miamiman55

I was going to say...
The only mistake here is making the "strong latino woman of greater experience than a white man could ever achieve" out to be anything other than, well...

"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]"

Racial taxonomy and hierarchy since antiquity?

This conversation is going nowhere...

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.

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.

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

But who is trying to be an arse...

I think my favorite part were those fans. That whole row backed up awful quick...