior to intraracial marriages!!! An Asian friend of mine had the same opinion as I, and she didn't say anything to him. Wonder why...
Anyway, I'm not advocating that we all go out and start flinging racial slurs at each other willy-nilly. I'm just trying to say that the foaming, apologist anti-racists are more to blame for racial tensions and problems than are any few guys who are comfortable enough with themselves to laugh at the occasional off-color joke.
Doryman said:
:lol: I'm sure the Beothuk people would have something to say about the early NL settlers...but they're not around to state their case anymore.
:roll: Personally I've been the target of racism. Since I was a minority where I lived. I sufferered no reverse backlash in pointing out that so-and-so was a racist. Again it would depend on the individual, some are more sensitive than others with the topic. Both the sensitive whites and sensitive...non whites are prone to point out fingers and whine about their woes. There's going to be bullshit no matter where you go. Some of the best native jokes I got were from native, so not everyone is touchy and prone to the reverse racism schtick.
:roll: I'm well aware of the history buddy. Gots me some family n' nufundland hisstory dere too. Anyways native Diseases were not catostrophic. Introducted European ones were. Timeline anyone? Besides infighting amongst the natives and the natives being pitted against each other by Europeans was commonplace everywhere. I could go forever about the Cree and the Inuks.... The english were not innocent with that endevor either. The French actually worked better with the natives than the english did. Not that they were all angels though, them franks have just as many skeletons in their colonial closet as the Engrish.
So in the end I'm not Dissing your ancestors, to think so is just too much reading between the lines.
So in the end I'm not Dissing your ancestors, to think so is just too much reading between the lines.
[quote="Jo Canadian]
:lol: I'm sure the Beothuk people would have something to say about the early NL settlers...but they're not around to state their case anymore.[/quote]
C'mon Jo, you have to admit that it wasn't hard to read an implication of blame between these lines, don't ya?
And as to the Native diseases, no they weren't catastrophic, and the European ones were more devastating, yes. But you can't blame settlers for accidentally showing up with the sniffles!!
Further on the Beothuks, archaeological evidence suggests they never had a population over 1200, so it's more likely that they died out because the growing NL pop pushed them to the fringes unknowingly than they were the result of any sort of Genocide.
Anyhoo, back to the racist arguments... I hate the Spanish! Anyone who guesses why gets a free undersized Turbot!
:lol: I'm sure the Beothuk people would have something to say about the early NL settlers...but they're not around to state their case anymore.[/quote]
C'mon Jo, you have to admit that it wasn't hard to read an implication of blame between these lines, don't ya?
And as to the Native diseases, no they weren't catastrophic, and the European ones were more devastating, yes. But you can't blame settlers for accidentally showing up with the sniffles!!
Further on the Beothuks, archaeological evidence suggests they never had a population over 1200, so it's more likely that they died out because the growing NL pop pushed them to the fringes unknowingly than they were the result of any sort of Genocide.
Anyhoo, back to the racist arguments... I hate the Spanish! Anyone who guesses why gets a free undersized Turbot!
The problems that underpin the violence in Canada is the same that underpins the violence in France.
It's called "Favoratism". When people are favoured because they are of certain cultures or races, the ones that are held back or less Favoured have reduced opportunities in that society.
Over time this builds into a violent response, because "Favoratism" is the exact same thing as "Racism" only applied in reverse, more suttle and applied in a more polically correct way. People are a lot smarter today than 50 years ago, especially young people.
Racism, Bigotry, Favoritism, Incumbency - A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
It's called "Favoratism". When people are favoured because they are of certain cultures or races, the ones that are held back or less Favoured have reduced opportunities in that society.
Over time this builds into a violent response, because "Favoratism" is the exact same thing as "Racism" only applied in reverse, more suttle and applied in a more polically correct way. People are a lot smarter today than 50 years ago, especially young people.
Racism, Bigotry, Favoritism, Incumbency - A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
Doryman said:
This is an intersting point. Why can people make fun of people from Newfoundland, but not other places like India or Africa? I'm not caucassian and have only experiences very minor indirect racism in my life, but I must admit, people like me (East Indian) and other visible minorities do like to play the race card way too much.
I'm surprised at the comments in this thread and the results of the poll.
The sentiments given are noble suggesting that we are all the same and what not, but science doesn't support this claim. I think most people are afraid of being labeled a racist, especially Caucasians that they ignore blatant evidence and trends that say otherwise.
My poll question asked: Does race account for differences in humans, in that a particular race is superior to others in certain aspects? How can we say no? Take elephants, there are African and Indian Elephants. They are both elephants, but they have vastly different characteristics, leading to different strengths and abilities. Why would humans be any different?
The sentiments given are noble suggesting that we are all the same and what not, but science doesn't support this claim. I think most people are afraid of being labeled a racist, especially Caucasians that they ignore blatant evidence and trends that say otherwise.
My poll question asked: Does race account for differences in humans, in that a particular race is superior to others in certain aspects? How can we say no? Take elephants, there are African and Indian Elephants. They are both elephants, but they have vastly different characteristics, leading to different strengths and abilities. Why would humans be any different?
The interesting thing about genetics, when two combine from different gene pools, the offspring tend take on the best of both.
So with your elephant example we should be looking to advance people of mixed races over those from a more singular gene pool.
Inversely the more inbread individuals the more chances inferior genetics are amplified as flaws.
So with your elephant example we should be looking to advance people of mixed races over those from a more singular gene pool.
Inversely the more inbread individuals the more chances inferior genetics are amplified as flaws.
Re: RE: What is racism?
I was surprised too, by the question. We are all of one race >>>>>>>HUMAN>>>>>> It's the cultures that are different . We all start out as humans and die as humans. No one person or culture is more superior than any other, and i believe it's racist to think otherwise. We are still evolving as a speceies, and by mixing nationalities, we just make the HUMAN race stronger.
:colors: :color: :happy10:
DasFX said:
I was surprised too, by the question. We are all of one race >>>>>>>HUMAN>>>>>> It's the cultures that are different . We all start out as humans and die as humans. No one person or culture is more superior than any other, and i believe it's racist to think otherwise. We are still evolving as a speceies, and by mixing nationalities, we just make the HUMAN race stronger.
:colors: :color: :happy10:
I agree with bhoour - I didn't like the question as it was worded, and didn't bother to answer it. Of course there are physiological differences between people, but the assumption that race is the overriding factor in determining one person's superiority over another is misguided.
If you look at one African, say, and one European - what assumptions are we to make about their relative abilities because of their race, and which one is naturally superior? Are we to assume that the African will be a faster runner, but the European will be better at chess?
If you look at one African, say, and one European - what assumptions are we to make about their relative abilities because of their race, and which one is naturally superior? Are we to assume that the African will be a faster runner, but the European will be better at chess?
In that case a Euro/African will run faster and beat you at chess too. This is what genetics says will happen.
Certainly. Every people acquire traits specific to their environment. Look at Pigmies and Swahealies (spell?) they live close enough but have adapted to completely different environments.
Humans are more like dogs. We have many breeds and each is better adapted more to one thing or another.
Certainly. Every people acquire traits specific to their environment. Look at Pigmies and Swahealies (spell?) they live close enough but have adapted to completely different environments.
Humans are more like dogs. We have many breeds and each is better adapted more to one thing or another.
But we are not breeds. We are not like dogs or other animals. Now if you follow the genetic talk of some people, some cultures and races have different characteristics if you look at the genes, however, even if some Africans are good at runing doesn't mean all of them are good. And not all Europeans are good at chest. It depends on the person not on genetics.
For example, in my culture, Asatru, which is a war-like culture and is fearless in fighting, I don't think every single Asatru follower would be fearless in death. Doesn't make them less a person than anyone else. And I am sure not all Asatru people are not good in fighting, but that doesn't make them less a person.
You can't use genetics, or abilities of some people to compare a race to another. We are all people! We are all human!
For example, in my culture, Asatru, which is a war-like culture and is fearless in fighting, I don't think every single Asatru follower would be fearless in death. Doesn't make them less a person than anyone else. And I am sure not all Asatru people are not good in fighting, but that doesn't make them less a person.
You can't use genetics, or abilities of some people to compare a race to another. We are all people! We are all human!
Since there are many different traits among people from different locations, we can't be quite compared to the breeding of dogs per-se, however we do have the potential to do so. Essentially breeding is purposly taking a trait from the recipient and through breeding makeing it more predominant....however the ethics involved would be another thread.
Throughout history people have not been breeding their traits purposly. (not for the lack of trying by some groups) It's just regular adaptation to environment with a sprinkle of natural selection involved like every other animal on the planet. (see my earlier quote about the sea gypsies)
Throughout history people have not been breeding their traits purposly. (not for the lack of trying by some groups) It's just regular adaptation to environment with a sprinkle of natural selection involved like every other animal on the planet. (see my earlier quote about the sea gypsies)