re: Is being racist always wrong?

I think he might be referencing that many of the founding fathers owned slaves. Just guessing though.

That could be it too

Just out of curiosity, have you ever stayed an extended amount of time in another country?

Depends on your opinion of extended. I've been out of the country for spans at a time but the answer to your question is no.

Of course the concept of colonization is intimately inseparable from race relations, per every fricking enlightenment political philosopher/aristocrat who broached the topic.

But who is trying to be an arse...

and here I thought you might want to discuss Locke or Montesquieu, and all you have to show is that you don't understand the difference between expansion and colonization.

You might want to quit...

Essentially, traditional expansion and imperialism was a matter of conquering other civilizations.

Colonialism is different is the sense in which it was approached. The idea was not to impose upon other civilizations, but rather to impose upon nature itself, for the better of civilization. The idea of the New World, this vast sprawl of "unclaimed" land free to their finder. Of course unclaimed in the sense that, according literally any account of the time, the natives were simply lost souls, incapable of self-governance. Our specific notion of race came into existence as a way of classifying these new people.

Colonization was, quite literally by definition, to bring civilization to the voids of the world, and justifying their characterization as voids was a matter of dismissing the natives on the basis of race. As you can see from the link:

The European concept of "race," along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.

Cannot get much closer in relation than being conceptually born from the practice of colonization.

LINK

Factually, as documented, our "right" to create this colony turned country was founded in the creation of the term race, and white's superiority within the concept.

quote:

---

Wrong. Race isn't mentioned in any founding document.

America was founded on the rejection of hereditary rule.

---

Mentioned or not mentioned, it permeated everything for centuries. Slavery was one way it was expressed. Then Jim Crow. The CSA most certainly was EXPLICITLY founded on the concept. From land-owning, to voting to owning houses...the entire practice of the system was to intimidate and prevent black Americans from participating.

Mentioned or not mentioned, it permeated everything for centuries. Slavery was one way it was expressed. Then Jim Crow. The CSA most certainly was EXPLICITLY founded on the concept. From land-owning, to voting to owning houses...the entire practice of the system was to intimidate and prevent black Americans from participating.




lol wut?

quote:

---

Racism is vital for Caucasians, because we are the only people who literally go extinct when mixing with most other races since our genes are recessive.

---

What?

Gentlemen, we must speak more loudly and more honestly! We must say openly that indeed the higher races have a right over the lower races ….

I repeat, that the superior races have a right because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races ….

In the history of earlier centuries these duties, gentlemen, have often been misunderstood; and certainly when the Spanish soldiers and explorers introduced slavery into Central America, they did not fulfill their duty as men of a higher race …. But, in our time, I maintain that European nations acquit themselves with generosity, with grandeur, and with sincerity of this superior civilizing duty.
--Jules Ferrey, twice Prime Minister of France

There is so much much more on the subject, and I assure you that in the name of jurisprudence "race" was invented to impart upon the colonizers the right to expand. It wasn't the only matter of why they were there, but rather what right they had to be there. Our right to the form this country was justified on white supremacy. I can't even begin to understand how this is being debated by lazy generalizations of a sort of quasi-materialism.