>You never explained the difference betweem
>your theory and colorblind theory.

Thats because I dont have a very clear understanding of your idea of "colorblind theory" so ill instead explain my theory further and you can determine the difference for yourself.

>Why, for example, would call
>a culturally and physically diverse
>groupop of people "black" while
>refusing to name a culturally
>and physically diverse group of
>people "white"?

I would call any group of people that which they choose to be called as that is one of the seven principles (Kugichagulia: self determination). in this case a great number of "Black" people choose to be called that and the ideology that it stems from is easily documented and referenced. I dont refuse to call people "white"- i refuse to accept that the doctrine and ideology that fostered that term is in any way true or scientific or natural- i refuse to allow it to continue to breed demeaning and oppressive class distinctions in a cosmopolitan society especially if the American system will use it under the guise of being fair- or politically correct.

If you don't
>believe in one racial category,
>they all crumble.

That presumes that all racial categories come from the same place and thats just not true. Is the term Black based on the same scientific misgivings and presumptuous lies that fostered ideas of caucasians and negroes and mongloids- hell no. Case in point- thats a lateral term signifying value equal but antecedent to white people; thats just not anything that race ideology ever put foward- case in point while they were white we were called negroes, niggers, colored, and now African American- case in point the American system was extremely reluctant to call us Black because of those significations and check the census- they still dont refer to us equally... they do however still call themselves white.

>And crumbling
>racial barriers is colorblind theory.
>Explain how your theory differentiates,
>please.

I dont know if all that suffice but a major difference my theories and the one you're supposing is that Im not encouraging racial barriers to be eliminated in some vain hope to bring new light to society. im advocating that we expose and admit that racial barriers have no grounds in human biology or human development and as such they should have no place in social development.

much like the separation of church and state a reasonable and civil society takes precautions so that the ideologies of certain groups does not impede the livelihood of another group. Has not race ideology done that? Of course it has- then on what grounds do we defend it- we dont have any- we cant back it up with anything except the shit that says that White people are superior. Science dont back it up, Nature dont back it up. It ruins the integrity of human kind and development through culture and community.

Make no mistake- I want no one to blind to race and color barriers I advocate that we pay very close attention them.

If colorblind theory is about making racial barriers crumble then thats just not me- as I see it the bariers of race are built on easily identifiable mistakes and lies and as such it will crumble well enouggh on its own.

I suggest we tear it down before more people get hurt.


>>" how could these discriminatory actions
>>be penalized in a society
>>that doesn't officially recognize race?"
>>
>>
>>Our government can recognize racial ideologies
>>just like any faith doctrine
>>without accepting them-
>
>You cannot "recognize race" or "racial
>ideologies" under colorblind theory. Either
>you believe white or black
>people are defined groups or
>you don't. if you don't
>accept the concept of race
>as a defining characteristic, by
>logical deduction you cannot recognize
>ideologies based on that which
>you do not recognize as
>existing. For example, the government
>doesn't officially recognize the existence
>of UFOs. Therefore, the government
>would not protect a party
>from discrimination based on a
>claim that they are a
>member of an extraterrestial group...or
>believe they are extraterrestial.

That last part is bullshit but before i get to that. Your presumptions of colorblind theory may be the premise to which you speak but I dont see how your extremist one-way-or-the-other attitude will breed its way into citizens to whom we should presume some level of reasonability. if a group civil rihts are infringed upon that only need be demonstrated the courts in no way need to recognize the belief systems of either party- that would be ludicrous. If jews raise an antidefamation suit does the judge need to disavow his belief in jesus to proceed- thats just silly.

as for your example- the court would protect the group if they had been unfairly acted upon because of their belief.

Your presuming that the court system has jurisdiction over the matter of validating belief systems and thats just not a logical idea.

>>does the American government need
>>to beilieve in and foster
>>race classification to admit the
>>crimes that are being enacted
>>in its name-
>
>what crimes? crimes committed in the
>government's name?

um sure- church burnings, lynchings, etc. do they need to consider the culprits as members of a race that is supposedly superior to all others to prosecute them for their actions- nope and they have every opportunity to still consider the culprit's beliefs without adopting them.

>This is all extremely vague. Be
>direct in what you're stating.

i think i have been direct- you let me know what you're still unclear on.

>>The difference with race ideology is
>>that it bears no quantifiable
>>measure- no substantial markings- it
>>is not scientific by any
>>means- it bears far less
>>accuracy than ideas of culture
>>and national origin
>
>national origin is defined by arbitrarily
>defined borders. how is that
>more of a defining characteristic
>than race?

Because race is defined by doctrines of superiority that people rarely believe, admit, or are proud of. The physical characteristics that suppose a persons race are vague, the scientific and biological boundaries of race perception are non existent.

Whats the difference between a White person and a Jew- it depends on what the Jew is willing to believe of himself, it depends on what the White person is willing to believe of himself, it depends on what each of them feel about each other and what their communities think....

In contrast- whats the difference between a Spanish person and a Portugese person- about 30 feet.

>basically, people in
>America think they're American because
>the society
>they grew up in told them
>so -- through their parents,
>through the educational system, through
>the media -- but just
>being born within these borders
>means nothing without the social
>pressure to be nationalistic...for example,
>some might consider it "un-American"
>to burn a flag, others
>born within the same borders
>see it as an importnat
>form of protest. National origin
>is really no identicator of
>group identity, how a person
>will behave, etc.

RIGHT- because THIS nation is built upon the premises of race ideology. Ive spoken on this at length. the problem is this country doesnt use culture nor national origin (other than American which is obviously false) as a mark of human and social development because it from the start had to abandon foreign influence to ensure national loyalty. National origin IS an "identicator" of group indentity and thats proven in several examples- so common in fact that we call it CULTURE we call it HERITAGE we call it TRADITION. Did Chinatowns all across the country spring up cuz people who spoke Chinese just happened to live close to one another?

>Such as? Why would national origin
>be based on ideas that
>are "truer" than race? How
>about cultural heritage, whatever that
>means?

If someone is German American that indicates that their lineage has migrated from Germany- this also means that several german cultural traditions are probably still apparent in the contemporary German American's lifestyle. Holistically this means that we can refer to the common example of German Americans in gauging their cultural development as opposed to some vague arbitrary presumption of race.

In contrast a person who is identifying himself by an ideology that professes that Whites are more evolved than any other species- this is off the bat not true. Furthermore the boundaries of race classification mean that a White person can be not only "American" but French, English, Russian, Polish, Austrian, Czechloslovakian, Spanish, Greek, Canadian, Icelandic, Dutch, Belgian, Scottish, Irish, Swiss, German, and the list goes on. thats not a distinct heritage- are you telling me all those groups have a common history?

>> If thats the case
>>then why is it being
>>used as a factual/pragmatic means
>>of a census
>
>What about gender? Feel the same
>about that?

No gender is not only an obvious difference among humans- but is further substantiated by biolgy. Gender is demonstrated by varying sexual genetalia- what scientific or biological properties demonstrate race. The question returns: whats the difference between a White person and a jew- can science quantify that?


>>, why is
>>it being used to determine
>>stratification of wealth and assistance
>>among people?
>
>Because race has been used to
>create economic disparities, through racial
>discrimination. Without knowing the economic
>statistics of individual racial groups,
>these disparities can't be measured...and
>without measurement cannot be alleviated.

but if you lie about the division of wealth youll never be able to accurately measure what needs to be alleviated.

There are so many "white" people and not many of them are rich- so they bring down the average measure of wealth and resources. You can quantify what they look like all you want but you cant borrow the statistics you get from that information and expect it to demonstrate a discrepancy that needs to be acted upon- thats why we've been spinning our wheels since the Civil rights act, screaming to be assisted fairly in a system that still does not represent us fairly.

't see how "national origin" is
>any more valid of a
>means of dividing people into
>groups.

Ive already explained it- and if that doesnt suffice then that begs the question... if its not an any more valid means of dividing people then why do they use that to determine us- but refer back to race classifications to refer to themselves?

Thats pretty inconsistent dont you think?

>My question was HOW, so that's
>not answering my question.

ok then- by legistlation and juris prudence

>How is defining groups by race
>any more demeaning than defining
>groups by national origin?

Because race professes the idea that obe race is more evolved than any other.

>>If you continue to allow the
>>government to presume that lie
>>as truth then whatever race
>>discrimination is being dealt width
>>will continue to move us
>>1 step forward and two
>>steps back as has been
>>its consistent pattern for the
>>last 500 years.
>
>Us? what "us" are you talking
>about if you don't believe
>in race?

Us- humans- people of culture- all those concerned with human dignity.

>>If you want to realize race
>>and not be blind to
>>it- then you have no
>>choice but admit that it
>>was an illbegotten and demeaning
>>notion that bears no substantiating
>>scientific or natural capacity.
>
>natural capacity? here's a question for
>you, chief. 99.99 times out
>of a hundred, two black
>parents create a black child.
>two white parents, 99.99% of
>the time create a white
>child. if you're saying that
>race isn't a biological characteristic,
>how do you explain that?

Yuck- begging the question. Two African American people will have a baby of african American descent, Two german people will have a baby of german american descent. One Jew and one German will create a supposedly "white" baby, so to will any two people who create a child that can pass as "white" but if society doesnt consider jews white then what are they? sorry spirit but vague physical characteristics does not make for a substantial biological example.

What scientific property demonstrates racial variance in human kind? not melanin- cuz melanin exists in any human physiogomy but that of an albino so would you tell an African american albino that they were white?

You can defend race theory if ya want- but it doesnt add up.


>>government must back away from
>>this ideology as it is
>>demaning and false- and furthermore
>>stop imposing the ideology as
>>if it were irrefutable fact.
>
>The government isn't "imposing" anything. No
>one's forcing me to call
>myself black.

read the census holmes- White people are classified either as White or "other". While there are specifications for African Americans and 12 varieties of Asian American there is no demarcation for russian americans, irish americans, polish americans, etc. that my friend is an imposition.

>You still haven't explained how. Break
>down a hypothetical government program.
>My question is how do
>you deal with it. You
>still haven't answered HOW.

Eliminate all statistical data provided for on the grounds of race- start a new census elaborating on the more accurate boundaries of national and ethnic origin. Make this a public exposition on race ideologies and reinforce this period with more emphasis on cultural awareness and diversity, bring culture to the citizen- instate a geneological discovery program for children through the public education system. Fund charter schools geared towards cultural education. If somebody wants to continue thinking they are "white" they are allowed to but if they use that to demean anyone else's livelihood then they will see due process just like any other circumstances.

anything else?

K