- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is being racist always wrong?
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:17 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:17 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The relevant historical fact is that this country is founded on white supremacism.
Wrong. Race isn't mentioned in any founding document.
America was founded on the rejection of hereditary rule.
2
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:18 pm to Bestbank Tiger
I think he might be referencing that many of the founding fathers owned slaves. Just guessing though.
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:23 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I think he might be referencing that many of the founding fathers owned slaves. Just guessing though.
That's a far, far cry from being the basis of formation of the country. I'm sure a lot of the founding fathers owned horses as well. I doubt he'd argue we were founded as an equestrian nation.
I think he is just probably horribly ignorant when it comes to U.S. and World History.
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:25 pm to Antonio Moss
That could be it too 
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:31 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
That could be it too
Occam's Razor
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:41 pm to Antonio Moss
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.
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.
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:43 pm to Doresrules
quote:
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.
The reason I ask is that I used to think the U.S. had issues with race/ethnicity until I stayed in Europe for a little while and realized that we (the U.S.) are like Mother Teresa in terms of race relations.
And I won't even start on Asians...
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:44 pm to Antonio Moss
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...
But who is trying to be an arse...
This post was edited on 4/26/14 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 4/26/14 at 6:51 pm to miamiman55
quote:
Of course the concept of colonization is intimately inseparable from race relations
Based on this statement, I don't think you understand the terms "colonization" and "race."
So when the Macedonians conquered and oppressed their fellow Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, it was due to race?
Posted on 4/26/14 at 7:03 pm to Antonio Moss
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...
You might want to quit...
Posted on 4/26/14 at 7:07 pm to miamiman55
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.
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.
This post was edited on 4/26/14 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 4/26/14 at 7:13 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
I stayed in Europe for a little while and realized that we (the U.S.) are like Mother Teresa in terms of race relations.
Any black soccer player could have told you that.
Posted on 4/26/14 at 9:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
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.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 2:25 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:Wow!
...the entire practice of the system was to intimidate and prevent black Americans from participating.
I don't know which is more sad:
(1) That you'd post such a thing, or
(2) That you might actually believe it.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 3:45 am to Big Scrub TX
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?
lol wut?
Posted on 4/27/14 at 4:14 am to Revelator
quote:
Or is it only when the person who harbors racist ideology uses this belief to harm someone else that racism becomes a thing to be shunned?
This part is really the only harmful kind of racism, I think.
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.
I think it's more a preservationist/conservationist effort rather than a disenfranchisement of others effort for the vast majority of sane white people. Our Caucasoid race is now down to a tiny 8% of earth's population, and globalization has literally placed us on the endangered species list.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 4:48 am to NoNameNeeded
quote:What?
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.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 8:21 am to miamiman55
quote:
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.
Utter nonsense. Colonialism, especially European colonialism, was an arms race in terms of economic resources. The idea was to collect as many raw materials from different areas of the world and bring them back for processing in the native land. It was also hoped that these colonial lands would provide new markets. This practices peaked during the industrial revolution and was the reason the British Empire became the largest empire in world history in terms of size and impact.
Colonialism is but a subsect of Imperialism which much more of an ideology that an actual practice. In early empires, such as the Babylonians and Assyrians, conquered peoples provided slave labor and military numbers - a different type of resource but a resource nonetheless.
Since the beginning of time, groups have warred, conquered, and enslaved one another for some type of gain in resources. The idea that this entire practice was rooted in racism is nonsense to anyone who studies it.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 8:32 am to Antonio Moss
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.
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.
This post was edited on 4/27/14 at 8:36 am
Posted on 4/27/14 at 8:34 am to miamiman55
quote:
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 natives were also dismissed due to good ole military/technical inferiority, also. humans expand their border. humans explore. humans conquer. race is sometimes used as an ad hoc justification for it after the fact
i mean even when 2 groups are of the same race, we'll just create some other variable to justify slaughter/conquering. culture, religion, or other group identification methods are used. there is nothing special about "race" in this context
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News