Can it be racist to state a fact?

Some anthropologists disagree:

"Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.

“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1

 

well the Kenewick man claims origin based on morphology went down in flames as did all the anthropologists who claimed he was, Ainu, Polynesian, European based on his physical morphology...DNA settled the issue 100% Kenewick man was native american...


just a guess on my part that appears to be a very old article, the Forensic anthropologists were wrong and no they can't identify ethnic groups theirs was just a best guess scenario... they're worried about losing part of the authority on the science to Geneticists

 

I wish there was a better term than 'racist.'

Just as I am better at fixing machines and emotional people are better at healing souls, we all have differences. Some of those differences can be attributed to our distant and/or large scale genetic history, some are just random genetic drift, some are lifestyle choices in regard to which skills we preferred to develope and some are socially pressured or coerced acceptances.

We're all of the human race, and our copulation can only ever create another human.

'Racist' is a terribly innaccurate term from the get-go... but I dont know of any other that is nearly so universally used.

 

you're absolutely right, race is ingrained in our thought process as it's very difficult to eliminate because so many people still believe it to be true, even when you point them to the scientific literature that says there is no such thing they still deny it...because of that racism is hard to erase along with it the assumptions we make based on someones appearance...

 

I think you mean two different races....

1.Muslims (followers of Islam) are Arabs, Indians, Iranians (who are present day 'Persians'), Egyptians, Indonesians, and can also be Americans...….

2.The citizens of the proto settlement known as Ur, whatever their ethnicity or race (eg Sumerian, or Mesopotamian) predated Abraham who was born in that locality.

 

Fact: Muhammed founded Islam in the 7th century. after he united the tribes of Arabia under the Islamic banner.

He claimed this new revelation (Islam) was the latest revelation from the One True God, who was the same as the God of Abraham; he recognised the OT prophets, and also (prophet)Jesus, as his predecessors.

 

Fact. Nobody can prove muhammed existed at all, though someone probably, did to set the model.

Fact, Qusayy founded much of which is now Islam, before Muhammed was born

Fact, the first 100 years of Islam is a black hole from which nothing emerges.

Fact, the earlier writings, ( Companions of Muhammed, for example) were
written in the 10th to 12th century, not the 7th.

Fact. He recognized the Jewish and Christian prophets, but claimed they were Muslim, before Muslims existed.

Fact, all of this comes together in the 9th century, not the 7th as is claimed.

Fact, Islam is written in classical Arabic, ("True Arabic" as is written), a 9th century language.

 

A fact is a fact
The significance and interpretation of such a fact can easily be racist
For example, many people would interpret this fact to identify a a racial genetic difference between races. And from that interpretation some people would then conclude that differences in accomplishment are inexorably related to race. And that it would be a fools erand to try to improve the accomplishment of an underperforming race since the root of the underperformance is genetic

But all of these conclusions can be flawed
So, you wind up with false, apparently indisputable conclusions based upon an actual fact

The possibility of erroneous conclusion is greatly exacerbated if those drawing the conclusions have strong biases... possibly based upon which race they are a member of, and whether or not they feel blamed for the underperformance of the other group... and whether they feel asked to pay for programs to help underperforming groups who ultimately cannot be helped since their underperformance is a matter of genetics... which they feel to be a fact for the reasons stipulated in the original post

 

Gosh you didn't even manage to get one of your 'facts' right, not surprising from someone who says Jews have ruled in Jerusalem for longer than anyone else. (You apparently did not bother to read the linked article outlining the history).

The product of some (unorthodox!) orthodox Jewish teaching, perhaps?

(From google):

"Muhammad, in full Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim, (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina), the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān."

A black hole from which nothing emerged???? In fact the spread of Islam immediately after Muhammad's death is nothing short of miraculous, Muslims having conquered as far west as Spain by 711AD, and East to Afghanistan (Palestine was taken only a decade after his death)

Apparently the Prophet himself was illiterate, but he is said to have recited the verses of the Koran in a trance; these words were immediately written down by his scribes. No doubt there is room for debate around this, I suppose; of course, scholars also dispute the authorship and time of writing of much of the Old Testament.

Your fifth 'fact' amounts to a play on words; the Prophet saw his religion as the true religion, and in this sense he might claim the true believers that preceded him(ie the OT prophets) were Muslim. You are misrepresenting any such claim he might have made.

Your last 'fact' (about language of the Koran) changes none of the above.

 

LOL

Lets do this one at a time.

We know when Muhammed is claimed to have been born and died.

Show me where you get the info.


BTW Ishaq dates it, but is 200 years after the fact.

 

“A customer can have a car painted any color he wants as long as it’s black.”
Henry Ford

 

Jews were often only able to save the own life because of persecution. A Jewish proverb: "They can steal everything - but nothing what's in your head". To learn a lot is a Jewish tradition.

 

Another Jewish proverb I like

Watch your pennies, and your dollars take care of themselves.

 

"According to the biblical Book of Genesis, Isaac (Ishaq to Muslims) was the son of Abraham and Sarah and father of Jacob; his name means "he will laugh", reflecting when Sarah laughed in disbelief when told that she would have a child. Born 1896BC in Canaan".

[Info from the internet; I don't expect you to reveal the source of your information from a parallel universe].

Must be a different Ishaq!.

 

Ishaq's "Sira", or The "Sirat Rasual Allah", Islams first documentation, and the only biography of Muhammed written within 200 years of his lifetime.

Written by Ibn Ishaq about 125 years after the fact. The original is lost, and 4/5ths of it was destroyed, and re-written by Ibn Hussin 60 years later.

 

OK, assuming you have specialist knowledge on theological matters, it seems I must conclude that the generally accepted his'story' about Islam's foundation is largely mythological.

But it seems much of the Old Testament has its own accepted 'mythology', noting that many scholars dispute the authorship and dating of the various OT books.

But can we accept as fact.......a Jewish temple in Jerusalem from c. 1000BC (ie, soon after David's conquest of Jerusalem) to 70AD (destruction of last Jewish temple by Romans) - ie, about a millennium (taking into account the 70 year Babylonian conquest 6th century BC); compared with a Muslim shrine and mosque built in the 7th century soon after the Muslim conquest (the Dome of the Rock -begun in 687AD - is one of the oldest extant Islamic buildings in the world), under Muslim control for about 1100 years (680AD to 1920AD (noting Crusader control for about 90 years...… UN res 181 certainly has something to recommend it, regarding the city's present day status.

 

Interpretation is entirely subjective. Therefore no claim (of racism) can be made.

 

RACIST!

joking, of course

 

The accepted story, by Muslims, is that this came from God, all of it, believe me or I will kill you.

The foundation is not mythological, but outright fabrication, Copied from Jewish and Christian text.
We know the OT is pretty much mythological, but is a good history book, containing things not mentioned anywhere else, however Islam copied these myths, the same ones, and claimed they came from God.

 

Of course belief in (or communication with) God ought to be a source of strength for all humans, regardless of race; can you point to any extant scripture …(wait a bit, I will have to give some more thought to the question I want to ask....)

 

Why is only group A being compared to group B? Where are groups C, D, E, F... all the way to Z?

And besides, my opinion is, that one group may be 'gifted' in one way while another group is gifted in another way. And if they work together, they can add both of their strengths to 'enhance' what is around them.

As far as racism is concerned, would that mean that a person sees an entire 'race' in a negative light without first gaining 'facts'? The group that belongs to those with 'down syndrome' can be a 'group'.. Would calling them learning disadvantaged be wrong... But why even need to say that since most already know this.

Racism. There is the 'black', the 'white', the 'asian', the 'latino', the 'polynesian', the 'mixed', the 'european' and many more within many countries.. Would being racist be something like saying, 'ALL latinos are 'brutish' or 'ALL latinos are 'immigrants'? Or would racism be more specific to their population such as 'high percentage' of uneducated?


What exactly IS racism? The same as prejudicism based on 'race' and not 'color'?


Or is racism similiar to racialism?

racialism (n.)


1882, "tribalism;" 1890, "political system advocating superiority and exclusive rights based on race," from racial + -ism. Also see racist.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/racialism


So could racism be derived from thinking of oneself 'superior' to another?


But even if a group thought themselves 'superior' to another, what concerns would that group have in regards to myself if I'm not even 'worthy' to be in their cities or towns? If I was not part of their 'group' I would not even be admitted into their cities or towns so how would their superior viewpoint negatively effect me if I'm not even around them?

And doesn't being 'superior' to other 'races' require that person to be 100 percent pure? How many 100% pure blood are there anymore? The majority are 'mixed' at least a little percent more than 100% pure.. If it didn't have anything to do with 'true' blood percentages, then the 'superiority' ideas would not be coming from a blood line aspect more so than from a personal 'life experience' aspect, which would be more opinions to 'races' than 'heritage' to own 'blood'

And it is within these that the person can be seen as 'racist' seeing that that person himself or herself might be 'many races' also. In other words, hypocritical.

In my opinion...

And with all the news and talks about 'racism' it does make a person become frightened that they might step on someone's toes without even knowing it.

One last question.... Is racism something like 'race targeted' hate crimes without the definition of 'superiority' involved?

 

I notice the originator of this topic on 'race' , ie, 'modernpaladin' (photo - a masked killer with raised guns), possibly looking to ridicule PC attitudes to race, has disappeared without trace. Perhaps the discussion did not take the turn he expected.....

Poverty is usually ugly anywhere, regardless of race - everybody loved Bill Cosby (until recently!).....and Trump is good at branding overseas countries mired in poverty as 'sh*t-holes', while absolutely lacking in any constructive solutions - he has even managed to put the entire G7 off-side with his "America First" policy (and even so the 45 million Americans living in poverty will find no friend in Trump, as prices rise following his imposition of tariffs