Troy Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 “There is no such thing as a race.” —Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Author, Historian, Educator @Pioneer1 and anyone else who might reject the so-called "white man's science" and continue hold on to the concept of race. Perhaps you will consider the words of Dr. Clarke. 1
ProfD Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 The master teacher Dr. John Henrik Clarke always brought the receipts in terms of knowledge and wisdom. Like a religion, Dr. Clarke's teachings should be required learning among all Black people early in their lives. White power (supremacy) was established many centuries ago. Racism is a by-product of it. Black folks having the real knowledge of ourselves from the beginning of creation and the willingness to fight for freedom are the prerequisites for escaping from the prison of and dismantling the system of white supremacy. 1
Pioneer1 Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 Dr. Clarke was a very brilliant brother, but in this particular case he was WRONG. He literally contradicted himself by saying that there was no such thing as race THEN went on to talk about how man invented races and racial classifications!!!! According to the Cambridge dictionary, race DOES exist: race noun (PEOPLE) C1 [ C ] one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.: People of many different races were living side by side RACE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary That entry from the dictionary is clear proof of the existence of not only race but MULTIPLE races as a way of categorizing people. If it didn't exist, there would be no need to define it. 1
aka Contrarian Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 Obviously, the most accurate definition of race is: "a term that describes what some people believe doesn't exist" 2
Pioneer1 Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 Now...whether she wants to ADMIT it or not...I think Cynique actually agrees with ME on how race is defined. It was a while back, but if I recall correctly..... We were all having a conversation and the issue of race came up and her position was similar to mine UNTIL she found out what my position was and what yours (Troy) was, then she started talking about how she was "reconsidering" her beliefs on race or something like that....lol.
aka Contrarian Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 To me, this whole argument about race is ambiguous. As someone who loves language and defers to the "it-is-what-it- is" school of thought, I don't really have any strong convictions on the subject. I don't think it's contradictory to accept the idea that there is only one race; the human race but like music, race comes in many versions and arrangements. Nor do I think the scientific determination invalidates the aesthetic one. Science can be just as fluid as art.
ProfD Posted June 7 Report Posted June 7 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Dr. Clarke was a very brilliant brother, but in this particular case he was WRONG. He literally contradicted himself by saying that there was no such thing as race THEN went on to talk about how man invented races and racial classifications!!!! IMO, Dr. Clarke didn't contradict himself. He started out with humans being one race. Then, he explained how race and racial classifications were created (defined) in relation to the construction of white supremacy. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: According to the Cambridge dictionary, race DOES exist: That entry from the dictionary is clear proof of the existence of not only race but MULTIPLE races as a way of categorizing people. If it didn't exist, there would be no need to define it. Words in the dictionary are defined by man. Not necessarily based on science. We accept races and racial classifications as taught to us. That's how we identify ourselves as groups of people. The reason I can accept the human as one race belief is because a man and a woman can procreate regardless of their racial classification.
Troy Posted June 7 Author Report Posted June 7 @ProfD that nuisance is lost on @Pioneer1. Pioneer you have dodged my simple question about the racial identity of the two girls. Is that because you realize it will expose your flawed logic as it relates to a genetic basis for race? I'm surprised would even say that Clarke was "wrong" about this. Clarke illustrated that fact that it was known that there is only one human race was known before it the evidence of the human genome was even started. That @Pioneer1 is why there is no genetic test for race. Pioneer what does the fact that there can't be a genetic test for race tell you? Can you answer that question?
Pioneer1 Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 ProfD Dr. Clarke didn't contradict himself. He started out with humans being one race. Then, he explained how race and racial classifications were created (defined) in relation to the construction of white supremacy. -He said there was NO SUCH THING as race -Then he said races were CREATED by man That is a CLEAR contradiction. You can't say there is no such thing as something that was created into existence. Infact, our brother and elder scholar was also mistaken in claiming that racism started in the 15th century in Europe. Anti-Black racism was establish loooooong before that time. We can read stories of how Black people were treated in early Arabia: Bilal was a black slave from Habasha, Modern day Ethiopia. A son of an Arab father and an Ethiopian mother. His mother was an Ethiopian princess who was forced into slavery and got married to another slave. Bilal was born in Mecca. Due to its prevalent injustices including racial injustice, the period before the coming of Islam is called Jahiliyyah (a period of ignorance) in Arabia. Racism was one of the first priorities that Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him — PBUH) stood against. They would make him face the idols, shouting worship the idol, ‘you son of a black woman’. Bilal persists and would not abide. Umayyah then put a collar on him and dragged him, while mocking him, through the public to the desert. There is an occasion where one of the Prophet Mohammad’s companions calls Bilal, ‘oh you son of a black woman’. The Prophet Mohammad’s rebuttal to this attitude was swift. Before passing away in 632 A.D, the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) gave his last sermon. In this speech he condemned racism. He said: “All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab. And a non-Arab has no superiority over an Arab. A white person has no superiority over a black person, nor a black person has any superiority over a white person, except by piety and good action.” From Slave to Master: The Story of Bilal the Unbreakable | by Pashew Nuri | Know Thyself, Heal Thyself | Medium This was over 1,400 years ago in Arabia. Obviously much earlier than the 15th century. And they were dealing with anti-Black racism even back then. Troy Pioneer what does the fact that there can't be a genetic test for race tell you? Can you answer that question? It tells me that we don't need one. It's simply a way to classify people with differences that already exist. Do you need a "genetic test" to decided the different flavors of ice cream or colors of crayons?
Troy Posted June 8 Author Report Posted June 8 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That is a CLEAR contradiction. Whar!? I guess you’ll just continue to dodge my very simple questions. I read the passage. It sounds like a contemporary interpretation of an event. That’s self evident by the use of the word “white” to describe people in the time of Bilal That that quoted section can’t possibly be a direct quote as Bilal didn’t write or speak English I can guarantee you any text in his native language would not have translated to what was quoted.. Besides, this is the same person saying that everyone descended from Adam and Eve… you know what never mind. 1
aka Contrarian Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 It seems to me that when it comes to Homo Sapiens, it is a species made up of human creatures with superficial differences. Species is primarily determined by its ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring within its group, and it is reproductively isolated from other groupsThis means that members of the same species can successfully mate and create offspring that are also able to reproduce, while members of different species cannot interbreed in this species. Imo, this debate could be resolved by simply defining terms instead of wallowing in subterfuge. 2
ProfD Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 39 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said: Species is primarily determined by its ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring within its group... Yep. I've mentioned it too. 42 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said: Imo, this debate could be resolved by simply defining terms instead of wallowing in subterfuge Hopefully we know *better* and are just making a choice to continue the dialog as entertainment. The debate on race has been ongoing for decades because of how it is used to divide people into groups in order to maintain power over them.
Pioneer1 Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 Well, the fact is White people...aka Contr I mean....uh....aka Caucasians....lol....will know who THEY are and know who AREN'T one of them regardless as to the terms we choose to use or how we choose to categorize ourselves. Race and PROPER racial classifications clarify things and makes them easier and less deceptive in my opinion. When I talk to people from nations where racial classification is almost non-existent between the people and the races are highly mixed and ambiguous like in Cuba and Somalia....there's a lot mistreatment and a lot of confusion and frustration as a result of it. People often ARE victims of racism and colorism but can't express or articulate this because officially...."everybody's Cuban". I see this at work. A lot of Black Latinos aren't getting respect from the lighter Meztizo Latinos...but they don't see themselves the same as AfroAmericans either so they don't know what to do with themselves. Dark skinned kinky haired Somalis are often oppressed by light skinned Somalis with curly hair who look mixed with Arab.....but since everybody there is "Somali" they can't call it racism. So now....what do you call it? Tribalism? Although much of it IS raced based indirectly because it's about who is closer to White folks. Even a lot of ethnic conflicts is really race based. In Rwanda...it was said that the Tutsis were closer to the "White race" than the Hutus...which lead to conflict. I like the idea of being able to separate White people and identify them. I also like the idea of being able to separate Black/African people and identify ourselves from other groups and then being able to separate my ethnicity as an FBA/ADOS from the rest of Africans when need be and focus on our own local issues. Some people are more analytical and detail oriented than others, so racial classification is right up their alley...so to speak, lol.
Troy Posted June 8 Author Report Posted June 8 @Pioneer1 Just two glasses of wine nothing that would impair me There is actually a bug in the software when sometimes I cannot contribute a response to a post and when I can, I can't edit it. That was the case with my last post. Now that you have quoted it I'm not going back to edit it. I just deal with it, as there is supposed to be a completely revamped version of the software coming out soon. I meant to write What?! in reaction your reaction to Dr. Clarke's statement below: 20 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: -He said there was NO SUCH THING as race -Then he said races were CREATED by man That is a CLEAR contradiction. 45 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I like the idea of being able to separate White people and identify them. The problem is there is no way to do this objectively. 45 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I also like the idea of being able to separate Black/African people and identify ourselves from other groups and then being able to separate my ethnicity as an Sure, but you can't do this based upon how one looks. Your joke, "Well, the fact is White people...aka Contr I mean....uh....aka Caucasians....lol." illustrated this. There are other more objective ways of grouping people.
Pioneer1 Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 Troy No problem, I'll just delete it. The problem is there is no way to do this objectively. Why not? What's stopping you or I...in most cases...from clearly pointing out and drawing a distinction between a White person and Black person. Sometimes there is ambiguity...we understand this. But most times there isn't and the distinction is clear. Same with sex. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish an actual man from an actual woman, but most times it's crystal clear. Sure, but you can't do this based upon how one looks. Again, MOST TIMES...you can. Not all the time, but for the most part.
Troy Posted June 8 Author Report Posted June 8 18 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Why not? Because of rules like the "one drop" rule. We previously discussed Homer Plessy who had one African great-grand parent the other 8 were white. You would say he was white because of his phenotype. However he was booted out of the white card like any other negro. The case went to the Supreme Court who upheld the law that kept Homer out of the white car.
Pioneer1 Posted June 8 Report Posted June 8 Troy So because of a poorly constructed system we should throw out the entire concept? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water, lol. I support racial categories but I don't agree with the one drop rule either. Guess what? I believe we as AfroAmericans have a right to devise OUR OWN racial categories to suit our perspectives and how we see society and the world around us.
Troy Posted June 8 Author Report Posted June 8 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: So because of a poorly constructed system we should throw out the entire concept? YES! 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: I support racial categories but I don't agree with the one drop rule either. The principle of the one drop rule is based upon the same flawed reasoning that you are anyone else including white racists would apply.
Pioneer1 Posted June 9 Report Posted June 9 Troy YES! No sir, because that would just cause too much confusion. As long as White people exist, they WILL know who they are and find a way to separate themselves from you. Call it "race" or "ethnicity" or "distinctism" or whatever the hell you want to call it, but they will just establish another way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the people of color. Getting rid of racial categories will NOT get rid of racism any more than getting rid off medical terms and tossing out the medical dictionary will cure all diseases. All it will do is leave so many people in darkness and confusion about what's happening to them.
Troy Posted June 9 Author Report Posted June 9 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No sir, because that would just cause too much confusion. Dude the faulty concept of "race" is what has created the confusion. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: All it will do is leave so many people in darkness and confusion about what's happening to them. No it won't. People will always find a reason to justify their evil. Taking "race" out of the mix will eliminate that justification from their bag of tricks. Generations of people would have lived and died without ever believing that they were inferior (or superior) because of their so-called race.
ProfD Posted June 9 Report Posted June 9 40 minutes ago, Troy said: No it won't. People will always find a reason to justify their evil. Taking "race" out of the mix will eliminate that justification from their bag of tricks. Generations of people would have lived and died without ever believing that they were inferior (or superior) because of their so-called race. Race is a huge part of maintaining the system of white supremacy. Good luck trying to make white folks look past it.
Pioneer1 Posted June 9 Report Posted June 9 Troy Dude the faulty concept of "race" is what has created the confusion. So people shouldn't call themselves by "race" anymore because that's making confusion? Ok...so how SHOULD they identify themselves? How should the people "formerly known as Black people" now identify ourselves? No it won't. People will always find a reason to justify their evil. Taking "race" out of the mix will eliminate that justification from their bag of tricks. If that happens, do you think RACISM will go away? Generations of people would have lived and died without ever believing that they were inferior (or superior) because of their so-called race. As I mentioned in another thread, many Native Americans ONLY knew other Native Americans and didn't come into contact with White folks. The same can be said of many Africans. Race wasn't an issue for them because they only KNEW one race. But let a White man show up.... Let some of the women star pinching him on the chin and try to have little yellow curly head babies with him...and see how it throws the entire society into chaos and confusion and fights get started...lol.
Troy Posted June 10 Author Report Posted June 10 8 hours ago, ProfD said: Good luck trying to make white folks look past it many if not most already do. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: How should the people "formerly known as Black people" now identify ourselves? I don’t know we can start by saying “human.” Again, your need to define a people by the color of their skin completely escapes me. I don’t understand it?! You have been so completely brainwashed by the white racist’s doctrine that you can’t see it. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If that happens, do you think RACISM will go away? I’m confident racism will go away eventually. Great strides have been made here in this country. That’s obvious to you, isn’t it?
Pioneer1 Posted June 11 Report Posted June 11 Troy many if not most already do. How do you know? Troy, how do you know what's in somebody's head, unless they straight up TELL you? Many of them are good at MASKING their true feelings in order to "keep it safe" on the job or in business so they don't lose money, customers, or get sued. They can hate your guts but will smile in your face and say: ....mornun' Just to keep things cool. I don’t know we can start by saying “human.” Again, your need to define a people by the color of their skin completely escapes me. I don’t understand it?! You have been so completely brainwashed by the white racist’s doctrine that you can’t see it. So.... A man robs a bank and the police officer asks for a description. Should the witnesses just say that he was "human", and leave it at that? Leave his so-called race or skin tone out of it? Talk about P.C. on steroids...lol. I’m confident racism will go away eventually. Great strides have been made here in this country. That’s obvious to you, isn’t it? Great strides? Lol....like the re-election of Donald Trump? But what we both CAN probably agree on....in theory atleast....is that racism will go away when "RACES" go away and we all live as ONE race. No matter how you or I "explain" it....we can both agree to that, right?
frankster Posted June 14 Report Posted June 14 On 6/7/2025 at 11:49 AM, Troy said: “There is no such thing as a race.” —Dr. John Henrik Clarke, Author, Historian, Educator @Pioneer1 and anyone else who might reject the so-called "white man's science" and continue hold on to the concept of race. Perhaps you will consider the words of Dr. Clarke. Dr Clarke is correct.... Race is a Artificial Invention of Man... Nature created no Races Race is unnatural in that it is a manmade manufactured fabrication On 6/7/2025 at 1:54 PM, Pioneer1 said: Dr. Clarke was a very brilliant brother, but in this particular case he was WRONG. He literally contradicted himself by saying that there was no such thing as race THEN went on to talk about how man invented races and racial classifications!!!! He was and is not wrong... Neither did he contradict himself. Dr Clarke dismissed the concept of Race as "no such thing".....meaning it is a falsity and a lie The fact that Dr Clarke then went on to explain the concept history purpose and implementation of this manufacture fabrication. Does not make it a contradiction....Explaining a lie does not in any way means you accept the lie An atheist can explain the concept of God....that does not make him a believer. On 6/7/2025 at 1:54 PM, Pioneer1 said: According to the Cambridge dictionary, race DOES exist: race noun (PEOPLE) C1 [ C ] one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.: People of many different races were living side by side RACE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary That entry from the dictionary is clear proof of the existence of not only race but MULTIPLE races as a way of categorizing people. If it didn't exist, there would be no need to define it. Any difference between human beings can then be used to considered a whole new race.... Gingers (redheads) are different...so are blondes - based on the definition above why are they not races As a matter of fact Gingers have suffered from a type of colorism.... On 6/7/2025 at 8:01 PM, Pioneer1 said: ProfD Dr. Clarke didn't contradict himself. He started out with humans being one race. Then, he explained how race and racial classifications were created (defined) in relation to the construction of white supremacy. -He said there was NO SUCH THING as race -Then he said races were CREATED by man That is a CLEAR contradiction. You can't say there is no such thing as something that was created into existence. No..... When man create it can be a lie......in the case of race it most definitely was a deception Can a lie be real? On 6/7/2025 at 8:01 PM, Pioneer1 said: Infact, our brother and elder scholar was also mistaken in claiming that racism started in the 15th century in Europe. Anti-Black racism was establish loooooong before that time. We can read stories of how Black people were treated in early Arabia: Bilal was a black slave from Habasha, Modern day Ethiopia. A son of an Arab father and an Ethiopian mother. His mother was an Ethiopian princess who was forced into slavery and got married to another slave. Bilal was born in Mecca. Due to its prevalent injustices including racial injustice, the period before the coming of Islam is called Jahiliyyah (a period of ignorance) in Arabia. Racism was one of the first priorities that Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him — PBUH) stood against. They would make him face the idols, shouting worship the idol, ‘you son of a black woman’. Bilal persists and would not abide. Umayyah then put a collar on him and dragged him, while mocking him, through the public to the desert. There is an occasion where one of the Prophet Mohammad’s companions calls Bilal, ‘oh you son of a black woman’. The Prophet Mohammad’s rebuttal to this attitude was swift. Before passing away in 632 A.D, the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) gave his last sermon. In this speech he condemned racism. He said: “All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab. And a non-Arab has no superiority over an Arab. A white person has no superiority over a black person, nor a black person has any superiority over a white person, except by piety and good action.” From Slave to Master: The Story of Bilal the Unbreakable | by Pashew Nuri | Know Thyself, Heal Thyself | Medium This was over 1,400 years ago in Arabia. Obviously much earlier than the 15th century. And they were dealing with anti-Black racism even back then. That is not racism...... That is colorism/shadeism(skin tone) or Anti-black bigotry ethnocentrism - xenophobia Please look up the definition of colorism and racism....post and link your results
Troy Posted June 14 Author Report Posted June 14 On 6/11/2025 at 1:55 PM, Pioneer1 said: Should the witnesses just say that he was "human", and leave it at that? Leave his so-called race or skin tone don’t be silly of course you can describe people by their physical characteristics, but that don’t mean they are of different races On 6/11/2025 at 1:55 PM, Pioneer1 said: They can hate your guts but will smile in your face and say: people who hate your guts solely because of the color of your skin. Are retarded and certainly not the majority. On 6/11/2025 at 1:55 PM, Pioneer1 said: Great strides? Lol....like the re-election of Donald Trump? yes, even with the election of Trump the country is far better in 2025, than 1825 not just for brown people of all shades but for everybody. On 6/11/2025 at 1:55 PM, Pioneer1 said: But what we both CAN probably agree on....in theory atleast....is that racism will go away when "RACES" go away and we all live as ONE race. No matter how you or I "explain" it....we can both agree to that, right? yes, we can agree on that. What we disagree on is that there is already is one race. You just refuse to recognize it. the failure of people to recognize that there is one race is the primary reason racism has not gone away. Racism has been on a steady decline since the enslaved were emancipated.
Chevdove Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 On 6/7/2025 at 1:54 PM, Pioneer1 said: Dr. Clarke was a very brilliant brother, but in this particular case he was WRONG. He literally contradicted himself by saying that there was no such thing as race THEN went on to talk about how man invented races and racial classifications!!!! According to the Cambridge dictionary, race DOES exist: race noun (PEOPLE) Exactly.
Chevdove Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 On 6/8/2025 at 3:28 PM, Pioneer1 said: Race and PROPER racial classifications clarify things and makes them easier and less deceptive in my opinion. That is the problem, perhaps. Because the term 'race' was deliberately used in modern times, the issue of White Supremacy in ancient times became hidden. So, the racial classifications today hide history that was on that same wise.
Chevdove Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 10 hours ago, Troy said: yes, even with the election of Trump the country is far better in 2025, than 1825 not just for brown people of all shades but for everybody. The prison systems are a constant MARK that contradicts that. Human Sacrifice is occurring in the most insane way today. Many human beings are born today and will end up in the prison systems due to lot that they are born in and deprivation and the governments in this world are the reason for this. 1
Chevdove Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 10 hours ago, Troy said: yes, we can agree on that. What we disagree on is that there is already is one race. You just refuse to recognize it. Like @aka Contrarian explained, the human race is defined based on species and not the term 'race'. So no, based on science, humans today are not one race because that term is not scientific. As a Christian and a Biology Major, I am going to reference to the ancient scriptures and say this: GENESIS-- GENES-is: The Book of GENES, the First Book in the Bible. This book lays out the foundation of all mankind on the GENETICS of all humans today. All throughout the Bible, the Genetic aspect of mankind is scripted, however, the last book confirms the very first bool of the Pentateuch. The Book of REVELATION confirms the Book of GENES-- hence, GENESIS. The entire books in the Bible revolve around a central issue when it comes to God's Creation of Adam and Eve and that would be the Original Sin. This act written about in the book of GENES reveals that no matter what 'race' we are or what color we are or what GENDER we are, it would be this act that has caused all of us humans today to ALL be born in sin and rebellion. And this sin revolves around the issue of 'RACISM' and White/Color Supremacy. The term 'RACE' is NOT a good term to define RACISM, however, it is the term used today, so we need perhaps offer better explanations to go along with it but this concept of 'Race' goes all the way back to the Original Sin. When God warned Adam and Eve that 'Should they eat from that forbidden tree, they would surely die' well that warning came to pass. When Eve ate from that tree and gave to Adam, therefore, her husband could do nothing to intervene to save her. She was raped and gave birth to the Seed of Satan. Due to this Original Sin, all of us, All Human Chromosomes, 'all 21 Chromosomes' have some defect and for that reason, we all die. When two different species produce offspring, that offspring will not be as viable. Primitive human species, the Neanderthalensis and the Modern human species have intermixed and GENETICS bares this out to be truth.
Pioneer1 Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 frankster Dr Clarke is correct.... How can he be "correct" when he said there was no such thing as race and YOU YOURSELF admit that race exists as a "social construct"???? How can two opposing things be correct at the same time? -Race DOES NOT exist vs -Race IS a social construct. Two opposing concepts. Which one is correct? Race is a Artificial Invention of Man... Nature created no Races Race is unnatural in that it is a manmade manufactured fabrication He said it didn't exist. How can something NOT exist and BE "man made" at the same time? Cars are man made; do they not exist also? Dr Clarke dismissed the concept of Race as "no such thing".....meaning it is a falsity and a lie No. No such thing means it doesn't exist....period. YOU.....frankster....have said that it DOES exist, as a social construct. Have you now changed your position to align with his, that it DOES NOT exist? The fact that Dr Clarke then went on to explain the concept history purpose and implementation of this manufacture fabrication. He did more than just explain the CONCEPT of it but went on to explain the INVENTION of it. He took it beyond the "conceptual" stage to the INVENTED and ACTUAL stage and accepted it as a Reality that he found criticism in. Gingers (redheads) are different...so are blondes - based on the definition above why are they not races ...and according to the definition they CAN be, if one chooses to define them as such. That is not racism...... That is colorism/shadeism(skin tone) Which is also a FORM of racism....in a society that classifies race by "color". Again, race can be classified by any number of physical differences....color being just one among many. Troy don’t be silly of course you can describe people by their physical characteristics, but that don’t mean they are of different races Well, you said: Again, your need to define a people by the color of their skin completely escapes me. I don’t understand it?! You claimed you didn't understand the need to define people by their skin color and I showed you how it could be useful sometimes. It helps identify people. people who hate your guts solely because of the color of your skin. Are retarded and certainly not the majority. Whether they are in the majority or minority is irrelevant. Many of them HAVE BEEN and ARE in power and use that power to enforce their "retarded" beliefs on others. The slave owners who hated and mistreated their slaves simply because of color had the power to enforce their "retarded" beliefs. Racist cops have the power to enforce their "retard" beliefs on those they hate. the failure of people to recognize that there is one race is the primary reason racism has not gone away. And the fact that there IS more than one race is the primary reason most people...who can see...fail to recognize only ONE race, lol. They know better. Racism will go away when RACES (plural) go away. Chev That is the problem, perhaps. Because the term 'race' was deliberately used in modern times, the issue of White Supremacy in ancient times became hidden. So, the racial classifications today hide history that was on that same wise. Well "race" is merely an English word for an ancient concept. Like the word "leg" or "oven" or "eye" or "tree" They had words for these concepts in ancient times but called them by a different name simply because the language was different. 1
frankster Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Dr Clarke is correct.... How can he be "correct" when he said there was no such thing as race and YOU YOURSELF admit that race exists as a "social construct"???? How can two opposing things be correct at the same time? Yes....Dr Clarke is Right. Okay the following maybe beyond your comprehension.... Social Construct are real within the society that can enforce their acceptance on individuals Social Construct do not exist independent of human agreements and enforcement... Dr Clarke categorically dismisses them within society and outside of societies....his stand is civil disobedience and non compliance(non acceptance) to reveal their non-reality. 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: -Race DOES NOT exist vs -Race IS a social construct. Two opposing concepts. Which one is correct? Race is a Social Construct....so what applies to social constructs also applies to race. See above. 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Race is a Artificial Invention of Man... Nature created no Races Race is unnatural in that it is a manmade manufactured fabrication He said it didn't exist. How can something NOT exist and BE "man made" at the same time? Cars are man made; do they not exist also? And it does not in many societies... Social Constructs are basically Agreements to act in accordance....it has no substance or physical(genetic) reality. Cars are not Social Constructs....they are Physical Constructions. 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Dr Clarke dismissed the concept of Race as "no such thing".....meaning it is a falsity and a lie No. No such thing means it doesn't exist....period. YOU.....frankster....have said that it DOES exist, as a social construct. Have you now changed your position to align with his, that it DOES NOT exist? My position has not change.... I am trying to destroy the edifice of race from within.....Dr Clarke is doing it from without - his is the truer path. Dr Clarke is saying he is not a partaker in and of the Social Agreement(Construct) that is Race....I knowingly grant/permit the lie and falsity as a matter of expediency I choose within as most people tend to understand simply definitions and scientific facts 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The fact that Dr Clarke then went on to explain the concept history purpose and implementation of this manufacture fabrication. He did more than just explain the CONCEPT of it but went on to explain the INVENTION of it. He took it beyond the "conceptual" stage to the INVENTED and ACTUAL stage and accepted it as a Reality that he found criticism in. Show where he accepted it as a reality? To explain that he accepted it as reality.....you cannot use info from his explanation of the concept of race as proof of acceptance Again an atheist explaining what the concept of God is....does not mean he accepts or believe in God or that God exists. 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Gingers (redheads) are different...so are blondes - based on the definition above why are they not races ...and according to the definition they CAN be, if one chooses to define them as such. Exactly 6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That is not racism...... That is colorism/shadeism(skin tone) Which is also a FORM of racism....in a society that classifies race by "color". Again, race can be classified by any number of physical differences....color being just one among many. Racism implies"inter" and Colorism implies "intra" Racism implies Institutional and Structural... Colorism is Socio/Cultural norms
Pioneer1 Posted June 15 Report Posted June 15 frankster Yes....Dr Clarke is Right. Dr. Clarke WAS right about a lot of things but WAS WRONG about this particular one. Okay the following maybe beyond your comprehension.... Let's see....lol. Social Construct are real within the society that can enforce their acceptance on individuals They are real PERIOD, regardless as to whether a society accepts them or not. Like racism...they may not agree with them, but they are real none the less. Dr Clarke categorically dismisses them within society and outside of societies....his stand is civil disobedience and non compliance(non acceptance) to reveal their non-reality He said race DOES NOT EXIST. He was wrong. And it does not in many societies... But it does exist, period. Skyscrapers may not exist in many societies....but they still exist. Subways may not exist in many cities....but they still exist. Social Constructs are basically Agreements to act in accordance....it has no substance or physical(genetic) reality. Racial classifications are often BASED ON genetic differences. Cars are not Social Constructs....they are Physical Constructions. But they are MAN MADE, like race. Your defense of Dr. Clarke's statements was that because race was "man made" somehow that statement was justified. Just because something is artificial and man made, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Show where he accepted it as a reality? He said it was invented in the 15th century. If you invent something, you are absolutely bringing it into Reality. He accepted it as a part of this Reality invented in the 15th century. Cars were invented in the 19th century, they are apart of this Reality. Again an atheist explaining what the concept of God is....does not mean he accepts or believe in God or that God exists. Metaphysically speaking EVERYTHING exists, even if in concept. However, speaking in actuality...... There is a difference between believing something exists only in concept and believing it actually exists and was invented. Dr.Clarke talks about it existing as an invention in this Reality. ....after saying it didn't exist. Racism implies"inter" and Colorism implies "intra" ....unless racial classifications are based ON color. Then colorism would often BE a form of racism as well. Racism implies Institutional and Structural... Not necessarily. Colorism is Socio/Cultural norms Yes. In a society conditioned to believe such.
frankster Posted June 16 Report Posted June 16 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Yes....Dr Clarke is Right. Dr. Clarke WAS right about a lot of things but WAS WRONG about this particular one. Okay the following maybe beyond your comprehension.... Let's see....lol. Social Construct are real within the society that can enforce their acceptance on individuals They are real PERIOD, regardless as to whether a society accepts them or not. Like racism...they may not agree with them, but they are real none the less. For it to be....a society must accept and enforce it.... 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Dr Clarke categorically dismisses them within society and outside of societies....his stand is civil disobedience and non compliance(non acceptance) to reveal their non-reality He said race DOES NOT EXIST. He was wrong. Our opinions differ on this and current science agree with Dr Clarke 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: And it does not in many societies... But it does exist, period. Skyscrapers may not exist in many societies....but they still exist. Subways may not exist in many cities....but they still exist. These are physical constructions... No comparison to Social Constructs.... 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Social Constructs are basically Agreements to act in accordance....it has no substance or physical(genetic) reality. Racial classifications are often BASED ON genetic differences. No they are not.....how you going to have twins of two different races and say it based on genetics How you going to have one socalled race have children that fit the description of another race that that of their parents and call it genetics... 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Cars are not Social Constructs....they are Physical Constructions. But they are MAN MADE, like race. Your defense of Dr. Clarke's statements was that because race was "man made" somehow that statement was justified. Just because something is artificial and man made, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes....Cars and races are man made... One is constructed from and with physical materials.....while the other is a social agreement or arrangement - with no physicality beyond enforcement 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Show where he accepted it as a reality? He said it was invented in the 15th century. If you invent something, you are absolutely bringing it into Reality. He accepted it as a part of this Reality invented in the 15th century. Cars were invented in the 19th century, they are apart of this Reality. Superman was invented in the 1930's is he real or unreal? Santa Claus was invented too....is he real or unreal? 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Again an atheist explaining what the concept of God is....does not mean he accepts or believe in God or that God exists. Metaphysically speaking EVERYTHING exists, even if in concept. So we are now speaking metaphysically? 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: However, speaking in actuality...... There is a difference between believing something exists only in concept and believing it actually exists and was invented. There is more to it than that... As we live in a physical reality and a mental reality etc 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Dr.Clarke talks about it existing as an invention in this Reality. ....after saying it didn't exist. He dismissed the concept as flawed from the outset and then set about to show why it is not true or real.....but a lie 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Racism implies"inter" and Colorism implies "intra" ....unless racial classifications are based ON color. Then colorism would often BE a form of racism as well. Colorism is not racism....for the reasons given in the previous response.. Redheads were discriminated against....because their hair is different The Jews Irish and the Poles where not considered white for many yrs.....though they were all Europeans 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Racism implies Institutional and Structural... Not necessarily. Yes it does....otherwise it is mere bigotry/colorism 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Colorism is Socio/Cultural norms Yes. In a society conditioned to believe such. yes
Pioneer1 Posted June 16 Report Posted June 16 frankster For it to be....a society must accept and enforce it.... The concept of race isn't reliant on A society to accept or enforce it. As long as the concept exists, it exists. Our opinions differ on this and current science agree with Dr Clarke Current science does NOT claim that race doesn't exist. These are physical constructions... No comparison to Social Constructs.... Both are: 1. Man made 2. In existence ...which is what we're talking about . No they are not.....how you going to have twins of two different races and say it based on genetics Because racial classifications CAN BE based strictly on skin tone. If so...then being of a different color/shade can indeed make you of another race REGARDLESS of parentage. How you going to have one socalled race have children that fit the description of another race that that of their parents and call it genetics... How you going to have ONE child called a GIRL and from those same parents have ANOTHER child called a BOY? Genetics...lol. But those children inherited BOTH their similarities and differences from their parents; whether they are expressed or not. Superman was invented in the 1930's is he real or unreal? Yes, IT is real. As a fictional character. Superman....as a fictional character...is the basis of countless movies. Santa Claus was invented too....is he real or unreal? Yes, IT is real. Again, as a fictional character. And the reality of Santa Claus and Christmas is responsible for one of the most profitable times of the year. So we are now speaking metaphysically? There's ALWAYS a degree in metaphysics in our communications, lol. He dismissed the concept as flawed from the outset and then set about to show why it is not true or real.....but a lie He did more than dismiss the concept as flawed, he said it DIDN'T EXIST. How can something that doesn't exist...be flawed? A man doesn't have a girlfriend, but sits around complaining about how "ugly" his girlfriend is...lol. Colorism is not racism....for the reasons given in the previous response.. Colorism can be a FORM of racism, if race is based on color....which it CAN be. The Jews Irish and the Poles where not considered white for many yrs.....though they were all Europeans They may not have been considered "pure" White, but they definitely weren't considered Black. Most people accepted them as Caucasians. Yes it does....otherwise it is mere bigotry/colorism Again, colorism COULD be a form of racism and so can bigotry.
frankster Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster For it to be....a society must accept and enforce it.... The concept of race isn't reliant on A society to accept or enforce it. As long as the concept exists, it exists. No....concepts have no physical reality or quality - beyond descriptive representative and explanatory On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: Our opinions differ on this and current science agree with Dr Clarke Current science does NOT claim that race doesn't exist. Current science says race is a social phenomena and has no genetic basis. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: These are physical constructions... No comparison to Social Constructs.... Both are: 1. Man made 2. In existence ...which is what we're talking about Social Constructs are based on agreements we obey or enforce by using ideas to control behavior.. Physical Constructions exist independent of agreements behavior or societies...they are the results of using materials. Social Construct are made of ideas. Physical Construction are made of Materials. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: No they are not.....how you going to have twins of two different races and say it based on genetics Because racial classifications CAN BE based strictly on skin tone. Thats a whole new definition....you just made up Sounds so similar to the one drop rule....lol That "CAN BE" exist only in your mind....where anything can be - if you continue with this line of reasoning you CAN loose touch with reality The mind is an incredible elastic organ.....be warned - be aware On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: If so...then being of a different color/shade can indeed make you of another race REGARDLESS of parentage. Yes....anything can be called a race as long as they share somethings in common. The problem with they above....is that we all see color but we do not register shade hue and tone the same. Only societies with the Political will can institute new races.... On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: How you going to have one socalled race have children that fit the description of another race that that of their parents and call it genetics... How you going to have ONE child called a GIRL and from those same parents have ANOTHER child called a BOY? Genetics...lol. Ahh because one have a penis and the other a vagina....duuh Male and Female....these are different sexes - not races or species in other words they are both still of the same specie On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: But those children inherited BOTH their similarities and differences from their parents; whether they are expressed or not. Yes.... What is important is that they have no exclusivity....in terms of genetics On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: Superman was invented in the 1930's is he real or unreal? Yes, IT is real. As a fictional character. Superman....as a fictional character...is the basis of countless movies. So are you saying fictional characters are real? On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: Santa Claus was invented too....is he real or unreal? Yes, IT is real. Again, as a fictional character. And the reality of Santa Claus and Christmas is responsible for one of the most profitable times of the year. Define Real? Define Fictional? please post links to definitions.. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: So we are now speaking metaphysically? There's ALWAYS a degree in metaphysics in our communications, lol. No...you are now introducing it as a means to obfuscate and not accept the truth.. If we are speaking metaphysically.....ideas exist as a abstraction as in mentation - with no Physical Reality On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: He dismissed the concept as flawed from the outset and then set about to show why it is not true or real.....but a lie He did more than dismiss the concept as flawed, he said it DIDN'T EXIST. How can something that doesn't exist...be flawed? The flaw is what proves it does not exist... It is that same flaw is what is giving you a hard time in proving race....causing you to continually move the limits of your own understanding of race. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: A man doesn't have a girlfriend, but sits around complaining about how "ugly" his girlfriend is...lol. Yep...that man sounds like you Dr Clarke is the guy telling you your girlfriend is a flawed concept of reality. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: Colorism is not racism....for the reasons given in the previous response.. Colorism can be a FORM of racism, if race is based on color....which it CAN be. Race is based in and on social politics.... On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: The Jews Irish and the Poles where not considered white for many yrs.....though they were all Europeans They may not have been considered "pure" White, but they definitely weren't considered Black. Most people accepted them as Caucasians. Hence the reason race is not based in or on color.....but social politics - thanks for proving my point. On 6/16/2025 at 5:06 PM, Pioneer1 said: Yes it does....otherwise it is mere bigotry/colorism Again, colorism COULD be a form of racism and so can bigotry. Colorism and Racism are forms of Bigotry Colorism is based on skin tone hue or shade.. Racism is based on and in social and political agreements
Pioneer1 Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 frankster No....concepts have no physical reality or quality - beyond descriptive representative and explanatory It doesn't matter if it's "physical" or not, it exists. Is INTELLIGENCE, physical? Current science says race is a social phenomena and has no genetic basis. It's not about what "current science" says. Truth is truth and stands firm REGARDLESS of time. Maybe CURRENT sciences says one thing and FUTURE science may say something different. Kind of like your "heart" example in the other thread, lol. Having said that.... Again, science DOES NOT agree with Dr. Clarke that race "does not" exist. Science ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of race. Thats a whole new definition....you just made up How did I make it up when for WEEKS now you've been reading and quoting definitions of race from 2 different sources that TOLD you that race can be based on skin color and other physical features? That "CAN BE" exist only in your mind....where anything can be - if you continue with this line of reasoning you CAN loose touch with reality Perhaps losing touch with Reality is the way for a person to get IN TOUCH with you....lol. You gotta speak to a person in a language THEY understand, lol. "You're reliable. Unlike the other guys I've dated...you're here in the same spot every day. You listen to me and don't interrupt me. ....I think I'm in love". Yes....anything can be called a race as long as they share somethings in common. So..... That being the case, what is your complaint about my previous assertions? Only societies with the Political will can institute new races.... Oh, so you finally come right out and admit to the existence of multiple RACES. It's about time....lol. Ahh because one have a penis and the other a vagina....duuh Male and Female....these are different sexes - not races or species That example was an answer to your questioning how 2 different people can come from the same 2 parents. If the same parents can spawn 2 different sexes; then the same parents can spawn 2 different races DEPENDING ON how race is classified in their society! So are you saying fictional characters are real? VERY ...in concept. ....and in context. No...you are now introducing it as a means to obfuscate and not accept the truth.. YOU'RE the one who refuses to accept the truth, lol. You keep trying to duck and dodge it or ask a bunch of unrelated questions to muddy it up. If we are speaking metaphysically.....ideas exist as a abstraction as in mentation - with no Physical Reality Again, things don't NEED to exist in "physical reality" to exist. The flaw is what proves it does not exist... It is that same flaw is what is giving you a hard time in proving race....causing you to continually move the limits of your own understanding of race. I don't have to try to "prove" it anymore, you clearly accept it now. Race is based in and on social politics.... Race can be based on MANY things....not JUST social politics. Hence the reason race is not based in or on color.....but social politics - thanks for proving my point. But earlier you said: Yes....anything can be called a race as long as they share somethings in common. First you said ANYTHING can be called a race, then you turn around and claim it's NOT based in or on color. A straight up contradiction. Thanks for proving MY point about you being CONFUSED, lol.
frankster Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster No....concepts have no physical reality or quality - beyond descriptive representative and explanatory It doesn't matter if it's "physical" or not, it exists. Is INTELLIGENCE, physical? Intelligence is a quality of mental acuity possess by living beings.. There is also physical intelligence 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Current science says race is a social phenomena and has no genetic basis. It's not about what "current science" says. Truth is truth and stands firm REGARDLESS of time. Maybe CURRENT sciences says one thing and FUTURE science may say something different. Kind of like your "heart" example in the other thread, lol. Having said that.... Again, science DOES NOT agree with Dr. Clarke that race "does not" exist. Science ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of race. No science can find no genetic basis for race... 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Thats a whole new definition....you just made up How did I make it up when for WEEKS now you've been reading and quoting definitions of race from 2 different sources that TOLD you that race can be based on skin color and other physical features? In any cases it just goes to prove my point....race is a social construct 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That "CAN BE" exist only in your mind....where anything can be - if you continue with this line of reasoning you CAN loose touch with reality Perhaps losing touch with Reality is the way for a person to get IN TOUCH with you....lol. You gotta speak to a person in a language THEY understand, lol. "You're reliable. Unlike the other guys I've dated...you're here in the same spot every day. You listen to me and don't interrupt me. ....I think I'm in love". Yes....anything can be called a race as long as they share somethings in common. So..... That being the case, what is your complaint about my previous assertions? It proves that race is a social convention/construct that is total reliant on the politics of the time 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Only societies with the Political will can institute new races.... Oh, so you finally come right out and admit to the existence of multiple RACES. It's about time....lol. Yes Race is a socio-political construct....having nothing to do with genetics 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Ahh because one have a penis and the other a vagina....duuh Male and Female....these are different sexes - not races or species That example was an answer to your questioning how 2 different people can come from the same 2 parents. If the same parents can spawn 2 different sexes; then the same parents can spawn 2 different races DEPENDING ON how race is classified in their society! One of the parent is a male and the other is female - they can have a child of either sex. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: So are you saying fictional characters are real? VERY ...in concept. ....and in context. Concepts are Ideas...And Contexts are Situational - neither are physical 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No...you are now introducing it as a means to obfuscate and not accept the truth.. YOU'RE the one who refuses to accept the truth, lol. You keep trying to duck and dodge it or ask a bunch of unrelated questions to muddy it up. To use metaphysics when dealing with a socio-political issue is essentially to not understand reality vis a vis metaphysic. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If we are speaking metaphysically.....ideas exist as a abstraction as in mentation - with no Physical Reality Again, things don't NEED to exist in "physical reality" to exist. Yes for it be be grounded in physical reality it must be derived from physicality. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The flaw is what proves it does not exist... It is that same flaw is what is giving you a hard time in proving race....causing you to continually move the limits of your own understanding of race. I don't have to try to "prove" it anymore, you clearly accept it now. Race is a social construct... Societies can manufacture all kinds of constructs... 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Race is based in and on social politics.... Race can be based on MANY things....not JUST social politics. Race cannot be based on genetics.....that has been tried - and failed 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Hence the reason race is not based in or on color.....but social politics - thanks for proving my point. But earlier you said: Yes....anything can be called a race as long as they share somethings in common. First you said ANYTHING can be called a race, then you turn around and claim it's NOT based in or on color. A straight up contradiction. I have continually told you that race is a social concept. Social concepts are political As social concepts race can be whatever the society deems it is... You or a society can call a group of politicians a race....because they all have the same profession - but you cannot then say this is based on or in genetics But to say it is based on or in or derived from something then that connection must be proven.....otherwise it is a lie and fabrication. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Thanks for proving MY point about you being CONFUSED, lol. Try to accept the truth....when it is presented - and life will no seems so bewildering to you
Pioneer1 Posted June 22 Report Posted June 22 frankster Intelligence is a quality of mental acuity possess by living beings.. There is also physical intelligence Ok.... Is LOVE physical??? Is INGENUITY physical??? Is COURAGE physical??? No science can find no genetic basis for race... But science still ACKNOWLEDGES that race exists. Dr. Clarke said it DIDN'T exist. Science doesn't agree. It proves that race is a social convention/construct that is total reliant on the politics of the time. It proves that race CAN be based on color, language, or almost anything else that society CHOOSES to base it on. Concepts are Ideas...And Contexts are Situational - neither are physical But they are REAL. They exist. It simply depends on the context. Yes for it be be grounded in physical reality it must be derived from physicality . It doesn't HAVE TO be grounded in physical reality for it to EXIST. It simply has to BE. Race cannot be based on genetics.....that has been tried - and failed Are all genetics the same? I have continually told you that race is a social concept. That can be categorized over anything a particular society agrees to categorize it as. Social concepts are political As social concepts race can be whatever the society deems it is... Then that INCLUDES genetics. You or a society can call a group of politicians a race....because they all have the same profession - but you cannot then say this is based on or in genetics But if you call a group of DARK BROWN people one race and LIGHT BROWN people another race....this IS based on genetics. Try to accept the truth....when it is presented - and life will no seems so bewildering to you Try PROOF READING your posts before submitting them and your messages won't seem so bewildering to me either, lol.
frankster Posted June 23 Report Posted June 23 On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster Intelligence is a quality of mental acuity possess by living beings.. There is also physical intelligence Ok.... Is LOVE physical??? Is INGENUITY physical??? Is COURAGE physical??? These are all Qualities of Being.... On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: No science can find no genetic basis for race... But science still ACKNOWLEDGES that race exists. Dr. Clarke said it DIDN'T exist. Science doesn't agree. No....science says there is no genetic basis for race Race is a social concept On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: It proves that race is a social convention/construct that is total reliant on the politics of the time. It proves that race CAN be based on color, language, or almost anything else that society CHOOSES to base it on. Yes....as in a Social Construct With the political will one can call any seeming groupings of similarities or dissimilarities a race or races. On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: Concepts are Ideas...And Contexts are Situational - neither are physical But they are REAL. They exist. It simply depends on the context. Not all concepts represent physically reality and or truth On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: Yes for it be be grounded in physical reality it must be derived from physicality . It doesn't HAVE TO be grounded in physical reality for it to EXIST. It simply has to BE. To Be is to exist.... Physical Existent demands physicality On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: Race cannot be based on genetics.....that has been tried - and failed Are all genetics the same? All human genetics are 99% the same......more alike than different. The differences are in expression not in kind or quality... On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: I have continually told you that race is a social concept. That can be categorized over anything a particular society agrees to categorize it as. Yes....Categories are Concepts of Divisions. On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: Social concepts are political As social concepts race can be whatever the society deems it is... Then that INCLUDES genetics. No...Genetics is firmly rooted in physical reality - Biology On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: You or a society can call a group of politicians a race....because they all have the same profession - but you cannot then say this is based on or in genetics But if you call a group of DARK BROWN people one race and LIGHT BROWN people another race....this IS based on genetics. No you cannot say it is based on genetics....Science has disproven that unequivocally. On 6/22/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pioneer1 said: Try to accept the truth....when it is presented - and life will no seems so bewildering to you Try PROOF READING your posts before submitting them and your messages won't seem so bewildering to me either, lol. Sometimes I have no time to proof read.... If you see something say something....and I will do my best to further explain.
Pioneer1 Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 frankster These are all Qualities of Being.... But are they physical? That's my question. No....science says there is no genetic basis for race Race is a social concept But science DOES agree on the EXISTENCE of race, while Dr. Clarke initially said it did NOT exist. Not all concepts represent physically reality and or truth Correct. That's the point. To Be is to exist.... Physical Existent demands physicality Thank you for saying what I've been TELLING you for days now...lol. If that's your way of saying you "get it" and agree, I'll take it. All human genetics are 99% the same......more alike than different. I didn't ask you about "percentages"; I asked you were ALL genetics THE SAME? Yes or no? Percentages mean nothing as far as the answer to that question goes. Either someone is ALIVE or DEAD. What "percentage of dead" they are is of little importance once that declaration has been made. Yes....Categories are Concepts of Divisions. Products of an analytical mind. No you cannot say it is based on genetics....Science has disproven that unequivocally. You don't believe the color of a person's skin is based on genetics? Well what do you think it's based on...the type of food they eat? Sometimes I have no time to proof read.... Lol..... How much of a rush can a man be if he's laying on the couch smoking a blunt?
frankster Posted June 24 Report Posted June 24 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster These are all Qualities of Being.... But are they physical? That's my question. Qualities in and of themselves are not thought to be physical....They are of thought and behavior 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No....science says there is no genetic basis for race Race is a social concept But science DOES agree on the EXISTENCE of race, while Dr. Clarke initially said it did NOT exist. Only as a social concept....many social concepts are false - if false then it never existed 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Not all concepts represent physically reality and or truth Correct. That's the point. That's my point.. Race has been found to be a false social construct 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: To Be is to exist.... Physical Existent demands physicality Thank you for saying what I've been TELLING you for days now...lol. If that's your way of saying you "get it" and agree, I'll take it. Show where you have said that? 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: All human genetics are 99% the same......more alike than different. I didn't ask you about "percentages"; I asked you were ALL genetics THE SAME? Yes or no? Percentages mean nothing as far as the answer to that question goes. Either someone is ALIVE or DEAD. All human genes are the same....the difference is in the degree/ amount of expression 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What "percentage of dead" they are is of little importance once that declaration has been made. Thats a whole new conversation 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes....Categories are Concepts of Divisions. Products of an analytical mind. Yes 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No you cannot say it is based on genetics....Science has disproven that unequivocally. You don't believe the color of a person's skin is based on genetics? The same gene is responsible for all gradations of skin color.....from black African to white European. 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Well what do you think it's based on...the type of food they eat? Yes....Environment diet climate and behavior contribute to gene expression - epigenetics 18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Sometimes I have no time to proof read.... Lol..... How much of a rush can a man be if he's laying on the couch smoking a blunt? Thats for me to know and you to find out...
Troy Posted June 25 Author Report Posted June 25 @Pioneer1 you've dodged this question for years, but I'll ask it again: If race were so absolutely defined in by our genes what hasn't anyone developed a genetic test for race? It sure would make it easier to determine who is potentially entitled to reparations.
Pioneer1 Posted June 26 Report Posted June 26 frankster Qualities in and of themselves are not thought to be physical....They are of thought and behavior Thank you for FINALLY answering that....lol. They may not be physical...but they EXIST. Only as a social concept....many social concepts are false - if false then it never existed You may as well hadn't even said that last part, since it's irrelevant. You and I BOTH agree that race exists as a social construct. That's my point.. Race has been found to be a false social construct What's "false" about it? You ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of race AS a social construct, so does that mean that YOU acknowledge something that's false? All human genes are the same....the difference is in the degree/ amount of expression Confusion on top of confusion. The same gene is responsible for all gradations of skin color.....from black African to white European. Do you know the difference between EUMELANIN and PHEOMELANIN? Troy If race were so absolutely defined in by our genes But it's NOT. It sure would make it easier to determine who is potentially entitled to reparations. We can already determine who qualifies for Reparations. If you are a direct descendant of FBA lineage, you are entitled.
Troy Posted June 27 Author Report Posted June 27 Pioneer the “artful Dodger.” Can’t explain why there’s no DNA test for race can you? You won’t even entertain the question…. Is it because you don’t like the conclusion that it forces you to draw?
Pioneer1 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 Troy Can’t explain why there’s no DNA test for race can you? You won’t even entertain the question…. Why? ....when race isn't DEFINED by DNA tests or any other biological test???? Did you read the DEFINITION of the word "race", posted in the other thread? If not, here it is: Quote race noun (PEOPLE) one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/race It says nothing about "DNA tests" being needed to figure out somebody's race...lol. All you have to do is LOOK at them (their physical characteristics) to determine their category based on HOW a society chooses to categorize them. Is it because you don’t like the conclusion that it forces you to draw YOU'RE forcing me to draw the conclusion that all of the definitions, links, and proof of race and racial differences that I provide for you....are going to be ignored by you because your DIAL is stuck on the same channel/station, lol.
Troy Posted June 27 Author Report Posted June 27 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: All you have to do is LOOK at them (their physical characteristics) to determine their category based on HOW a society chooses to categorize them. OK so how do you explain the concept of "passing" in our society. Passing wouldn't be a thing if all you had to do is look at someone to determine their race. I'm glad you've finally admitted that there is no genetic basic for race.
frankster Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Qualities in and of themselves are not thought to be physical....They are of thought and behavior Thank you for FINALLY answering that....lol. They may not be physical...but they EXIST. They are not physical.. They exist in the thoughts and are expressed in the behaviour of human being 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Only as a social concept....many social concepts are false - if false then it never existed You may as well hadn't even said that last part, since it's irrelevant. You and I BOTH agree that race exists as a social construct. Yes.... Race and Races are social concepts 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That's my point.. Race has been found to be a false social construct What's "false" about it? It is false because it is not grounded or derived from anything physical or biological. 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of race AS a social construct, so does that mean that YOU acknowledge something that's false? Yes....I acknowledge that it is a false social construct... I can sit here and think and share with others the idea that @Pioneer1 is a fool some may agree with me.....would you agree or disagree that that idea is true or false? 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: All human genes are the same....the difference is in the degree/ amount of expression Confusion on top of confusion. Yes it can seem that way stick with it we will unravel it. 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The same gene is responsible for all gradations of skin color.....from black African to white European. Do you know the difference between EUMELANIN and PHEOMELANIN? Yes ......Two types of Melanin You tell me the differences?
Pioneer1 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 Troy OK so how do you explain the concept of "passing" in our society. It's easily explained. They get a pass from some and not from others. Passing isn't an official government designation, it's a "social construct" for real. Unlike traditional racial categories, it's not even recognized by social scientists. Passing wouldn't be a thing if all you had to do is look at someone to determine their race. Depending on how race in a society is defined, how they look may be all that QUALIFIES them to be a member of a particular race. In ancient India, race was strictly divided BY color...literally. The Caste system is called the "Varna" or "color" system. I'm glad you've finally admitted that there is no genetic basic for race. When did I? frankster It is false because it is not grounded or derived from anything physical or biological. If race is grounded in color or other physical features, then it IS derived from that which is physical and biological. I can sit here and think and share with others the idea that @Pioneer1 is a fool some may agree with me.....would you agree or disagree that that idea is true or false? Only a REAL FOOL would attempt to answer that one, lol. Yes it can seem that way stick with it we will unravel it. It appears a little TOO "sticky" for a brutha to get near it. How about I stand back and let YOU unravel that ball of yarn...lol. Yes ......Two types of Melanin You tell me the differences? My explanation is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that there are two different types of melanin which means the same genes are NOT responsible for all skin colors. Right?
frankster Posted June 28 Report Posted June 28 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster It is false because it is not grounded or derived from anything physical or biological. If race is grounded in color or other physical features, then it IS derived from that which is physical and biological. Race as a soial construct is not based in biology but politics and social behavior 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I can sit here and think and share with others the idea that @Pioneer1 is a fool some may agree with me.....would you agree or disagree that that idea is true or false? Only a REAL FOOL would attempt to answer that one, lol. Or a honest person. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes it can seem that way stick with it we will unravel it. It appears a little TOO "sticky" for a brutha to get near it. How about I stand back and let YOU unravel that ball of yarn...lol. Well you doing a great job so far 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes ......Two types of Melanin You tell me the differences? My explanation is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that there are two different types of melanin which means the same genes are NOT responsible for all skin colors. Right? No...not right. They are both melanin from the same gene....Gene pleiotropy
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now