Lets face it, racism exists because of stereo-types, personal experiences, or teaching, there could be other reasons of course... Just as a question, are some forms of racism legitimate? If one has had vastly more negative experiences with a race, is it not legitimate to question it, or expand that concept? Wait, just a sec here, because if you know anything about me on these boards, this is purely philosophical... The deeper truths, the ones we don't talk about. I'll add an example... I was robbed at gunpoint by a black guy, and let me tell you I was not overly friendly towards blacks for quite a while, but flip to today, and my best, and favorite employee is a black guy. I sure as hell won't have hired him a day after I was robbed, AM I WRONG? One issue that seems to be ignored in race relations is experiences. Could anyone fault a women that was raped by X (other than their race) and be totally and absolutely resentful to others of X race? Who are we to judge on that level? I guess is the question is: "is there any legitimacy we can agree that would accept some forms of racism"? If not, clarify... Reminder, the whole concept is philosophical... I've had some (*)(*)(*)(*)ed bad experiences, I got over it, in time, but are there legitimate situations in which we could accept forms of racism? Is it so wrong we must legislate it? Are we destroying our own freedoms out of guilt? Is there anything wrong with races wanting to be apart? When it comes to core freedoms, should we not be able to decide if we do or don't want person X around? Do we have to hire them, should we have to? At what point has it gone too far???
This is a great thread and I've repped you for it. I'm living proof that negative experiences of blacks is a legitimate reason for racism. I'm actually a nice, kind-hearted and very charitable person in real life. I don't want to hate anyone and wished I didn't. But the amount of negative experiences with blacks has been truly overwhelming. (I've also been robbed at gunpoint by two blacks) The things I've seen going on in the ghetto or even in neighborhoods that have a significant amount of blacks in it would turn your hair pink. I don't appreciate uncivilized behavior in what is supposed to be a civilized society. So in essence, I'm racist because I have morals, principals and prefer to live in a positive enviroment. Think about it this way. If you keep getting tickets for unfair reasons by a certain few parking attendants, aren't you going to then hate parking attendants? Let me answer that for you, yes, you are. Because everyone hates parking attendants anyway. It's the same with blacks. What they've done to once beautiful cities like Detroit, St. Louis and parts of Baltimore is disgusting. Stereotypes exist because there's some truth to them. Some 14-year-old kid didn't think them up in his bedroom one day and start spreading it around the world. There's absolutely nothing wrong with racism in the non-violent form. If you don't want to like blacks, don't. It's perfectly natural not to like negative people and the majority of blacks are negative. No amount of media or societal pressure should ever shape your beliefs into doing what it wants you to do. I've also had good experiences with blacks. But they're overwhelmingly dwarfed by the amount of negative experiences I've had with them... and that is the key. My experiences with all other races have been majoritively good therefore there's no reason to dislike other races. I simply don't feel blacks are fit for civilized society and judging by their actions all over America, it's a pretty legitimate feeling.
It is a question of rejecting essentializing, and accepting that you cannot universally attribute a set of characteristics to any group. It is idiotic nonsense to believe in racial determinism, which basically posits that the level of pigmentation in one's skin is determinative of behavior. That is of course absurd. So while there may be visceral reactions of racism and prejudice(which I believe everyone feels, even if some more seriously than others), but thinking people use their minds to reject such conclusions. That is what is important. It is not important to never have prejudiced thoughts against any groups, what is important is that you logically deconstruct such thoughts and reject them for the illogical nonsense they are.
So were many nations in Africa, proof?? London Museum. So, using zook logic all of those African nations should hate the whiteman who stole heritage and artifacts from them and they are entitled to that attitude according to zooks logic. Oh what a merry circle this follows. How to break the cycle, don't ask the thief!
A good test is to take "race" out of a statement and add "ginger" instead (this also works with blue-eyes, blond hair, etc... I just chose ginger because of the South Park episode). I'll add an example... I was robbed at gunpoint by a ginger guy, and let me tell you I was not overly friendly towards gingers for quite a while, but flip to today, and my best, and favorite employee is a ginger guy. I sure as hell won't have hired him a day after I was robbed, AM I WRONG? How come we never hear about how someone hates gingers because a ginger did something to them before? Because it is ridiculous. We all know that just because someone with red hair did something bad to us, doesn't mean that all people with red hair are bad. Why do we treat dark skin differently? What if the woman who was raped by a man decided that all men were rapists, should she not be able to decide if she do or don't want men around? If she was in charge of hiring, would she be justified in hiring just women? It is a false generalization to assume that everybody that looks the same way, acts the same way. It is not the way it works.
You sport the Union Jack yet come up with this cockamamie story that the English colonizers stole artifacts from the bush people, and that the bush people should hate the WHITE man for giving them a leg up on their prior miserable living conditions? Bush people were a 1000 times better off being colonized then when they felt the wrath of the ANC.
What idiotic nonsense!! They did steal their artifacts, and the difference in standard of living between Europeans and Africans before colonization(circa 17th century) was far smaller than it is now!! The idea that the colonized are better off is idiotic nonsense, parroted only by brainless racists!!
I think using words like "civilized" is a mistake. And it is an exaggeration to say they had a better standard of living than Europeans, but the difference was certainly no where near as great then, as it is now. PS. Also the idea that there would have been no cultural encounter without colonialism is more nonsensical idiocy!!
I want you to read this article comparing life as it is now in South Africa under ANC leadership against how it was under colonialism--then come back to me and apologize for your idiotic response to me. Btw, its a black man...Walther Williams giving you the information you so surely lacked with your response to me. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams010902.asp
No exaggeration, Ghana and Mali had more wealth than ANY european nation in 1400. Mansa Musa is said to be the wealthiest man in the West and his streets paved in gold.
What does that have to do with anything? The damage of colonialism was already done. On top of that, the idea that South Africans are better off now than they were in 1931(which is when the English granted South Africa autonomy) is idiotic. Even if you just look from the end of Apartheid, the South African GDP per capita has more than doubled. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...ry&idim=country:ZAF&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en So in other words, you unsurprisingly don't know what you are talking about.
Europe went through a 1,000 year period of poverty from 500 to 1500 while Africa was at the epicentre of civilzation until colonization.
It really wasn't. During that time period you could argue the epicenter of civilization was Constantinople, Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Chang'an, Beijing, etc!! However, there was no where in Africa comparable to those places. That is not a slight on Africa, which as I said, was far more comparable to the rest of the world in the 17th and 18th centuries than it is now, but it is just a reflection of reality. PS. Stories of streets paved with gold are always myths. However even though it is true that Mansa Musa was fabulously wealthy, that hardly correlates to the "epicenter of civilization." However what it does do, is dispel stupid myths perpetuated by mindless racists about how much better off blacks are because of the kind white man and his imperialism.
You would have to be able to define where one race ends and another begins. So far every racist on this forum has failed to do that. If you cant do that, then you can't assign traits to people based on race. Am I black if one of my parents is black? What about a grandparent? What about a great grand parent? How far back would it have to go before I'm not considered black anymore? I have met racists in real life who consider you black if you have ANY black ancestor, even hundreds of years ago. Even if you are blond haired and blue eyed. Racists cant seem to answer that question. Thats why the idea of assigning traits to people based on race is retarded. If you cant even define a race how can you assign traits to it? No. Because their personal experiences are very possibly coincidence. What makes their experiences more valid than mine, for example? If so, the trade off is acceptable. The alternatives are worse. Perhaps we disagree on what the "core freedoms" are.
It really was and you better believe it. Axum was equal to any power in the world at the time and also don't negate the fact that Cairo is Africa and Egypt has always been a major player even up until today, it still is a world power, do not underestimate that fact. There is a reason they are the leading recipients of US monetary imbursments! I wonder why that is....you can just figure that out. Timbuktu was the most famous city in the world for literature during this period and what better way is their to transmit knowledge? By the sword perhaps, I don't think so.
The argument you are making is equivalent to saying the House of Saud is fabulously wealthy, therefore Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of civilization. The Saudi king is certainly far more wealthy than barrack Obama or President HU. However, no one would legitimately argue that Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of civilization. Similarly, and probably a better analogy is for Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Both places are fabulously wealthy, and the Emirs of the UAE are extraordinarily wealthy. That said, they are not the centers of civilization at the moment. For evidence, you need only look at Mansa Musa's Hajj. He went there with a fabulous amount of wealth, but still brought back Arab architects, engineers, teachers, etc. The Arab world may not have had quite as much wealth in commodities, but as far as "civilization" goes they were far more "civilized." PS. I hate that term "civilized," and really shouldn't use it. PPS. I forgot about cordoba in my list of great cities of the period. While it was in Europe, it was the center of a Muslim empire.
If space aliens landed, then gave you machines that would create your food for you, and generally took care of your physcial needs, but they made up their own new laws and customs, and you had to obey, or be killed.....would you like it?....especially when the aliens made you work hard on a farm, while they sipped Mai Tai's on thier porch, and banked all the money.......would you like living that way?......I'd rather be free.
Making explicit judgement of an individual based on some traits of some group he falls into is dumb and immoral. But, then again, the human mind is incapable of judging everyone on a solely individual basis. That's why we tend to put people into groups and categorize them. The important thing is not to act out on those impulses. Me personally though, I think people should have the right to complete freedom of association and can decide who they wish to hire or associate with if they want to. That doesn't mean that I think it's right, but I think people should have the choice.
The arguments I made were not solely based on wealth hence why I mentioned Timbuktu which had the biggest library in the western world at the time, this knowledge combined with wealth would make it a more advanced city of learning than anywhere in europe. The cities that could rival it in europe were the ones built by the Moors, another African people. The point being that Africa was as advanced if not more so than europe at the time of colonization.
And once again, no response to the "how do you define a race" argument from the racists on here. Wow, what a shock. I was sure this thread would be different from the 176 other threads where racists also failed to define what a "race" is. Oh well. Maybe thread #178 will be the one where they finally deliver. LOL
