Racism cured or only in temporary remission?

I have never characterized or described myself as smart…. that is your “Freudian Slip” and I thank you for the unintended compliment. However, I will characterize myself as being honest, logical and factual, in what I have to say.

Trust me Noah, neither have I characterized you that way.....

Yet, somehow you used the term "smart"...when it NEVER came from my words.

Okey Dokey

Noah,

You are the only person here who has made "inferences" based on race.

You are saying that most white people believe in white supremecy. This is an unsupported claim, but let's go with it.

You haven't answered whether you think this is a genetic predisposition of white people, or if white people are just products of their society.

These questions may clear things up:

Does this "disease" you claim whites have mean that whites are somehow "inferior"?

Are black people susceptable to this same disease?

The belief of white supremacy is mainly the product the convergence of historical propaganda, to rationalize the exploitation of blacks for economic gain, and the reality of white dominance of the world economically and militarily today. I believe that when one accepts the proposition that the Individual is the primary determining force in that individual’s life outcome then it is easy to conclude that the superior individuals raise to the top, while the inferior occupy the bottom. However, individuals come as members of races or ethnicities. Thus, if individuals of one race are disproportionately poor, it logically follows that that there is something endemic (genetic) to that race that produces inferiority of outcome.

Thus, when whites look out at the world, that is dominated by wealth and power held by people and nations that are in their image, it gives subconscious acceptance to the old racist propaganda of the past, concerning black inferiority.

"Thus, if individuals of one race are disproportionately poor, it logically follows that that there is something endemic (genetic) to that race that produces inferiority of outcome."

No it doesn't.

You do grave insult to logic.

I know that it does not and I can tell you why it does not. However, you say it does not, but cannot say why it does not, because you actually believe that it does. Obviously, admitting that it does would make you a white supremist, which is an epiphany or revelation you do not want revealed to self or others. Thus, of course you say it does not. Yet, you forgot to provide the evidence and reason why it does not. That is because it is easy to defend against being a supremacy believer, by just saying that you are not, than by demonstrating and backing up why you are not.

Go for it. :-)






Substantiate this. :-)




You must be joking, that's too ignorant a comment to willfully attach oneself to without the disclaimer of humor. While you try to justify calling me a white supremacist I'd like you to tell me whether I am white or not. ;-) I won't help, but your absolute ignorace as to my race and my thinking should be an impediment to your risble and bold proclamations.



So Noah, how about some substantiation for your absurd claims?

Noah,

(First of all Craven is right. The statement he quotes is a logical fallacy.)

But continuing with your line of reasoning. I would like to know if this "superiority" is part of human nature, or if you see it is a purely white problem.

If black people saw a world "dominated by wealth and power held by people and nations that are in their image", would you expect that most black people would be racist?

... and besides --

How do you know what Craven "actually believes"? (He hasn't even told you what race he is.)

Ahhhh I figured it out.

Something in Noahs writing gave me a feeling of Deja Vu, I knew I had heard this ethnically charged rhetoric before. That strident unapologetic refusal to back away from preposterous claims. That stubborn stand against logic. (The sciolistic words did throw me off).

I scratched my head for a bit and then it hit me. Who haven't we heard from in a while.....

Noah has been here before. Just under a different name.

Look at this thread. The line of reasoning is almost identical

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14077

Welcome back southerngrl!

I wondered where you were all of this time.

You could not have known it Noah, but this statement directly contradicts your earlier statement:


The vast majority of my beliefs have a solid foundation in individualism. Predicated by my belief that every creature in the universe knows right from wrong and that all people are basically good… It is obvious, at least to me, if we all do what is best for ourselves, than consequently we will do what's best for society. I would not wish to live in a racist world and would therefore do nothing overtly racist. Not wishing to be stolen from, I wouldn't steal. My absolute favorite quote is: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live my life for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for me."

If you rank all countries in order of individual freedoms, you will come up with an order roughly the same as ranking them by GDP per capita.

Examine the facts at http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

The bigger the role the government plays in dividing up the pie, the less pie there is to divide. This, in my opinion, is evidence of my earlier statements.

I personally never make a decision based on the good of society. I make them based on what is good for me. At the same time; a violent crime could never take place in front of me if I could help it, because I don't wish to live in a violent world. Get it?

History has shown that all countries that aspire towards collectivism, have failed. The closer you get to individualism, the more measurable success you are likely to see. Do study the World Fact Book, then tell me I'm wrong.

ebrown...you shittin' us? That's funny. Mind you, unless you have the IP, you can't really be sure, unless of course you know something we don't.

bill, i don't deny that we are inherently and evolutionarily motivated to act in the way that best benefits.

i disagree with the notion that this in and of itself leads to people behaving ways that benefit society as a whole. all that you have offered up in favor of such a theory are strictly ancedotal. there are many far more likely explanations for each ancetodal example you used.

A person does not have to be white to believe in white supremacy. Heck, just go ask your staunch black conservative. The insidious psychological reaction to year’s of racial oppression has resulted in many blacks subconsciously buying into this as well. There are many African Americans, who, due to ignorance, see Africa and Africans as inferior. They some how think that being African American makes them superior to a Native African. Well what makes African Americans different from Native Africans? The answer is that nearly all African Americans are mixed with some white blood, plus, they are immersed in white culture. Thus, if the only difference between the two is the degree of mixture or influence with whites, then white superiority is implicit in this rationalization.
Thus, my considering a person a white supremacy believer has nothing to do with their race.

The bottom line is that with all your rebuttals and rhetoric, that simply amounts to filibuster, none of you have taken the vote, which would record your position on the subject. Thus Again I ask you all, if problems of people are not external, then what are the other options? You can say that you are not this or that or that I am this or that, to filibuster having to caste your vote all you want. But the reality is that the option here is binary. If something is not external, it can only be internal or a combination. But even a combination would imply black inferiority. Are black problems relative to white due to the spiritual? Is it the curse of the Hamitic people that resulted from Noah’s son laughing at his nakedness? LOL.

You all continue to give each other shelter and comfort as the pain or pleasure of ignorance enjoys company. Meanwhile, I will note the continuing filibustering strategy as the attempt to keep from recording your position and revealing your racist supremacy beliefs.

Well, if you don't like it Noah, why don't you just go back to Africa! How's that for racism? Oh wait....that was Halle Selassie's idea....

The 'other option' you might be seeking would be actually making an effort to understand others, and refuse to accept that one person is inferior to another, despite what you see. You use empirical observation to judge the world at large in 'believing' in 'white supremacy'. This isn't the case. Just by your thesis, you have already implied that you judge yourself as inferior, if you are indeed Black, thus perpetuating not only self-hatred, but hatred of whites.

One of the things in this hare-brained rant that really gripes me, as those who know me will immediately understand, is the perversion of history. The subject is far, far more complex and detailed than the simplistic burro-**** offered here. "White people" did not at any time set out to militarily and economically dominate and repress "people of color." Nascent nationalism lead the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish, the English, the French and the Germans to colonize other parts of the world (in roughly that order) for reasons of economic opportunity in the beginning, and for reasons of national prestige at the height of the 19th century colonization frenzy. The slave trade in Africa began long, long before Europeans ever bought a single slave on the Guinea coast. It was promoted by Muslims, and Muslim Africans made a good living from waging war on their less sophisticated tribal brothers in order to capture people for sale. The Dutch were the first Europeans to go into the slave trade in a big way, because of a market in what is now Brazil, and later a market in the West Indies. In 1609, a Dutch captain made port in Jamestown, and sold African slaves to the English there in order to buy provisions for his ship. It is certainly true that a perversion of Christianity was necessary to make the upright, "good Christian" reconciled to keeping slaves. That is a far cry from the implicit suggestion that a concept of white supremacy is endemic in European cultures. In a rather long post on another thread, I ran down the reasons for the acquisition of most of the territories which eventually constituted the British Empire. In none of the European colonial empires was any racial concept the motivating factor for the marshaling of national resources to imperial ends. For the Dutch, their more than eighty year war of independence made successful, lucrative overseas trade a necessity of survival. For the English, their paranoia about a dominant continental power made them obsessive about maintaining overseas trade, and a large, effective Navy which could protect that trade. The Portugese had simply traded down the African coast, around the Cape of Good hope, and up the east coast of Africa to the Persian Gulf. Eventually, they found their way as far east as China. Profit was their motive, much as it was for individuals in Holland and England, who were able to interest their respective governments in the benefits of promoting trade. For the French and the Germans, colonial empires were efforts in nationalistic pride.

There are a great many very fertile grounds for speculative research on why the Europeans started largely in last place 1500 years ago, and ran to the head of the human pack in technological development in the last millennium. For whatever one may contend the reasons are, a belief in white supremacy is an obviously spurious candidate. The mercantile classes who encouraged their governments (largely the Dutch and English-the Portugese never really sought empire, and the Spanish were terrible at the exercise) to promote their overseas capitalistic ventures were motivated by reasons of personal gain-if one wished to call it greed or venality, so be it. To call it in effect institutional racism, is to put the historical cart before the horse. Theories of white supremacy have been cooked up after the fact of slavery and African conquest. "The White Man's Burden" is a nineteenth century concept, and was no part of the thinking of Prince John the Navigator, Ferdinand and Isabella, the Dutch Estates or the Parliament.

If you want to peddle this hogwash to the public, you should choose a place where the readers are sufficiently ignorant of history to buy your claptrap. It won't work here.

All of that being said, i would just like to comment that many of my best friends are human beans, although i'm not so sure i'd want my daughter to marry one.

Again more filibustering arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! If the problems of a people that result in lagging outcome relative to other peoples are NOT rooted in EXTERNAL phenomenon, then WHAT is the other option? If the social and economic gaps between blacks and whites in this nation and world are not due to external factors such as slavery, colonization, Jim Crow, exploitation, degradation for centuries that what is the root of these gaps? Furthermore, it is a law of nature that every action creates a reaction and that the present is created from the past. Thus, what has been the reaction upon blacks from years of subjugation; exploitation and manipulation at the hands of white society and what impact has the past 400 years inherit upon the present?

Also, it is not about INTENT...it is about Effect. Who cares what the INTENT of the European explorers were...this is about the EFFECT.

Don't deal well with the truth, huh? You state, without support, as a categorical thesis from authority, that most white people believe in white supremacy, and that this is evident from the history of European colonization and exploitation. When it is shown that the thesis is not supported by the historical record, you now start ranting about intent v. effect. How does that support your shakey thesis about a pervasive belief in white supremacy? Oh . . . it doesn't? I see, we've change the direction of debate because the other was fruitless? Just wanna keep up with the changes here . . .

Nah, it comes down to pure anthropology and genetics. Humans are naturally prone to hate others who are different from them. That is why we form peer groups, polarized societies, bad politicians, and why we go to war. The EFFECT, to use your caps, is the same anywhere people are, or feel, oppressed.