>
>So, by your definition, the NAACP
>is a racist organization. Al
>Sharpton, Martin Luther King, Malcolm
>X, anyone who fights against
>racial oppression to you is
>racist because they feel race
>is "somehow important". Well, sir
>or mam, I'm in total
>disagreement.
>
No, no no no no... King, the NAACP, and Malcolm (at least toward the end) all know/knew that "race" was unimportant. The idea that race is important is what they fought/fight against. You're not in total disagreement... just partial misunderstanding.

But for a big part of his career, Malcolm was a racist... he thought it was all about race, and no one "white" could have respect in his eyes. You can say he had an excuse because he was racist in response and retaliation to a far more evil racism. He was a victim of racism, and that at least makes it understandable, but not right. Malcolm figured it out eventually though.


>You don't believe in race, how
>can you believe in racial
>bias?

People who believe in "race" can be racially biased. Bias is real.


>There's nothing scientific about that. What
>if you were born in
>a plane flying over Isreal.
>Are you "Asian" when your
>parents are both "European"? Borders
>are arbitrary, created by war
>and political compromise as often
>as by actual geography (i.e.
>some borders are natural, created
>by mountains and rivers). Besides
>that, no one considers Israelis
>to be Asian, although Isreal
>is on the continent of
>Asia, as is much of
>Russia. Asian is considered a
>racial group and usually refers
>to parties in Southeast Asia.

That unanswerable question, "Are Israelis Asians?" is exactly the weird thing about "race" I was talking about earlier. Obviously no one will call Israelis "Asian", but how about Bangladeshis? Sort of? There are no clear racial lines you can draw between "Mongoloid", "Caucasoid" and "Negroid". There is gradual change in the gene pool between areas, but there is no solid racial categorization.

>
>what is "arab looking"? you question
>what black is, but then
>you use the racial classification
>"arab" (which is NOT a
>nationality).

Arab is neither a "race" nor a nationality. It's an ethnic group characterized by a certain geographic origin and cultural customs. Some Arabs are very dark. Some are green-eyed. I say "arab looking" acknowledging that there are certain facial features and characteristics typical to people from that part of the world. There are geographic variations. That's not the same as race.

>
>> You know they
>>all have very similar ancestry
>>right? as similar as
>>two "blacks" from Nigeria.
>
>Being that Nigeria has borders that
>were arbitrarily created by European
>colonialism, arguing about ancestry across
>African borders is ludicrous.

I'm talking about ancestry within borders.


>
>What is "half-Indian" or "half-Russian"? are
>there some biological means that
>you could utilize to determine
>if someone is Russian?

No. That's what I'm saying. Calling a light-skinned African American "half-black, half-white" (outside of what it means in our culture as a consequence of racial theories, and outside of what "black" and "white" mean as colors ) is like calling someone from India "half-Persian, half-Nepalese"

>
>>Racial theories are their own evidence
>>and their own consequence.
>>Other than themselves, they have
>>no backing or consequences.
>
>Actually, all group classifications are arbitrary.
>National origin, ethnicity, all of
>them are based on the
>idea of seperating people by
>mild differences into groups that
>aren't even homogenous (for instance,
>is someone with American parents
>Russian if they were born
>there, but raised in Mongolia?
>it's all arbitrary).

That's true. Cultural lines can be as impossible to draw as racial boundaries. The difference, as I see it, is that "race" is an idea that you can separate people into arbitrary groups, based on genetic differences (not based on lifestyle, culture, personality, where you're from, or how you were raised) and that those differences somehow tell you something (outside of the social consequences of that racial category) about someone of that "race".



>first, what is "light skinned"? there
>are "light skinned" people with
>two "black" parents, one "black"
>and one "white" parent, one
>"black" and one "Asian" parent
>and so on...the fact that
>you assume that it is
>a black/white issue shows how
>tainted this whole discussion is
>with white supremacy...most "light skinned
>black" people have
>two "black" parents....

You say "black" even when talking about someone who is light-skinned. That shows just how much of a social construct "race" really is. In the US, anyone with any noticeable African ancestry is considered black. "Black" in many places outside the US means only someone with very dark skin.

You're right in pointing out the complexities of light-skinnedness. Around here, most light-skinned blacks happen to be of mixed European and African ancestry. Still, they're called "black" and if two have a light-skinned child, that child is "black". Even if the kid looks like Prince. That's a cultural classification, because "mixed" folks have historically been not included by "whites" as a consequence of their assumed inferiority. So when you say, "Most light-skinned blacks have two black parents," realize why it is you call those parents "black". It ain't science. As far as "race" goes as a scientific means of classifying people, it doesn't make sense to call someone "black" who might even be mostly "white"... that is, outside of what it means in our society as a consequence of widespread racialism and racism.

...which reminds me of what you just said about this conversation being tainted with white supremacy. You're right. You know why? The racial classifications you are defending were created by white supremacists. Other than promoting ideas of racial separation, supremacy, or antagonism, racial classification has no use or value.

>
>This whole thing is pretty much
>a pointless exercise, as neither
>you or Koala seem to
>have any serious plans to
>convince the masses of your
>ideology's correctness.

Things are not always what they seem.

> This is the
>ACTIVIST board. What are you
>going to do about the
>issue? Pass out leaflets explaining
>your cause? Call representatives to
>pressure them to remove race
>from all government classifications?

I don't know. What are you going to do?

>Urge
>the NAACP to change its
>name to the NAAP?

The 'C' stands for "colored", and as far as I can tell, everyone is a color. The NAACP is an organization bent on UNdoing the harm that racialism has done. No one's trying to make them change their name. Realizing that race does not exist does not exempt me or anyone from acknowledging prejudice and racism as a powerful and evil force. It does not exempt "white" people from their accountability and (what should be an) obligation to realize the skin-privilege, and fix it. It is only a realization that all this is built on a foundation made of bull shit.

>I
>see talk, no action, so
>I'm outta here...

Remember what they say about people with glass houses? I ain't one who likes to point fingers, but you just left yourself too open ;-P

>
>In any case, I'm politically opposed
>to your ideas, sorry....
>

I can tell that you're opposed to what you think my ideas are. but that's because you don't understand it yet.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
giving you true posts since 1999 - effa charter member

"I can assure you, we won't be putting money into a society which is not transparent and corrupt."
-George W Bush