Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest FlareonDon

Why Blacks Can Never Be 'Normal' In Society

Recommended Posts

Cynique

As I said before, the only reason I "went there" with you was for the benefit those viewing the dialouge who may have been interested in how I came to my conclusions concerning Black sexual dominance.

I was under no illusion that you would be convinced by what I said and all of a sudden start seeing things my way.....lol...because I KNOW how worried you are about White people's perceptions of Black sexuality.


If....scientifically speaking....Blacks are genetically dominant, it seems to me that we would have the POTENTIAL to dominate in all facets of human activity including sexuality.
 

 


Troy

Perhaps the Journal of Medicine and Red Cross are wrong for using racial terms.
But what is your reference to judge them by to have come to that conclusion?

The scientific community clearly acknowledges the reality of RACE and RACIAL CLASSIFICATION and we just can't make it any other way.


I believe Neely Fuller Jr.  or one of our great scholars said that power is the ability to define your reality.
It really doesn't matter whether race and racial catagories are real or not in actuality.
If the White people in power BELIEVE that they are real, and have the power to act on those beliefs....what power do YOU have to re-define that reality and say it isn't so?



BTW.....
If you think race isn't real but just an artificial construction, then I take it you weren't offended by Rachel Dolenzal's claim of being Black, correct?

Infact, perhaps you SUPPORT her claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel sometimes the game chooses you.

Real power starts in the mind and extends and blends from that to this world. Delusions are stunted and only exist in one  mind. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins I'm flattered to have inspired a blog post about me. Del keeps implying that I don't realize what I am.  He says I'm a "magnus".  You say I'm a "hustler".  i don't have a problem with either one of these labels.  Because this hustling magnus respects the opinions of both of you.  :D

(This thread is so long and goes off on so many tangents  that I didn't even see your post until just now. )

@Pioneer1 Yes, I do resent the idea of white people harboring the impression that black women are loose, oversexed 'hos and that this behavior comes natural to them.  And I'm sure white opinions about black men being over sexed brutes played a part in them being lynched in the past, and is a misconception that persists today among white women leery about being in the proximity of black male strangers.

BTW, Did you see the post by Britanny on the Part 1 segment of this long thread wherein she challenged all of your contentions about race and black sexuality.  I'm surprised you didn't respond to it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

It's funny how I never hear Italian men or women DOWN PLAY the reputation Italian men have for being sexy or sensual.....infact many Italian women are proud of their men.

Nor do I hear Latino men or women DOWN PLAY the image of the "hot Latin lover".

But just MENTION Black men and sex in the same sentence and people start doing flips!

Oh it's OK for OTHER men to flaunt and promote their sexuality.....but don't let that Black men do it!
It's all gotta be kept a secret, under wraps, not even a JOKE about Black men having a large penis or being good in bed is acceptable.....it must be challenged and proof demanded!!!


So let me get this straight.......
Black men are supposed to down play their sexuality and pretend that they're little limp penis wimps with no sex drive at all because White men may find it offensive and lynch them?

Going by THAT logic, perhaps Black men should stay BROKE and sell all of their businesses so as not to offend White men with their money, wealth, and power....lest they burn it all down like they did Black Wall Street in Tulsa Oklahoma!

Gimme a break with all that......lol.

You just called me an Uncle Tom in another thread for having the ever so SLIGHTEST concern over how the average White man may perceive Black NFL figures who refused to go to the White House......but now here YOU are sitting up here scared as hell over how White men may react if Black men flaunt their sexuality....lol.

It's that same mentality that...in MY opinion....is encouraging so many of our young men to be "femininized" and act gay or "sissyish" in school and in the work place today.

They've been told in so many words that it's not acceptable for Black men to be proudly and assertively masculine, so they've reconned that the best thing to do is not act like a man at all!
Just act like an a-sexual eunuch with no drive and no penis and if you see a woman either act like her or look in the other direction that way they can along at work and in school and everyone will "like" them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2017 at 5:15 AM, Delano said:

@Cynique. That was an airtight critique. I would be thouroghly impressed with an equally logical counterpoint.

...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 Many Latina women do resent being labeled  as "hot-blooded spitfires", just as blondes hate to be characterized as "dumb airheads", and  big-chested women prefer men to look past their bosom. Why?  Because such perceptions make a caricature of  them.  And i repeat black women don't like being arbitrarily viewed as  loose and lusty.

A common complaint of black men is how unaccompanied white women are instinctively uneasy around them. It reduces them to a subhuman level.  Also,  I think intelligent black men would rather be judged first by their intellect rather than their overrated sexuality. Further more, being assertive doesn't have anything to do with a large penis and an accelerated sex drive.  And most self-respecting black women don't stick with a black man if he doesn't have anything else going for him but horniness.  All such  males are good for is stud service via a booty call. Also i don't agree that an authentic black man can be feminized.  Those that come across as effeminate are  probably in the closet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique, @Pioneer1 ignored Britanny's post because there was really nothing he could say to reasonably refute what she wrote. What I don't understand about Pioneer's position is that he is consistently arguing against facts. 

Pioneer, you seem completely unwilling to accept the fact that race is an artificial construct.  Look, you can find many instances of me using the word "trace" but that does not prove that race is a genetically meaningful term, it is a social construct and I use it becaus, unfortunately, it is how people view the world.

No, I was not "offended" by Rachel Dolenzal's claim of being Black.  I couldn't care less..  Apparently, the people who selected her to run their NAACP chapter did not care either, until it became a farce in the media.  Two, I have no way of proving her claim one way or the other.  Again, I thought we'd already ascertained that you can't look at someone and determine their race. Surely you are aware of the practice of "passing" in this country, right?

I'm not sure why you want to deny the science in this regard Pioneer, why are so fixated on using race?

I won't even get in the racial stereotypes you keep advancing, for they are beyond silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy I agree with most of your post. People have beliefs that match their experience. Pioneers are leaders not followers. I think thats a term used by a religious group for prosyletizers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Del I hope we "agree" on the fact that there is no genetic basis for race.  The other stuff like my feelings about Rachel are purely subjective.  Though I have to believe you are not in favor of using racial stereotypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Pioneer, I still am not totally converted when it comes to the claim of race being an artificial construct.  Is there something comparable in the animal kingdom that will reinforce the idea of race just being a man-made term that Society has come up with in order to enable discrimination? 

For instance, is saying that a snake and an elephant are different, just a superficial scientific construct? 

And, could the question as to whether race is, or is not a legitimate distinction, fall into the "unknowable" realm?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cynique

Many Latina women do resent being labeled as "hot-blooded spitfires", just as blondes hate to be characterized as "dumb airheads", and big-chested women prefer men to look past their bosom. Why? Because such perceptions make a caricature of them. And i repeat black women don't like being arbitrarily viewed as loose and lusty.

You're focusing on the women while completely ignoring the masculine side which sees benefit in having a powerful powerful sexual reputation.   Most Latino MEN are proud to be considered macho and most Black males would rather be dead than lose their sexual potency

One of the worse things for a Black male to be seen as in the Black community is weak, or a coward, or a punk.


A common complaint of black men is how unaccompanied white women are instinctively uneasy around them.

I'm not sure how many Black men told you this because as a Black man I've RARELY noticed that women of ANY race is uncomfortable around me....thus I don't have this complaint.
Sure I've experienced a few incidents through out my life but for the most part I've had not trouble with White or even Asian women feeling "uneasy" or showing "uneasiness" about me.


It reduces them to a subhuman level. Also, I think intelligent black men would rather be judged first by their intellect rather than their overrated sexuality.

We're not talking about measures of intelligence, we're talking about basic MANHOOD and one of the worse things for a Black male to be called in the Black community is weak, or a coward, or a punk.
A man's stature...especially among average working class men....is directly tied to his ability to defend himself and be sexually potent.
No mention is ever made of how many books a man has read as a determination of his masculinity.



Further more, being assertive doesn't have anything to do with a large penis and an accelerated sex drive. And most self-respecting black women don't stick with a black man if he doesn't have anything else going for him but horniness. All such males are good for is stud service via a booty call.

What's wrong with THAT?

Some men and women have a TALENT for sex, so if that's their way of contributing to the relationship and it makes their partner happy I say let them do what they do best!

I know a few brothers who don't work and their women do have good jobs and bring home the money; their job is to defend the home from intruders and make sure she's happy in the bed room.
It's worked for some of them for 20 and 25 years!

 

 

Also i don't agree that an authentic black man can be feminized. Those that come across as effeminate are probably in the closet.

I don't know what you mean by an "authentic black man".
The processess of feminization doesn't start with the man as an adult, it starts with BOYS during childhood where his teachers and often times his own mother encourages him to act more like a girl and be less aggressive so as not to appear threatening and this advice is constantly drilled into him all through out his growing up.


 

 




Troy

@Pioneer1 ignored Britanny's post because there was really nothing he could say to reasonably refute what she wrote.

No.....
I didn't respond to her post for two reasons:

1. So many of you were happy as hell that she disagreed with me and begged her to stay and support your argument that I didn't want to take the chance of driving her off with direct confrontation.

2. Because she's not even registered and posts as a guest, I don't like entertaining "flash in the pan" posters who pop up and challenge other people's positons only to disappear back into the cyber world never to be heard from again.....or appear only once in a blue moon.
I could have easily refuted her flawed argument and quite frankly erroneous projections about what I said about culture and genetics with just basic common sense and logic.....but I didn't feel like it.

 
 

What I don't understand about Pioneer's position is that he is consistently arguing against facts.

Pioneer, you seem completely unwilling to accept the fact that race is an artificial construct. Look, you can find many instances of me using the word "trace" but that does not prove that race is a genetically meaningful term, it is a social construct and I use it becaus, unfortunately, it is how people view the world.

No, I was not "offended" by Rachel Dolenzal's claim of being Black. I couldn't care less.. Apparently, the people who selected her to run their NAACP chapter did not care either, until it became a farce in the media. Two, I have no way of proving her claim one way or the other. Again, I thought we'd already ascertained that you can't look at someone and determine their race. Surely you are aware of the practice of "passing" in this country, right?

I'm not sure why you want to deny the science in this regard Pioneer, why are so fixated on using race?

Deny the science???

Deny the facts???


Man.....I'M THE ONE who presented YOU with scientific evidence for the existence of race from the photos I provided of people who are clearly of different races as well as provided medical and scientific references supporting the reality of race:

 

Again, The New England Journal of Medicine (science) put out this article:

Since Medicare was established in the United States nearly 50 years ago, disparities in health outcomes between whites and blacks have persisted,
1 with only limited improvement in the past decade.2 In 2008, life expectancy was 5.4 years shorter for black men and 3.7 years shorter for black women than for white men and white women; cardiovascular disease and diabetes accounted for 38% of the racial gap in mortality among men and for 54% among women.2 Higher levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose among blacks with hypertension,3,4 cardiovascular disease,5,6 and diabetes,7 respectively, contribute to substantial excess morbidity and mortality from myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney disease. Similar disparities in risk-factor control have been reported for Hispanic adults with those conditions,4,5,7 but reports on Asian or Pacific Islander adults have not been included in most national studies.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1407273#t=article

Again, this is a SCIENTIFIC journal, yet they talk about race and uses terms like Black and White!






The American Red Cross said:

Different ethnic and racial groups also have different frequency of the main blood types in their populations. For example, approximately 45 percent of Caucasians are type O, but 51 percent of African-Americans and 57 percent of Hispanics are type O.

http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-and-diversity




But instead of ACKNOWLEDGING these science based facts I presented to you, you dismissed them and claimed THEY were wrong.....lol.


Science, medicine, even anthropology ALL refer to race and acknowledge it's scientific and genetic reality, but ONE INDIVIDUAL has the power to declare all of them "wrong"....lol.

 

Civil right, laws, and other legislation in this nation include race and racial classifications.

Law enforcement acknowledges the realities of race and racial classification.

Police officers in the United States have no problem indentifying suspects based on race.
When they say a suspect is a BLACK MALE about 5' 7 and 150 pounds....do you think they stopped to observe the suspect's culture and behavior before coming to that conclusion?


If you erased all the racial classifications White people would STILL know who THEY are and they'd still know who YOU are.....all they'd have to do is LOOK at you.

 

Your whole argument about race being a social or artificial construct arises out of DENIAL and FRUSTRATION and being "tired" of people talking about it....not with actual scientific FACTS to support your conclusion.

You can declare wealth and economic classes "social/artificial constructs" if you want to, but you'd have a hard time trying to convince the IRS or Wells Fargo of that "reality" because they have the hard evidence to prove otherwise....lol.


Again, it doesn't matter whether YOU think race is real or not because you have a very limited power to define.
Those who have the power to define and ENFORCE that definition say that it IS real....and you must accept it.




I won't even get in the racial stereotypes you keep advancing, for they are beyond silly.


PLEASE don't.....
You can barely maintain the one argument you're engaged in.
Try and overcome THAT obstacle first before moving on to bigger challenges...LOL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique, sure I understand if you, like @Pioneer1, are not convinced about race being an artificial construct.  This fiction has been pounded into our heads since it was invented.

Sure people can look at people like ay Barrack Obama see that he has some color and put him the in the Black category, based strictly on a 19th-century Americanized evaluation on the way he looks.  This of course completely ignores his so-called "white" genetics, but this is not about science.  And that is the problem.

While we are all indoctrinated about "race" we are woefully ill-informed in science.

Look, the typically African American is a pretty genetically diverse lot.  So much so, that a Black person can have more in common genetically with a white person that another Black person (but I'm repeating myself).  They way we look is a complex combination of ancestry, genetic makeup, gene expression, and environment.  

Racial classification is purely subjective--because there is no gene for Blackness, or whiteness, or any so-called race.  In fact, as I demonstrated with the photo I showed many people defy racial classification.  If one's race could be scientifically determined it would be possible to put everyone into a racial category.

Race, however, is a necessary tool of the racist to justify explaining why people with more melanin are inferior to people with less melanin. I understand why the racist tries to perpetuate the lie of race, but it is less clear why the victims of racism choose to hold onto this fiction even after it has been scientifically debunked.  

Pioneer, I'd encourage you or anyone else confused or interested in understanding more about the illusion of race to visit this website . It can explain these scientific concepts better than I.  What you choose to believe after that, is up to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 We are engaged in a discourse that is simply a difference of opinion, beliefs that are drawn from personal experiences or generalities stemming from popular misconceptions.  In retrospect, I tend to agree with you about  Brittany who, although very articulate really did little more than recycle what had already been said, or did she offer any academic credentials to qualify her as being an authority on the subject.   But, the fact that you didn't challenge her says more about you being intimidated than about her being presumptuous.  

@Troy I don't think using people whose race can't be identified by how they look is relevant to your argument because these "hybrids" are a mixture of different races.  Let's talk about a pure African or a pure Caucasian or a pure Asian, specimens who all exhibit stark differences in skin color, hair texture, body type, and predisposition to certain conditions,  and who can be distinguished from one another through their DNA.  And a lot of this controversy has to do with terminology.  Maybe the definition of race should be changed to align it more accurately with actuality. What eyes perceive should not have to defer to what words say.  And maybe the attempt to discredit racial classification is also a social construct.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique  okay how do you decide what race a person belongs.  Is it colour, diet, cultural , shape or something else.  Whereas wuth animals the difference is striking except for Leopards and Jaguars. 

Race us being used in two different ways. As a scientific classification and a socioeconomic one. One the plantation there was no confusion. Hmm that one looks like the master. Soserveimage-1.jpg.2c1bd3bce1c3e992849d36c024926c0a.jpg its in the house or off to auction. 

serveimage.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race us being used in two different ways. As a scientific classification and a socioeconomic one. One the plantation there was no confusion. Hmm that one looks like the master. So its in the house or off to auction. 

When it cones to Sickle Cell race is real. When it comes to racism it is a construct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I say you can tell what race a pure African or pure Caucasian or pure Asian is.  It's when someone is racially mixed that the uncertainty arises.  Saying that sickle cell makes race real  and that racism is a social construct just blurs the picture. How  can you pick and choose when race is real? If it's real in some instances, it's real in all cases. If race is  a social construct then, objectively speaking, accusations of racism have no foundation. 

As they say, you should never debate with a person who defines their own terms. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a social construct . And a scientic taxonomy. To the believer it is religion to the atheist it is a cult. So things can be relatively  true but not absolutely true. Mores, ethics, customs and laws are local. And some may be universal. 

Or we can agree on terms. Yeah  probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow confusion abounds :o

Working backwards

  • The racial classifications everyone is throwing around have nothing to do with science. Racially classifications are a purely social construct.  Science tells us there is only one race; the human race-dammit!
  • Cynique when you say "pure African," genetically speaking that means nothing.  The people who live in Africa are the most genetically diverse people on Earth.  It is more accurate to say that all Humans are "pure African."
  • Sickle cell has nothing to do with "race."  Greek people carry the trait, so do Jewish people. Carrying the sickle cell trait makes you less likely to get malaria it is about geography, not skin color.
  • Of course there was confusion on the plantation sometimes the child of a raped slave came out looking "white." if they were lucky they got to pass, or at least work in the big house.
  • Sure Cynique if you want to put people into buckets based upon skin color and pioneer if you want to attribute behavioral characteristics to people in these buckets go ahead, but don't make that bad practice worse by defining it as race.

Why is it so hard to accept that all of us make up one race. We are FAR more alike than different. 

Do y'all deny the impact of man on climate change?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy i looked at close to 300 years of economic output, temperature and population. Population seems to drive temperature more than economic actuvity. So yeah i disagree based on statistics. I generally dont discuss this since most people have made up their minds without looking at the data. However we should clean up the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it :(

They used to say, a little knowledge... well they don't say it anymore 'cause that is all we've been conditioned to consume, just a little.

Like quantum physics, race, and other issues like climate change caused not by our mere presence but by our activity, I rely on people who study this for my information. 

So the information on that site I linked to had no impact on your ideas on race @Pioneer1?  There is an interestI g documentary that goes with the site. It changed view on the entire subject. Creating a great deal more interest in genetics on my part.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I looked at the data to arruve at my position. You will never see any statistical models show a causation or a link. Search and prove me wrong. I didn't say we aren't causing it but it seems driven by population.  So you can infer thatthe Carbon Dioxide numbers are a proxy and not a measurement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy I'm not so slavishly devoted to sociology or biology as you because they are not exact sciences. And sometimes what they claim to be true is based on interpretations that ignore the impact of what the eyes see.  Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are separate stocks made up of  sub-divisions, which is the case in Africa and Europe.  And no member of  the Negroid stock has white skin or straight hair.   Traits that vary from stock to stock are superficial but if a skeleton is found, its DNA can be extracted from its bare bones and the stock it belongs to can be determined. This is "fact".

And what consolation or satisfaction is to be gained from declaring that those with white skin have made their color a premium based on a false construct?  Does this change the situation that has become so inured in society as to be correct, based on an existing condition that has prevailed for centuries wherein those with white skin have exhibited their capacity to enforce their claims. Let's get real. Statistics and genetics are beside the point. Human nature is the bottom line and people are influenced by what they observe.

Once, again I revert to my old complaint about language. It's made up of words that form sentences and when it comes to definitions of race what lies in the spaces between the words is where actuality dwells. 

BTW, Troy why did you bother to get a DNA profile?  Why weren't you content with just knowing that you are a member of the human race?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique I had my DNA checked because I was interested in tracing my family tree.  I'm discovering family members, close relations, all the time. In fact, you don't have to go back very many generations to find a common ancestor for all 7 billion people alive today. Genetics is a fascinating subject.

Humans are influenced by what they feel than even what they see. When presented with facts versus emotions, emotions wins every time.

I will always tell people when asked that there is only one race and while many older white people will go to their graves believing they are genetically superior because they have white skin, it will be more difficult for their children to internalize these beliefs.  Continuing to use the terms is what helps propagate the lie of racial differences in humans.

I don't what you mean by "exact science."  If you say that biology is not an exact science, how can you say that DNA can be extracted from bones to make a factual determination about the so-called "stock" using an inexact science?

Besides, I never read anywhere about a test that can check for one's race, as you've indicated.  In fact, everything I've read on the subjects suggests that there are so many genes involved in one complexion we don't even know all of the genes required to determine one complexion. If you have information to counter this please share the reference.  

Cynique you know there are people with much darker skin than you or I have, but who also have very straight hair.  Are they "Negro?" Given your complexion are you Negroid?  If not, what are you? If so why do you consider yourself negroid?

Do you see where I'm going with this? You can't simply can't reliably group people into a handful of buckets based upon a few superficial physical characteristics.

If we did that we could start saying that women with large breasts belong to a different race than flat chested women,  Short people belong to a difference race than tall people.  Then you are presented with issues like where do you draw the line with cup size or height.  The same way we have problems with drawing the line with skin color.  

Do you see why this is no different that saying someone with kinky hair and thick lips belongs to a difference race?  Even ignoring the science surely you can see how flawed the logic is.

Again, I know the reality and how the word is used today.  I know Black people are dumber, more violent and sexually promiscuous than members f the white race.  Indeed Barack Obama is only as smart as he is because of his white mother right?

All I'm saying is that the concept of race it is factually inaccurate, scientifically flawed reasoning, that has caused Black folks nothing but misery in the last few centuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy It's the most natural thing in the world for black people to say they are discriminated against because of the visible physical characteristics that set them apart from Caucasians who happen to be in control. Why? Because this is their reality.  Yes, it is demoralizing but it is borne out by  the racism they encounter in their day-to-day lives. What is accomplished by attributing this discrimination to a "social construct" except to make those who claim this feel like they're more in the know than others.  Black folks don't need to be told that their oppressors are full of BS they just need to figure out how to deal with this  and it's more positive to celebrate what makes them different from others instead of what makes them the same as everybody else.

I meant that because sociology and biology deal with people they are not as consistent as the science of mathematics or physics.  (And I get my information about being able to tell a person's race from things like hair strands and bone fragments from all of those true crime forensic programs I watch. :P)  No, DNA does not tell the complexion color but it detects other racial markers.  And superficial traits like big chests are genetic rather than racial  so there is no danger of them being used to reinforce racism, especially since big boobs are considered an asset. 

 And, no, I don't know any dark-skinned people from the continent of Africa who have straight hair. (Caucasian South Africans don't count.) Just like I don't know any Asians with blue eyes.  And the obvious answer to your question about what I call myself would be "mixed" .  I have light skin but my hair is not straight or my features keen. Why is it that you can't wrap your brain around people being bi-racial".

The whole debate about race is really an exercise in futility because it deals with too many contradictions.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the term "bi-racial" or "mixed" either, all of humanity is mixed; the term is superfluous. In fact I like biracial even less because it implies a mixing of characteristics that are arbitrary and randomly inherited.

This is why one sibling can come out looking 100% Black (using your terminology), and another can come out looking 100% white--but they are both bi-racial?!

mix_11.jpg The people I was thinking about who are very dark but have straight hair live in southern India, as well as other parts of the world.

I assume you would put this young lady in the "Black" category, since she has naturally straight hair.  I would then have to presume kinky hair is not a requirement for being Black.

Of course, I could provide additional examples of humans without broad noses, thick lips, and or even dark skin, that you would probably call Black, or not, depending on your arbitrary definition.

But I doubt any of this will have any impact on your belief in race, you as well as most people since to want to rigidly adhere to the belief in race. 

@Cynique, has anyone ever asked you "What are you?"  As in what is your race.  The question may sound pretty innocuous, but what they are really trying to determine is what "race" you are, so that they can associate all of the characteristics of that race too you.  It is a lot easier than actually getting to know you.

Over time I hope humanity will come to embrace reality, and dispense with archaic racial categories, and the resulting prejudice and bigotry that accompanies it.  

Perhaps without racism as a distraction, we can deal with our real enemy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy @Cynique 

Your arguments about race being poorly defined supports Cynique argument anout biology being a soft science. Although you have differing opinions in other sciences. 

Pgymies and Masai.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstandings and crossing of wires between all three of us. As Cynique has pointed out concerning some of my posting, we actually agree on a lot but seem to be emphasizing and exaggerating what we disagree on to the point of erroneous projection.
Because I tend to think in a linear fashion, let me state my positions on this matter LINEARLY:


1. Yes RACIAL CLASSIFICATION indeed IS an artificial man-made construct.

Infact ALL classifications are man-made artificial constructs because it's used by the human brain to help catagorize things and keep our societies relatively organized.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing although it is often USED for bad purposes.

Different nations and cultures have different classification systems to describe the physical differences that naturally occur.

In English culture ONE DROP of Black blood makes you Black.
In Spanish culture ONE DROP of Spaniard blood makes you Spanish regardless as to how dark you are.

Which is why you have so many Puerto Ricans and Dominicans who are clearly Black racially speaking but insist they aren't and call themselves "Latino" or "Spanish".


The color and races of the people haven't changed, but it's how they're classified that differs.



2. Race itself is NOT a construct but a genetic reality.

These two boys clearly have different genes and would be of different races whether we classified them as such or not.




Image result for russian boy                      Image result for ghanaian boy


Their  physical differnces are NATURAL....not ARTIFICIAL or man made.

How they are CLASSIFIED is artificial and man made and can fluxuate with time, but the genes that produce them are REAL.



3. There is a difference between RACE and ETHNICITY and that's one of the problems I think YOU Troy are hung up on and it's one of the vortices of your argument.

RACE is genetic and it has to do with skin color, hair texture, and facial features....phenotype.

ETHNICITY is cultural and it involves language, food, dress, family structure, and other non-physical factors.

When you talk about AfroAmericans you're not talking about RACE, we are an ETHNIC GROUP.
We come in many different races but the predominate one is BLACK.
Some AfroAmericans racially speaking are White and others are Native American and the only thing that make them AfroAmerican are the trace amounts of Black ancestry that barely and sometimes NEVER shows in their physical traits.

That's why RACE seems to be so confusion and you refuse to accept it's reality.
Because you're looking at it from the U.S. definition and classification which is FLAWED and constantly changes.

Look at it from a natural more phenotypical point of view of how people actually LOOK despite what they are called or even choose to call themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1

Do you understand that there is only one Race?  Can you answer that very simple question yes or no?

  • Of course people look different, but saying those differences are based upon race is scientifically unfounded for the reasons stated a bazillion times.  
  • Of course our physical differences are genetically determined, but this is not based upon differences in race--because there is not difference for Christ's sake
  • The so-called racial categories you like to use are arbitrary and there is no genetic test check for these

Pioneer I did not mention the word ethnicity once. Ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics, why you introduced this part of my argument is unknown to me.  It reflects you state of mind not mine.  

If you chose to group people based upon their phenotypes, fine.  Just don't; attribute those differences to race.  

Further, when a blond haired, blued eyed, light skinned person says they are Black, your racial categorization of people based upon what they look like becomes meaningless.  Doesn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Giving a label to the distinction that enables whites to discriminate against blacks,  is just a way of formalizing what was already there because  what has been referred to as a "social construct"  has its origin in a primitive instinct known as  "xenophobia".   And the notion that  everybody looks the same on the inside and that pretending we don't see the external differences will result into one big happy human family, is an idealistic goal that reeks with improbability.

Debating the authenticity of race and its relevance is a waste of time.  IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A name is different than a definition. If we can't agree on what the word "race" means; debating the subject is certainly a waste of time.  Lets see how Pioneer responds to my question

Sure people can find any reason to oppress someone else.  White people have oppressed each other throughout recorded history.  

Yeah it might be idealistic to believe that humanity will ever behave as if we were one big happy family, but if we insist in asserting racial differences puts us classes and caliber of humans we will never be one be a happy family.

I wonder if racism persists in the astral realm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy


Further, when a blond haired, blued eyed, light skinned person says they are Black, your racial categorization of people based upon what they look like becomes meaningless. Doesn't it?

No.
It says they are probably miseducated and confused about their identity.

Most people with blonde hair, blue eyes, and light skin....if it's all natural and not fake....is more than likely WHITE racially speaking despite what they have been TRAINED to consider themselves.

Oh they may have some non-White ancestry.
Their mother or father may infact be Black or Brown....but THEY are White in my opinion racially speaking because their genes for dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes didn't come through.


Secondly.....
NO you didn't mention ethnicity, but you made reference to "African American"...which is an ethnic group.

You said:

"
Look, the typically African American is a pretty genetically diverse lot. So much so, that a Black person can have more in common genetically with a white person that another Black person (but I'm repeating myself). They way we look is a complex combination of ancestry, genetic makeup, gene expression, and environment. "

And you're right AFRICAN AMERICANS are genetically diverse....because we are an ETHNIC GROUP, not a race.

Just like Latinos are an ETHNIC GROUP....not a race.

And just like Latinos, we as AfroAmericans are made up of MANY races.
The predominate race is BLACK/AFRICAN but we also have a lot of White and Native American racial genes in our pool also which is why so many people in our ETHNIC GROUP don't look Black.
It's because genetically speaking they AREN'T BLACK.

Again, the faulty racial categorizing system in America makes anyone with ANY Black ancestry Black and THIS is what causes confusion. Not necessarily the concept of race and racial indentity itself.



 

If you chose to group people based upon their phenotypes, fine. Just don't; attribute those differences to race.

Lol...but that's what race IS.
It's grouping people based on phenotype!

Saying we can group people together based on their phenotype and how they look but don't call it a race is like saying you can eat baked bread with cheese and tomato sauce slathered all over it....but whatever you do just don't call it a pizza, lol.


Saying that there is only one race...the human race....make about as much sense as saying there is only one sex....the human sex.
Totally ignoring the differences between males and females.


Ofcourse there are no "African genes" or no "European genes"....just like there are no "man genes" or "woman genes".

But guess what?

Just like there ARE genes for testicle production
Just like there ARE genes for breast production and ovary production.

There ARE genes (alleles) for dark brown skin.
There ARE genes (alleles) for curly hair
There ARE genes (alleles) for thick lips

And just like displaying a pattern of certain genetic traits gets you labled male or female, when you display a pattern of other genetic traits it gets you labled a member of a particular race.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question really frames the problem. Black people in America live in two worlds. The question is implicitly referring to the dominant culture. There are other cultures and subcultures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK @Pioneer1, you wrote a lot of things but avoided answering a direct and simple question.  

Even though you conceded that I did not bring up ethnicity, that did not stop you run rambling on and arguing points I never made.

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that there is one one race there is nothing I can say that will make sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Troy said:

I wonder if racism persists in the astral realm?

From my experience, there's only agreement in the astral realm - All are in the ALL.  It was how I was able to return here.  As soon as I voiced  "I" want to return "I" have something to do... I individuated from THE ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like your experience was a bit different from astral projection when you maintain your individuality, a sperate consciousness.  It sounds like you integrated into a larger consciousness. 

Did you learn or experience anything that you can relate that might help me understand better?  Maybe some information you learned that has served you well.  Again I don't even know what to ask or what is an appropriate question as your experience is so different that anything I have ever experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Troy said:

astral projection when you maintain your individuality, a sperate consciousness.  It sounds like you integrated into a larger consciousness. 

We didn't say anything that is in disagreement. I never lost my consciousness.  We don't lose our consciousness when we join the THE ALL... We are in agreement until we ARE NOT that is when we individuate.  In Astral projection, you are still corporeal entity, you’re still matter. 

 

59 minutes ago, Troy said:

Did you learn or experience anything that you can relate that might help me understand better?  Maybe some information you learned that has served you well.

Your question reflects a value system; a hierarchy.  Value systems exist here in this dimension - This is indicative of people who are still attached to material things... We all are attached to matter in this dimension...It is the foundation of the value system.  Still it makes it difficult to answer but I'll do my best. 

Just like you don't believe there's such a thing as race - the same is true in the other dimension.  There's no hierarchy.

There's no value system in the eternal.  What is the value of infinite? 

But if I had to judge what has served me well, here, it is understanding of energy and its vibration. Also, seeing light in the dark.  Livings things, even things we don't believe have life are illuminated here in this dimension.  If it is made from life or of living that energy remains with it. 

It is same with people - some people give off more light than others - and while I don't believe what people say I do trust their light. 

The one thing I'll tell you about leaving this dimension and traveling beyond is this: There was no "bright" light like most people say they see. It is an incredible darkness (I wrote this part in my novel) like looking into a school at night where those cut-out shapes of Washington and Lincoln, made from black construction paper, are taped to windows.  You can see the shapes even though they are pasted to the window in a dark classroom.    When you return here... you can see beyond darkness because everything is illuminated to different degrees.

I'm going to post this in the spirituality discussion for @Pioneer1

 

Edited by Mel Hopkins
clarity
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×