Proud to be white

Remove all ads!

@Carcaroth: Great post!!

I was going to reply to Shoshino, but seeing as you've said pretty much everything I wanted to...

^ - What he said!

 

Why didn't you just tell us you read the Daily Mail?

 

Tal,

It was the first study I happened to come across. It's easy enough to search for other ones, but I doubt any survey is going to persuade people who believe otherwise. There are always limitations that can be picked up on and the better surveys admit this. However, surprisingly enough they all tend to point the same way. Try this one for example.

 

Everybody in the US except Native Americans is an immigrant or descended from immigrants.

 

The Native Americans originally came from Asia.

Come to think of it every one is descended from an immigrant. Either from the Garden of Eden or Africa depending on what you believe.

 

Actually no. If you want to read a book that goes into some detail regarding this, yet skips the scientific mumbo-jumbo that many people find dull and boring, may I suugest: Taboo: Racism in Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It. The author is black, so it's not just some white power thing. They did studies over 20 years, and when 89 of the top 100 times recorded in the 100 meter dash are recorded by blacks, and 93 of the top 100 times recorded in marathons are by blacks, well, that goes beyond mere conincidence. In events requiring speed, yes, on average, blacks are superior to whites. However, in the stronger department, you'll not find that at all. If you look at weightlifting records, you'll find that on average 83 of 100 of the top scores across all weight classes are held by whites.

I won't give away all that the book goes into, but suffice it to say that there are physiological differences between races that the book details. While the differences within a race are much greater than the differences between races, when you start looking at world class competitions, slight advantages do come to light.

I got another book for you: Black Rednecks and White Liberals. This covers a whole lot of topics, and I really would recommend this book to anyone. The author of this book also happens to be black. In one chapter it does detail that every race on the planet has some history of enslaving others of a different race. The only real difference as it concerns whites and blacks is that is the one that happened most recently.

One little story I will share with you from this book. The term "cracker" and "redneck" originate in Britain in the 15th century. The wealthier, noble class lived primarily in southern Britain, notably around London. Conversely, the poorer classes were more concentrated in the northern areas of Britain. People in the southern part of Britain refered to those living in the north as "rednecks" because, well, they worked outside and they had red necks. Conversely, the people in the north mocked the way the educated people talked, and called them "wisecracks" which eventually evolved into "crackers".

That in and of itself is rather interesting, but moreso is that the people in the southern parts of Britain, tended to immigrate to the New England areas of the U.S., while the people of northern Britain UK tended to immigrate to the southern U.S. states, as they were more inclined to farming. The stereotypes stayed with them however. People in the U.S. south (originally from northern Britain) still refered to the people living in the north (originally from southern Britain) as "crackers" and people in the north still referred to people in the south as "rednecks". The point here is that it's hard to consider "cracker" to be a racist term when it was initially used by white people to describe other white people...

What's more interesting to me is that if the author of either of these books was not a minority, he quite likely would have been labelled a racist.

 

Since I don't think anyone's bothered to mention this yet: 'Race' is an artificial construct.

It is true to note that there is variation in pigmentation among humans. However, dividing people into groups according to pigmentation makes no more sense than dividing people into groups according to height. After all, there's just as much variety in height as there is in skin color, is there not?

 

It is a reality that minorities (in this case black people) don't have the same rights as majorities in practice. But there are always some people who tries to abuse being minority to get what they want. I think it is as sick as racism and should be punished like racism is punished.

 

@AMaster: There's more to race than just the colour. Generally, you should be able to tell a black person painted white or the other way round, and there's no way you could take a black-painted Asian for a real black person, anyway. The only possible way of making the phenotype is genetic, so, of course, there are different genes. As such, there's no impossibility of transmitting other traits than purely visual or aural (voice) ones. This doesn't make people better or worse or make them into different categories of citizens, but no good comes out of denying those differences which actually exist. We want peace and cooperation, don't we? Can't build any without truth. You have to build peace and cooperation on material truth. If one of the races were actually better or worse at something, we'd have to admit that. Admitting that we are simply different should be much easier. There's no ideology or ideological purpose whatsoever to validate negating the obvious. Not implying that's what you're doing, but neglecting small things might lead there. Mind you, I'm not talking from a separate but equal point of view. I just don't get the "tick" to evaluate someone basing on his race. I just don't get the thing. But I obviously realise that black or Asian or white, people look different. They also have different voices, sometimes maybe other things. Can't talk about talents, really, as much of it will likely be circumstances-dependent and not race-dependent per se.

 

What about judging people based upon cultural characteristics?

For example, in America we have a large 'thug' counter-culture...and they are for the most part completely useless to me. White, black, hispanic or whatever, if you're into gangster rap, chances are you aren't going to be interested in what I have to say---and vice versa. This is not to say that many of them aren't nice people (because a lot actually are...), but the ignorance of these people can be profound. The same is true for fans of 'proud-to-be-an-American' country music as well...

While all people are people (whatever that means...), recognizing commonalities between people I have not liked in the past, and then using that observation to avoid certain people I meet today does not make me a bad person.

If 50-Cent is your idol, or Tupac is a messiah-like figure to you, or songs about American flags are your thing...hey, my life is too short...

 

Late Night Thinker - that's fine, so long as you don't do anything negative toward those groups of people, like shoot them, or deny them equal employment opportunities.

If you just don't invite them around for dinner, then there's nothing wrong with those opinions.

 

Actually I think that it is considered legal if you believe that due to their mannarisims that they would not be well suited to a job you can deny them employment opportunities.

If I wanted to hire some more people to help me the ones you describe would be on the 'not even if they paid me to to work for me' list. I know, as a fact, that my industry wouldn't tolerate people of their social persuasion.

 

Tons of pathetic white people think they are black these days. Why can't people just be themselves, instead of joining social groups to be 'unique'?

 

Judging on cultural affiliations? Well, some are circumstancial, some are chosen. If someone chooses a certain attire to cause discomfort in me and specifically and willingly so, why should the person be surprised that I act on that discomfort? If you wear t-shirts with labels aimed to anger the cops, why complain when they go down your way? Listen to violent music with a lot of swearing and aggressive lyrics and be perceived as a person with no aggression issues whatsoever? Listen to lyrics about suicide and be seen as a sane person with no depressive inclinations? Come on. Let's not be schizophrenical.

 

Chev, yes, there is more than just color, but it's still an artificial construct.

 

What do you prefer to call it? Phenotype? Hereditary physical tendencies? Couple it with culture and language and religion and you can't pretend it's the same between a South American Indian praying to spirits of ancestors, a black African from a lion-hunting tribe and a white guy from the euro-atlantic culture. Artificially piling up differences is bad, but blurring those which exist leads to no good.

 

@AMaster, I don't understand what you mean. Skin color is an artificial thing but having been in a position were I had to interview people for potential positions (jobs) with the company we do make and have to make descisions based on behavior, dress as well as what is on the resume.

The resume may get a person in the door but then the real selling begins. And it is a sales job.

 

Well folks, I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I should say that I for one am doing my part to end racism in the world by making sweet love to the nubian sisters.

In all seriousness, I am a 'mixed' white man, with Irish, Scottish, and French roots. (When my grandparents were married, they were ostracised for entering a 'mixed' marriage). My child's mother is the product of 'Brown' West Indian, and Black American parentage.

Anecdotally, our child is academically ahead of his peers; he's average height and weight for his age, but much more muscular, with less body fat. He's stronger and faster than the other children in his class.

All of this leads me to beleive that multi-racial persons are the master race; they benefit not only from any (dubious) genetic advantages from their various heritages, but can benefit from cultural advantages held by all races, while avoiding cultural disadvantages.

I also believe that mixed race folks, )if taught by their parents to love themselves), are less capable of racism than their mono-racial counterparts. This is because they can relate to the experiences of more people, and that's the key to non-racism.

They say you can't "fight for peace", you have to "peace for peace"... so let's not "hate the hate", but "love the love".

I truly believe that we as a global community can end racism and intolerance, with a few well-placed orgasms... or die trying, right?

 

I just feel I need to point something out, and I think it is something we can all learn from:

TEHRE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE DIVISION OF HUMANITY INTO SUB-RACES!! NONE WHATSOEVER!

There is more genetic difference between the 'average' white male and most actual white males than there is between the 'average' white male and the 'average' black male. There is more diversity within each 'race' than there is between them.

You can't really use heritage, either, as Europe, Asia, and Africa have been intermarrying for thousands of years. They even found (through mitochondrial DNA testing) one of the lost tribes of Israel in southern Africa, and they're all black now!

Racism as a whole is one of the stupidest ideas humanity has ever come up with. Seriously, this is worse than the holliday in one town in England where every year they roll dozens of blazing barrels through the main streed and have all the young men run in front of them while the rest of the town stands to the side and watches.