[EnviroTO]

But being black shouldn't be seen as an insult. Being called a "racist" should be seen as a worse insult than "nigger"

Blasphemy! A person who belittles another person of a different ethno-cultural background on the basis of that distinction is being a racist because it asserts superiority over their inferior victim, enslaver castrating the slave. I've said it before, semantics are lethal. Sympathising with the racist's plight of being outed/scorned for their sycophancy and deviant mindset is amoral and gives them a free pass to inflict unwarranted hurt on others.

You think being black is an insult? I think I would rather be called a "nigger" than a racist because if someone calls me a "nigger" it means that they are ignorant, where as if I am called a racist it means I am ignorant. Would you rather be called a "criminal" or a "victim"? If you are called a criminal it means you are a deviant with a lack of morals, if you are called a victim it means you or your property was harmed.

If 90% of the population avoids going to places like Jane and Driftwood, then the inhabitants of that area, predominatly of one specific demographic, will already be socially isolated.

Yes and that is a bad thing that new housing projects are trying to avoid. The reason Lawrence Park, Regent Park, and new housing is being built as mixed income is because not-mixing has been proven not to work. We should try and avoid making similar mistakes in the future rather than mimicking what has been shown to be a complete failure as if somehow after being proven not to work during forced segregation, not to work with white flight in Detroit, not to work in housing projects segregation will miraculously work for a school.

What does self-esteem have to do with a cycle of abuse egged on by no jobs or oppurtunities for youth, strict hiring policies, lack of role models- particularly father figures in the home, prevalent gang presence, prevaling inferiority complexes through the media and/or living paycheque to paycheque without decent food, clothes or shelter? Mentality and drive only goes so far against insurmountable odds. Big Brother camp and consuel is a band-aid, not an elixir.

There are many examples of people who have overcome the obstacles of a tough job market and strict hiring policies. Separation and divorce is common in North America. People join gangs because of a self-esteem and self-worth problem (i.e. they want to be "cool" or "tough", powerful, have "cool" friends, and be a part of something). There are lots of places in the world with gangs. Inferiority complexes wouldn't exist if self-esteem was higher. Almost all refugees come to this country with nothing and the majority and don't even know the language and still their youth who go to school here are largely successful. At the same time there are people who have been on the continent and speaking English for generations which can't get out of the cycle, including white people, who are on welfare generation after generation. Why do recent black immigrants from Africa not have the same level of difficulty getting jobs and integrating as people who have been here a lot longer from Canada, the US, or the Caribbean? The difference between the two is likely that Africa was ruled over much like India and parts of Asia and wasn't enslaved (recent immigrants from Africa, India, and Asia have much more success finding a way to have their children succeed) where as those from North America and the Caribbean are descendants of slavery and their social issues are passed down from generation to generation just like they are with people in a trailer park where they think they are White Trash and Hill-Billies or a person who was abused and has convinced themselves it was their fault or that they aren't as good as someone else. Self-esteem is the biggest problem. Someone with high self-esteem isn't going to care what some nobody parking attendant thinks.

The immigrant parents have it the toughest because they don't have the benefit of a Canadian education, they don't have Canadian experience which too many employers ask for, and they often already have children even though they haven't gotten an education yet which would help them get jobs. Immigrant children don't have that same problem. Most will learn to speak English proficiently, most will have a Canadian education, most will get jobs which match their level of education or motivation.

Girls having teen pregnancies is also a self-esteem issue. They want to be important either to the guy they are trying to impress upon or want the importance of being a mother. There are far more teen pregnancies in families with lower incomes than in families with higher incomes and the reason is self-esteem.

It's all subjective and dependent on individual sensitivity. Some people can overcome hardships more readily than others. It doesn't make them weak or inferior to comtemplate why they were subject to victimization and how it could've been avoided. Sometimes you just come to the realization that those who persecute you over trivial, meaningless things are moronic no-lifes not worth getting upset over.

If some random person with only words can tell you what you are worth and you actually believe them then you are either mentally weak or have given too much respect to a random stranger. Only the opinion of someone you think is intelligent or respect should matter. If Osama Bin Laden could come on a TV and tell us we are worthless sacks of horse manure who have no chance of defeating him and we actually believe it then we are mentally weak. You can't accomplish anything without believing in who you are to the point that the opinion of those you don't respect is irrelevant.

You're missing my point. Majority population dictates majority prioritization. Minorities hence are secondary afterthoughts. Cirricula not upto their speed?... tough, the majority designed it, adapt to it or drop out.

As you have admitted the curricula is not "white". What course in the list of OSSD requirements does not belong there? If Canada is a multicultural country and there are no "white" courses in the OSSD requirements then why would it change for a single minority group?

This engenders valuelessness of whatever discrepancies minority youth feel, feelings that can go unchecked until the worst happens like the Virginia Tech massacre.

There are social outcasts everywhere and the belong to every race. It is certainly an issue but not one that has anything to do with curriculum. There is no course that would have prevented Virginia Tech. It is one-on-one counselling that would have prevented Virginia Tech. How many minorities have caused a Virginia Tech, Dawson's College, Post Office Massacre type scenario in the history of North America?

What I don't get is how diversity can exist in this manner and yet the TDSB's proposal to solving the issue of underachieving black youth is to give them their own instituition, where I suppose they'll more or less be taught the same things?

I don't know why the TDSB is proposing it either. I guess for some reason they believe that segregation will help. I disagree with them obviously. Maybe it is secretly being proposed by a white person who wants black people away from their kids to make their school safer. I have no idea why it is being proposed as a solution.

Look at the course descriptions:
- CAS331 History of Africa and Peoples of African Descent
- CHG381 Genocide: Historical and Contemporary Implications
- CHM4E1 Adventures in World History
- CGU4U1 World Geography: Human Patterns and Interactions
- CGU4C1 World Geography: Urban Patterns and Interactions
- ATF1O/2O/3M/3O/4M1 Dance – African
- ATK1O/2O/3M/3O/4M Dance – Caribbean
- AMQ1O/2O/3M/3O/4M1 Steel Drum – Music
- AMJ1O/2O/3M/3O/4M1 Vocal Jazz

Notice how it doesn't mention "Black", "White", or "Oriental" anywhere? That is the difference that I see with a black school versus the courses they offer now. It isn't called a "black thing" to play a steel drum. If an asian person wants to play steel drum then good for them. If a black person wants to play classical music instead then good for him too. There is nothing non-black about playing a piano and there is nothing non-white about playing a steel drum. When you create a school with the expectation that students will take these specific courses you aren't allowing them to be themselves. You are telling them they are some pre-defined black stereotype which automatically should care about African History or that should know how to do an African Dance. When you create a school for black students you are saying they aren't the same, they are different, and that the types of courses they should like are automatically different because their skin colour is different.

I'm of Welsh decent. Do I know anything about Welsh history? No. Do I care. No. Do I know Welsh music? No. Do the majority of Canadians choose Canadian music over other countries? No. Is there some course I am automatically supposed to be interested in? No.

Why do you want black people to be told what black is? That reduces their freedom to be who they actually are. It is already problem enough that there are black people out there who look at a successful black business person as loosing their identity.

Are you serious? If some white guys approach you and introduce themselves, all sounding and looking the same, is it not before they say out their full names that one can sort of figure their ancestry?

Who cares if you can't tell a persons ancestry without hearing their last name. I can't tell if someone is German without hearing their last name, I can't tell if someone is Nigerian without hearing their last name, and I can't tell if someone is Japanese without hearing their last name. I can't tell anybodies ancestry without hearing their last name and if their parents weren't of the same ancestry or had a last name changed like many natives you can't even tell their ancestry with their last name.

You can't complain about segregation in one breath then seek with another to marginalize a physiologically similar collective into one, one pockets of people on the basis of country-of-origin.

I can certainly complain about segregation because it is racism. I don't seek to marginalize anyone. History is defined by countries because governments run countries and make decisions that steer their countries course of history. Unique cultures happen in enclaves. People are Polish because they were born or lived in Poland. People are Russian because they were born or lived in Russia. People are Canadian because they were born or lived in Canada. People are Nigerian because they were born or lived in Nigeria. There is no black culture, white culture, or asian culture.

If you drive from Paris, through Turkey, down through Israel, into Egypt, and south into Sudan, through parts of Ethiopia, and into Kenya you will never reach the black border. On such a trip you will cross many national borders but you will never find a line where there is is a group which is black on one side and white on the other. There might be a big difference between the people you see at each end of the trip but as you drive the route it is a gradual change where as you get closer to the Mediterranean you see darker hair, as you drive into the Middle East you see curlier dark hair slightly darker skin, as you drive through Egypt you see increasingly darker skin and then into Sudan and you see people who have dark skin and curly dark hair. You can't artificially create a border which does not exist and which has never existed.

The same is true driving through Russia to Korea. You start in Europe and Russians are very white and by the time you get to the Korean border the genetics of the local population have changed to the point they are visibly oriental.

Back to semantics class. Are we an assimilist melting pot or a pluralist culturosphere? Either way Canada's multicultural policy leaves alot open to debate.

It is not semantics. You can't say that being Chinese and being Oriental means the same thing. It doesn't. We are a multicultural society, not a group of unicultural enclaves. That means be yourself and accept other people who are different but that doesn't change the fact that as a single society and nation we should live together, school together, work together, and follow the rules that we democratically decide upon.

Then why are there so many corporations under the umbrella term black people associations e.g. NAACP, BET, NCF, Essence, Black Business Professionals Assoc.? There must be something self-identifiable and discerning about being 'black' as opposed to being 'African-American', 'Afro-Canadian' that'd allot so much time and resources being invested to preserve a black image to counter the stereotype-enriched vernacular of blacks as criminals and wards of the state.

The reason that in the United States there a many "black" or "colored" groups is that the history of blacks in America from the beginning of slavery up until the end of slavery was a single history by force. Once they showed up in boats as slaves they were stripped of their national and cultural identities. The white people who enslaved them made them black and only black and did not differentiate them based on where they came from. A friend of mine that immigrated to the US from Nigeria doesn't relate with African Americans at all. When you ask him what he is, he says he was a Nigerian. A friend of mine from high school who was Kenyan identified himself as being Kenyan. Many African Americans have no idea what country they came from and in America they mixed so they could be Tutsi-Zulu or Watwa-Tibesti. Not knowing what country they were from (or not associating with that country any more) and knowing that they weren't being treated as equal Americans, they became African-Americans, coloured people, or blacks. If they hadn't been enslaved and were treated equally they would probably be like most Canadians who think of themselves as Canadians or some previous nationality.

As a result of all this "African-American" is a culture because history made them a culture... they lived a unique experience in America because the white people in America forced them to when they were enslaved. Note that the culture is not "black" and the culture is "African-American". Cultures are defined by places which led to common experiences, hence African-American... they came from Africa in general and lived in America. A person who moves from Nigeria to the United States today is not part of that culture. They would be Nigerian, Nigerian-American, or simply American depending on how they identified themselves. While Nigeria was controlled by Britain, Britain was actually requested to protect Nigeria from French conquest by the strongest group, the Oyo group of tribes. Nigerians which stayed in Nigeria were likely never slaves the way African-Americans were. In fact the Oyo and Aro groups were responsible for exporting a large number of slaves from Nigeria because they were members of rival tribes.

If you ask an Italian what Italian food is they can tell you. If you ask a Mexican what Mexican food is they can tell you. If you ask an African-American what African-American food is and ask a Nigerian what Nigerian food is you aren't going to get anywhere near the same answer. If you are an African-American and go to an Ethiopian Restaurant you aren't going to find "soul food" there. That is because the cultural experiences of these groups is entirely different.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Well since you explain it so nicely, I'll concede. I just find it incredible that enough humans escaped through the Sinai Peninsula to populate all the other continents on that scale of multimillions. Modern humans only appeared a few epochs ago such that it makes me wonder what forces drove so many peoples to migrate out of Africa, and more or less 'evolve' into modern-day Causasoid/Mongoloid variants. Bunching people together arbitrarily can be just as dangerous as segregation because it fails to answer the physiological differences which are visibly obvious to everyone- like facial features distinct to one race being absent in others.

The discovery of other fossilized humans in Borneo and in a French cavern put in question the assertion that 'Lucy' and her Tanzanian kinsfolk were in fact the progenitors of all human life. Mountain Lions (puma concolor) with differing appearences exist in distinct populations in different pockets of the Americas yet are all considered the same species. It's probable that the primates which evolved into homo sapiens were hybridized as per natural selection, accounting for the variations we see in the species today. Humans are animals too remember, what makes us think that we're any different from other creatures subdivided into distinct subspecies, I don't know.

there is no human hybrid. i'm pretty sure DNA analysis proves this. humans are not subdivided into distinct species. our outward appearances are result of adaptation to environment. would blond haired blue eyed people be a different race from red haired green eyed people or black haired brown eye people? humans are a type of great ape that includes chimps, gorillas & orangutans. there's no "types of humans", only types of great apes.

bunching everyone together as a species in not dangerous. suggesting that people who are black are different types of humans from those that are white is dangerous disproven notion. physical features such as facial features are also distinct amongst a population whose skin color is the same. this criteria isn't enough to say this group is a different animal from this group. the concept of race is an outdated hypothesis, one prominent in the age of scientific ignorance, a concept that was used alongside with other forms of ignorance to justify one groups control over another.


let me state this again - there is no such thing as race. as long as people believe that humans are comprised of different types of races, there will always be racism.

 

[Steve_D]

BTW, do you believe in racial purity?

No, as I'm not Adolf Hitler. Puritanism goes against everything I've fought for here as it paints one race having dominion over all others. I'll leave the contradiction to someone else.

You clearly didn't understand the question.

 

[Undying42]

You think being black is an insult? I think I would rather be called a "nigger" than a racist because if someone calls me a "nigger" it means that they are ignorant, where as if I am called a racist it means I am ignorant. Would you rather be called a "criminal" or a "victim"? If you are called a criminal it means you are a deviant with a lack of morals, if you are called a victim it means you or your property was harmed.

Not being black, being inferior. The two engender very different connotations. Suppose you're Vietnamese-Welsh in origin and yet everyone you meet addresses you as the ‘Chinese guy’, does that not devalue your self-identity and self-worth, that a misnomer dictates how the world precognitively assesses your character, mannerisms, probable lifestyle and future inclinations?

Yes and that is a bad thing that new housing projects are trying to avoid. The reason Lawrence Park, Regent Park, and new housing is being built as mixed income is because not-mixing has been proven not to work. We should try and avoid making similar mistakes in the future rather than mimicking what has been shown to be a complete failure as if somehow after being proven not to work during forced segregation, not to work with white flight in Detroit, not to work in housing projects segregation will miraculously work for a school.

I agree. BTW how has black underachievers improved in test scores and overall performance and in social integration within the TDSB since the media leaked this story?

There are many examples of people who have overcome the obstacles of a tough job market and strict hiring policies. Separation and divorce is common in North America. People join gangs because of a self-esteem and self-worth problem (i.e. they want to be "cool" or "tough", powerful, have "cool" friends, and be a part of something). There are lots of places in the world with gangs. Inferiority complexes wouldn't exist if self-esteem was higher. Almost all refugees come to this country with nothing and the majority and don't even know the language and still their youth who go to school here are largely successful. At the same time there are people who have been on the continent and speaking English for generations which can't get out of the cycle, including white people, who are on welfare generation after generation. Why do recent black immigrants from Africa not have the same level of difficulty getting jobs and integrating as people who have been here a lot longer from Canada, the US, or the Caribbean? The difference between the two is likely that Africa was ruled over much like India and parts of Asia and wasn't enslaved (recent immigrants from Africa, India, and Asia have much more success finding a way to have their children succeed) where as those from North America and the Caribbean are descendants of slavery and their social issues are passed down from generation to generation just like they are with people in a trailer park where they think they are White Trash and Hill-Billies or a person who was abused and has convinced themselves it was their fault or that they aren't as good as someone else. Self-esteem is the biggest problem. Someone with high self-esteem isn't going to care what some nobody parking attendant thinks.

I'm fully aware these are universal social issues however The support system for non-black teens might stem from so many other sources that an institutionalized support network might not be of great relevance or significance to them. It's like taking meds, after a while you gradually forget to because you feel reenergized.

Parents who came from broken homes; whose peers come from broken homes and all they see and daily through is an existence of dilapidation aren't emotionally equipped to foster life experiences in their kids to counter the prevailing deathtrap of low income>crime/gangs>subsistence housing.

The immigrant parents have it the toughest because they don't have the benefit of a Canadian education, they don't have Canadian experience which too many employers ask for, and they often already have children even though they haven't gotten an education yet which would help them get jobs. Immigrant children don't have that same problem. Most will learn to speak English proficiently, most will have a Canadian education, most will get jobs which match their level of education or motivation.

These experiences however aren't universal and largely depend on the social services and networks at the recent immigrant's disposal. Someone coming here with guaranteed shelter and instantaneous job offers beckoning them, not the other way around, is a far removed reality from encouraging existing minority populations to remain welfare babies and not have the ambition to strive for more as that'll only lead to greater defeatism as the doors slam in your face and the glass ceiling thickens with contempt.

If some random person with only words can tell you what you are worth and you actually believe them then you are either mentally weak or have given too much respect to a random stranger. Only the opinion of someone you think is intelligent or respect should matter. If Osama Bin Laden could come on a TV and tell us we are worthless sacks of horse manure who have no chance of defeating him and we actually believe it then we are mentally weak. You can't accomplish anything without believing in who you are to the point that the opinion of those you don't respect is irrelevant.

What if you're in a crowded area with friends/colleagues nearby and someone then chooses to utter a racial slur at you? If I didn't have feelings of outrage, shame and embarrassment then I'd be inhuman as no one with human thoughts and emotions could go on as if they weren't just belittled.

As you have admitted the curricula is not "white". What course in the list of OSSD requirements does not belong there? If Canada is a multicultural country and there are no "white" courses in the OSSD requirements then why would it change for a single minority group?

Yes I still contend the curriculum isn’t intentionally designed to be Eurocentric, that's just the reality shaped by a history of white imperialism over racialized subordinates. If every other alternative school in the TDSB adheres to Government of Ontario codex and quota for what is to taught to students, what makes you think the black-focused school would deviate so much of what's learned?

There are social outcasts everywhere and they belong to every race. It is certainly an issue but not one that has anything to do with curriculum. There is no course that would have prevented Virginia Tech. It is one-on-one counseling that would have prevented Virginia Tech. How many minorities have caused a Virginia Tech, Dawson's College, Post Office Massacre type scenario in the history of North America?

Seung-Hui Cho- South Korean in origin
Kimveer Singh Gill- Indian (Sikh) in origin

I rest my case.

I don't know why the TDSB is proposing it either. I guess for some reason they believe that segregation will help. I disagree with them obviously. Maybe it is secretly being proposed by a white person who wants black people away from their kids to make their school safer. I have no idea why it is being proposed as a solution.

So you admit that the original proponents of this concept had a racist agenda to remove 'unwantables' from corrupting their poor, naive, pious children? Is it not only fair to accept this distinction and utilize it to the advantage of dropping out youth? Would you want your kids to remain in an environment that's ensuring their failure by doing everything short of outright saying aloud that they really aren't welcome there and would be better off elsewhere?

Notice how it doesn't mention "Black", "White", or "Oriental" anywhere?

Just because it colludes the mention of race, doesn't mean it's not encompassing of it. I'd hardly consider Jazz a 'black' genre anymore anyway.

That is the difference that I see with a black school versus the courses they offer now. It isn't called a "black thing" to play a steel drum. If an Asian person wants to play steel drum then good for them. If a black person wants to play classical music instead then good for him too. There is nothing non-black about playing a piano and there is nothing non-white about playing a steel drum. When you create a school with the expectation that students will take these specific courses you aren't allowing them to be themselves. You are telling them they are some pre-defined black stereotype which automatically should care about African History or that should know how to do an African Dance. When you create a school for black students you are saying they aren't the same, they are different, and that the types of courses they should like are automatically different because their skin colour is different.

Careful now, I don't believe Africentricism is a brainwashing tool. Unless you fear lobotomies would occur behind closed campus doors, it's apparent to me that students would still have the free will to accept or reject anything they wish to learn. That sounds like a democracy to me. Mandatory courses, like I said before may have little to no basis of students' future career paths. Math for instance is a challenging subject for a lot of people. Being force fed it actually makes it more confusing. What's sad is whatever can be preformed by a dollar-store calculator is probably the most arithmetic some people will ever need. Why stack the odds against the number challenged?

I'm of Welsh decent. Do I know anything about Welsh history? No. Do I care? No. Do I know Welsh music? No. Do the majority of Canadians choose Canadian music over other countries? No. Is there some course I am automatically supposed to be interested in? No.

I knew very little of my parent's home country until I was forced to live there for several years. Things I otherwise would not have been exposed to, have helped me to develop a distinct self-identity. There are many things I could care less about, including from the motherland. Others I've become so specialized in I could be considered an expert. We, the individual, make our own path.

Why do you want black people to be told what black is? That reduces their freedom to be who they actually are. It is already problem enough that there are black people out there who look at a successful black business person as loosing their identity.

Yes it is a problem as success becomes a measure of sycophancy and becoming a sellout Oreo. Blacks in so many ways are already told who they are. Africentricity, if looked at as the antithesis to poverty, crime and subordination, suggests who they ought to be.

I can certainly complain about segregation because it is racism. I don't seek to marginalize anyone. History is defined by countries because governments run countries and make decisions that steer their countries course of history. Unique cultures happen in enclaves. People are Polish because they were born or lived in Poland. People are Russian because they were born or lived in Russia. People are Canadian because they were born or lived in Canada. People are Nigerian because they were born or lived in Nigeria. There is no black culture, white culture, or Asian culture.

But there is community solidarity. Chinatown's a great example of this with merchants/primary shopping base comprised of immigrant populations from China, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia. Ditto immigrants from the nations of the Caribbean come together every summer to celebrate their heritage in Caribana. Hindus, Jains ans Sikhs can worship together in shared temples. That's only three examples of how ethnocentricism dictates the survival of these communites.

It is not semantics. You can't say that being Chinese and being Oriental means the same thing. It doesn't. We are a multicultural society, not a group of unicultural enclaves. That means be yourself and accept other people who are different but that doesn't change the fact that as a single society and nation we should live together, school together, work together, and follow the rules that we democratically decide upon.

Imposed, inflexible inclusivism coerces minorities into adopting 'types' as they're put in a positon of becoming the cultural ambassadors for their ethnicity to broader society. The in-group isn't in a position to impress each other, hence formalities can be dropped and people be made to feel comfortable in their own skin.

As a result of all this "African-American" is a culture because history made them a culture... they lived a unique experience in America because the white people in America forced them to when they were enslaved. Note that the culture is not "black" and the culture is "African-American". Cultures are defined by places which led to common experiences; hence African-American... they came from Africa in general and lived in America. A person who moves from Nigeria to the United States today is not part of that culture. They would be Nigerian, Nigerian-American, or simply American depending on how they identified themselves. While Nigeria was controlled by Britain, Britain was actually requested to protect Nigeria from French conquest by the strongest group, the Oyo group of tribes. Nigerians which stayed in Nigeria were likely never slaves the way African-Americans were. In fact the Oyo and Aro groups were responsible for exporting a large number of slaves from Nigeria because they were members of rival tribes.

Black remains apart of labeling vernacular because of self-preservation. One, one dark-complexed groups cannot possibly compete on a national yet alone international scale socio-politico-economic marketplace. Pooling individual funds together creates a nest egg that can go towards social infrastructure of black interest.

there is no human hybrid. i'm pretty sure DNA analysis proves this. humans are not subdivided into distinct species. our outward appearances are result of adaptation to environment. would blond haired blue eyed people be a different race from red haired green eyed people or black haired brown eye people? humans are a type of great ape that includes chimps, gorillas & orangutans. there's no "types of humans", only types of great apes.

There's also genetic disorders that target specific racial groups while others are virtually immune. Sickle cell anemia for instance only affects black people, diabetes is more commonplace among blacks and Natives than whites and Asians. It'd appear even illnesses are making distinctions via race and ethnicity.

Yes in fact there were several types of humans (hominids). The modern versions included homo erectus, homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

bunching everyone together as a species in not dangerous. suggesting that people who are black are different types of humans from those that are white is dangerous disproven notion. physical features such as facial features are also distinct amongst a population whose skin color is the same. this criteria isn't enough to say this group is a different animal from this group. the concept of race is an outdated hypothesis, one prominent in the age of scientific ignorance, a concept that was used alongside with other forms of ignorance to justify one groups control over another.

I get that traditionally segregation was a bad thing, but at what point does one stop pleading with the establishment for acceptence and validation? If kids are told they'll never amount to nothing and may as well drop out, they'll do it. If they're compassioned and nurtured, being encouraged to give learning another shot, chances are they will. When dealing with impressionable minds one has to be accomodating not authoritarian.

let me state this again - there is no such thing as race. as long as people believe that humans are comprised of different types of races, there will always be racism.

That's a given. However there are very noticable distinctions between people and ignoring these distinctions is equally as racist as using them to morally justify superior/inferior race dynamics. We can tolerate physiological differences for the blind, deaf and dumb; the crippled, obese and deformed; the Goth, punk or other eccentric from the norm- there's so many differences we think nothing of or at least have been conditioned not to think bad of. Why can't the same be applied here? Celebrate diversity, don't use it as a platform for victimizing the unsuspecting, naive and pure-of-heart, I say.

You clearly didn't understand the question.

The question could've been answered by a mere "Yes" or "No". I gave you a lengthy response. The least you can do is answer your own question (in paragraphs, not a few lines) so I can at least begin to grasp the scope of where you think I should be heading with my opinion. Soundbyte statements only cause confusion as to what being disseminated.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Sickle cell anemia for instance only affects black people

That's not true. Sickle cell is prevalent in many areas where malaria is endemic, which is why more black people have it, but millions of people in India have it, too, not to mention lots of people in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and anywhere else in the world where people from these areas have moved, bringing their genes and having kids.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

RE: Undying42

There's also genetic disorders that target specific racial groups while others are virtually immune. Sickle cell anemia for instance only affects black people, diabetes is more commonplace among blacks and Natives than whites and Asians. It'd appear even illnesses are making distinctions via race and ethnicity.

sickle cell anemia effects groups of people whose ancestors lived in malaria plagued areas. sickle cell anemia is a byproduct of natural selection. those with RBC's shaped in a certain way were better able to survive malaria and pass on that genetic factor. unfortunately, natural selection doesn't always work well and fixing one problem causes another. the fact that one group of people is more likely to suffer from from an affliction than the other doesn't mean there are races.

Yes in fact there were several types of humans (hominids). The modern versions included homo erectus, homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

yes, hominids, our brothers. all that's left is homo sapiens. we didn't come from neanderthals. there is only one type of human today.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Criticism_of_Multiregionalism

That's a given. However there are very noticable distinctions between people and ignoring these distinctions is equally as racist as using them to morally justify superior/inferior race dynamics. We can tolerate physiological differences for the blind, deaf and dumb; the crippled, obese and deformed; the Goth, punk or other eccentric from the norm- there's so many differences we think nothing of or at least have been conditioned not to think bad of. Why can't the same be applied here? Celebrate diversity, don't use it as a platform for victimizing the unsuspecting, naive and pure-of-heart, I say.

of course there are differences. that doesn't mean that there are different species of humans or races. who says that "the blind, deaf and dumb; the crippled, obese and deformed; the Goth, punk or other eccentric from the norm" are tolerated? they can suffer from discrimination just like anyone else.

who in this thread is against diversity? diversity doesn't mean that different races exist. there is diversity between families, between sexes, etc. even though you look at the largest obvious difference, skin color, because it is our largest feature by surface area, it is not enough of a criteria to support the idea that there are races or breeds of people.


i've tried to explain this to you to the best of my abilities. what you should do is get in contact with or research the work of some evolutionary biologists who aren't biased from personal beliefs.

 

[Hydrogen]

Always fascinating how some people who are supposedly so opposed to racism are so often the ones who promote racial distinctions so fervently.

There are no "races." There is the human species.

 

[Undying42]

sickle cell anemia effects groups of people whose ancestors lived in malaria plagued areas. sickle cell anemia is a byproduct of natural selection. those with RBC's shaped in a certain way were better able to survive malaria and pass on that genetic factor. unfortunately, natural selection doesn't always work well and fixing one problem causes another. the fact that one group of people is more likely to suffer from from an affliction than the other doesn't mean there are races.

Okay I'll give you that one. However when class, status and disposable income dictate which groups of people get access to the best medication, minimal wait times for hospitalization/surgery and the highest pedigree of physicians ensuring the best outcome on their behalf, it most certainly does pretain to race or at the very least to the binary of have/have-nots, priviledged/underpriviledged in our society.

yes, hominids, our brothers. all that's left is homo sapiens. we didn't come from neanderthals. there is only one type of human today.

So if that standard applies to humans, why is there so many different species within the biological kingdom? When Darwin visited the Galapagos he came across a dozen types of birds called finches. They were all identical except for slight modifications of their beak structures depending on the type of food they consume- insects, nectar, seeds, fruit. With variations that small why didn't he just classify them as members of the same species, why distinct identities for each? So long as the intent is not to utilize these differences for evil (racist social policy) why should we be afraid to admit to the obvious?

of course there are differences. that doesn't mean that there are different species of humans or races. who says that "the blind, deaf and dumb; the crippled, obese and deformed; the Goth, punk or other eccentric from the norm" are tolerated? they can suffer from discrimination just like anyone else.

They do suffer discrimination and I don't think that's fair either. My only solace is that one day, judgment will come for the wicked, then we'll see who will burn.

who in this thread is against diversity? diversity doesn't mean that different races exist. there is diversity between families, between sexes, etc. even though you look at the largest obvious difference, skin color, because it is our largest feature by surface area, it is not enough of a criteria to support the idea that there are races or breeds of people.

Then why is there the same criteria when describing breeds of dogs, aquarium fish, livestock? Are we in that much denial that we can't see that the same labels should apply to oursleves if the distinctions are blatantly obvious to the naked human eye ?

i've tried to explain this to you to the best of my abilities. what you should do is get in contact with or research the work of some evolutionary biologists who aren't biased from personal beliefs.

Well thanks for departing whatever knowledge you could. I've obviouly done up my homework on this and many other topics I reply into. Making me appear intellectually inferior to you all, only emphasizes your own biases and hypocrisy because the truth is often too painful or self-culpable to admit to.

 

[Steve_D]

My only solace is that one day, judgment will come for the wicked, then we'll see who will burn.

That we can agree on, except, I believe it's 'your type' that will burn.

 

[Undying42]

'My type'? Whatever do you mean by that? How can I give you satisfactory responses if you constantly keep holding back what you really mean to say to me? Care to elaborate on anything or just mimic whatever anyone else posts like a tape recorder?

 

[Steve_D]

'My type'? Whatever do you mean by that?

'Your type', are people who judge others as 'wicked' and claim that they will burn. 'My type' claim that people like you, the predudiced ones, are the ones who will burn in eternity.

Basically it doesn't matter what I think of you, nor does anyone care what you think of them.
Spewing your judgements out on this forum, doesn't make you right....and the fact that you can't take what you dish out, reveals a lot about your character.

 

[Undying42]

But by claiming I will burn in eternity, are you not being as equally judgmental as I might have? Being of moral fibre and substance has nothing to do with one's racial background. Singling out posters who seek to educate the public on how to not be apathetic to the plight of victimized minorities is in bad taste. Shutting people up for doing society a favor, spreading positive social awareness to the difficult-to-recognize instances of discrimination, points to one's own biases about not wanting racial parity rearing their ugly heads.

I'm glad you don't care what I think because that only infers that you're too far gone to enlighten on how to regard the plight of the underpriviledged; or even proper social etiquette and restraint on how to conduct yourself on a public message forum board. However for every you there's another soul that will entertain that what I post is coming from a good, virtuous place and is never my intention to harm people with words, as others here have done to me over and over again.

However thanks for highlighting my quote. I think I'll use it as my signature from now on. Again thank you!

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Undying42:

Well thanks for departing whatever knowledge you could. I've obviouly done up my homework on this and many other topics I reply into. Making me appear intellectually inferior to you all, only emphasizes your own biases and hypocrisy because the truth is often too painful or self-culpable to admit to.

Undying42, i think that no matter how many questions i try to answer of yours, your bias won't be broken. nobody is making you appear intellectually inferior. you do a good job of that yourself. you may have done your homework but your books seem to be from another era.

i can't answer all your questions because i'm not sure i have the right answers. i'm not an evolutionary biologist and don't know the classifications of all animals but that doesn't make your biased opinions correct. i am certain that there is no scientific basis to backup a white race or a black race. this is not my opinion, it is fact. i may not know much about finches or why the domesticated dog is divided into breeds but that doesn't make you right.


here's something that may come as a shock to you and give you something to think about...

they are all eastern gray squirrels.

 

[Steve_D]

But by claiming I will burn in eternity, are you not being as equally judgmental as I might have?

Yes, I am, I've even explained it to you. I threw it back in your face, and you didn't like it....think about it a bit.

 

[Undying42]

Undying42, i think that no matter how many questions i try to answer of yours, your bias won't be broken. nobody is making you appear intellectually inferior. you do a good job of that yourself. you may have done your homework but your books seem to be from another era.

What exactly is my bias? Being a nonconformist to systematic authority which says one thing and does another? At the end of the day, all a man truly has is his word. That's the only thing that can't be stereotyped into limited groupings of people. No one asks to be different, they just are. Some embrace their differences, others lead lives of perplexion with no true defining characteristics or beliefs of their own. Only sheep following the herd.

If my research was done via university and Toronto reference library books, that tells me that if the information outdated, it's the fault of librarians who fail to keep resources and facilities up-to-date. The internet which I use is pretty current too, however unlike you, I realize Wikipedia is peer-edited and 'facts' posted on there are as credible as pigs flying !

i can't answer all your questions because i'm not sure i have the right answers. i'm not an evolutionary biologist and don't know the classifications of all animals but that doesn't make your biased opinions correct. i am certain that there is no scientific basis to backup a white race or a black race. this is not my opinion, it is fact. i may not know much about finches or why the domesticated dog is divided into breeds but that doesn't make you right.

Whether I'm right or not is irrelevant. That I got you to reassess your way of thinking is. No human being can claim answers for something that arbitrary or intangible to prove. However pretending that there are no racial differences is a falsehood that doesn't reprimand the slavery/segregation/discrimination of yesteryear. Just because we pretend we're all the same doesn't make it so.

If you possessed the ability to change your racial background on a daily basis and could go out in the world as a different person everyday, I'm guessing you'd quickly put to rest the assertion that all racial backgrounds are recieving the same or adequate levels of tolerance and acceptance by society at large. Don't shoot the messanger for stating what I thought was obvious to most people. Guess I was wrong.

here's something that may come as a shock to you and give you something to think about...

I'm well aware of this already. You wasted a lot of time and effort searching for and posting images with little barring on the conversation.

Yes, I am, I've even explained it to you. I threw it back in your face, and you didn't like it....think about it a bit.

You know, if you truly comprehended what I was getting at, you would've realized the 'wicked' I was referring to were those individuals that see a weakness in their fellow humanity and exploit those weaknesses for personal gain- be it to get ahead at work, impress others or boost ego and self-image. That you didn't realize I wasn't referring to you or even the other posters isn't the least surprising. I wouldn't be the first person here to be wrongfully blasphemed against... and certainly won't be the last !