Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22695

Subject: "Why Race is Not Real...Scientifically Speaking" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 06:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Why Race is Not Real...Scientifically Speaking"


          

I was rapping to my homie whom is white about race. We came to conclusion after some research that race as we no it has no biological basis. The main difference the peoples of the Earth is culture. The idea of race is a new idea several hundred years old in regard to continental origin. The Greeks and Romans never looked as themselves as Europeans much less related themselves to "Barbaric Northerners: with pale skin blond hair." But today it is taken for granted this idea of Europeans Africans, in ancient times you were a Kushite, Kemite, Phoenincian etc. Also everywhere in the world can trace their history to "Black" peoples who are indegenous to land. Whether Asia, Europe, India, the earliest inhabinants of all these places were "Black." In sense we are all African people from an origin standpoint. This makes us all the same, The only thing that makes us different is way of life, this is why Hutus and Tutsis, and Bosnians and Serbs, (people of the same "race" engaged in bloody genocidal struggles). We as humans can find anything to make us diferent religion, ethnicity, race, gender, etc. Race is a social construct created by a western capitalist regime that needs divisiveness to thrive. Are we prepared to tear down this idea of race and create a better tommorrow....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
koala? is that you in disguise?
Jul 06th 2000
1
Truth breeds repetition
KoalaLove
Jul 06th 2000
2
RE: Truth breeds repetition
Jul 06th 2000
6
      now....
Jul 06th 2000
7
           WTF!?
KoalaLove
Jul 07th 2000
10
                After reading that....
Jul 07th 2000
11
RE: koala? is that you in disguise?
Jul 06th 2000
4
si
Jul 06th 2000
3
RE: Is race "real"?
Danger
Jul 06th 2000
5
      a way to beat the lie?
Jul 06th 2000
8
           RE: a way to beat the lie?
Danger
Jul 07th 2000
12
           RE: a way to beat the lie?
Jul 12th 2000
20
           RE: a way to beat the lie?
Jul 07th 2000
13
had an interesting discussion once....
Jul 07th 2000
9
had an interesting discussion once....
AfricanHerbsman
Jul 10th 2000
14
Danger hit the head on the nail!
Jul 11th 2000
15
RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!
Jul 11th 2000
16
      RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!
Jul 11th 2000
17
      RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!
Jul 12th 2000
19
      Race Indicator in dating..
Jul 20th 2000
23
      RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!
Jul 11th 2000
18
           RE: who'sgunna win tha race?
T
Jul 19th 2000
21
                pardon me
Jul 20th 2000
22
My problem with the color blind argument...
Jul 24th 2000
24
Color blindness
KoalaLove
Jul 24th 2000
25
RE: Color blindness
Jul 26th 2000
30
      mad typos...ha
Jul 26th 2000
31
      RE: Color blindness
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
32
      Still didn't answer the question
Jul 27th 2000
34
           YUCK
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
35
           We were calling ourselves black prior to the nationalist movement
Jul 27th 2000
38
           There's that blind thing again
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
39
                I think Spirit asked for an alternative
Jul 27th 2000
42
                     Thats unreasonable
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
44
                          RE: Thats unreasonable
Jul 30th 2000
51
                               spirit likes the yuck
KoalaLove
Jul 31st 2000
57
                                    what we really are?
Aug 01st 2000
64
                                         RE: what we really are?
KoalaLove
Aug 01st 2000
67
                                              RE: what we really are?
Aug 10th 2000
75
           RE: YUCK
Jul 30th 2000
49
           Yuck
KoalaLove
Jul 31st 2000
54
           ps:
Jul 30th 2000
50
                RE: ps:
KoalaLove
Jul 31st 2000
55
           the question
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
36
                furthermore
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
37
                RE: furthermore
Jul 30th 2000
53
                     i just dont give a YUCK!
KoalaLove
Jul 31st 2000
58
                          back to our regularly scheduled convo
Aug 01st 2000
60
                               Phenotypes are not racial characteristics...
Aug 01st 2000
65
                                    Thank you for your help
KoalaLove
Aug 01st 2000
69
                                    RE: Phenotypes are not racial characteristics...
Aug 10th 2000
71
                                         RE: Phenotypes are not racial characteristics...
KoalaLove
Aug 10th 2000
74
                talking long, saying nothing
Jul 30th 2000
52
                     RE: talking long, saying nothing
KoalaLove
Jul 31st 2000
56
                          The pot calling the kettle...
Aug 01st 2000
63
                               Yawn
KoalaLove
Aug 01st 2000
66
                                    Simpler than that
KoalaLove
Aug 01st 2000
68
                                    RE: Simpler than that
Aug 10th 2000
73
                                         Yuck spirit
KoalaLove
Aug 10th 2000
76
                                    RE: Yawn
Aug 10th 2000
72
      RE: Color blindness
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
33
my god....
Jul 27th 2000
40
      RE: my god....
Jul 27th 2000
41
           it'll make you second guess urself......
Aug 01st 2000
62
RE: Why Race is Not Real...Scientifically Speaking
Jul 25th 2000
26
In real life..
KoalaLove
Jul 26th 2000
27
      RE: In real life..
Jul 27th 2000
43
           RE: In real life..
KoalaLove
Jul 27th 2000
45
                RE: In real life..
Jul 28th 2000
46
                     RE: In real life..
KoalaLove
Jul 28th 2000
47
                          I agree Koala
Jul 28th 2000
48
truth indeed
NiaRa
Jul 26th 2000
28
Very good...
KoalaLove
Jul 26th 2000
29
The greatest trick spirit ever pulled...
KoalaLove
Aug 01st 2000
59
haahahahaha
Aug 01st 2000
61
The bottom line- especially for spirit
KoalaLove
Aug 02nd 2000
70

360sunsumyea
Charter member
653 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 06:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
1. "koala? is that you in disguise?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

my bad, this is only one paragraph. can't be you.

illosopher,
check the archives.

**********THE SIG**********

i'm a tru pisces tryna flow in the direction of both of these okplayer quotes:

"I m raising a fuckin angelic being who is going to replenish this fuckin earths cuz in 2G all we fuckin do is talk.....im teachin my seed to turn his spirit inside out and spread beams of green light"
-nebbie

"GOd give me the strength to change the things i can, understanding for those i cannot and the muthafuckin heart to stand up for my beliefs and principles, so that when the government that is suppossed to protect me turns against me and my people we will have the means, the might and the muthafuckin gun power to blow away our oppressors
umm amen"
-earthqueen

and last but not least:

"all things considered, i'd rather be me"
-bfnh

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-06-00 06:18 AM

  
2. "Truth breeds repetition"
In response to Reply # 1


          

"Race is a social construct created by a western capitalist regime that needs divisiveness to thrive. "

pretty damn close eh?

Id be flatterd but I always told y'all- these arent just my ideas - its the truth. More and more people are bound to reach these conclusions if they just consider the very ideas.

I just hope to continue challenging people to make those considerations.

Good for you, Ill- keep up the good work. Try telling a few White people that and you'll be amused at the variety of responses; willfull acceptance to outright rage.

try here for more info- but you've got the idea- there's a book list that may be of further assistance.

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/250.html

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
BurbKnight
Charter member
106857 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 02:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Truth breeds repetition"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

>Try telling
>a few White people that
>and you'll be amused at
>the variety of responses;

I was just about to say that. All we gotta do now is convince everyone who is stuck on the race thing to stop it.

Funny thing is...... I still only will date women who are my race (which is, black)...... hmmmmmmm.

Peace!!!!!!

AIM: BurbKnight

- MAYIN HOLD UP!!!!!!! (c)Fellow Houstonians

-"What the devil is that on your answering machine"- Xzhibit

"The Friend Zone is the jack-pot for the good man...step into the realm." - Jude

Okayplayer Directory: http://theblackknight.tripod.com/okayplayer/okayplayer.html

My homepage:
http://members.tripod.com/~TheBlackKnight


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
bluetiger
Charter member
36723 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 06:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "now...."
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

a correction:

>Funny thing is...... I still only
>will date women who are
>my race (which is, .....

Human.

"Race" implies a separate species incapable of interbreeding. If interbreeding occurred, then the offspring would be sterile, much like a mule. If you dated outside your "race", then are we to assume you date extraterrestrials? Or animals?

Thanks for reading. I love you.

don't be fkn evil.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
KoalaLove

Fri Jul-07-00 04:51 AM

  
10. "WTF!?"
In response to Reply # 7


          

Mules are sterile!?!?

thats some ill shit

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
bluetiger
Charter member
36723 posts
Fri Jul-07-00 04:56 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "After reading that...."
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

I think its a mule. When horses and donkeys mate, they produce sterile offspring. Same thing when lions and tigers mate, except the male ligers (thats what they are called) can only reproduce with female tigers.
Thanks for reading. I love you.


don't be fkn evil.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 08:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "RE: koala? is that you in disguise?"
In response to Reply # 1


          

thanx for the compliment to be spoken in the same breath as Koalo is a compliment.....

peep my band

http://www.3rdeyevision.net/urbanorganicproject

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 06:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "si"
In response to Reply # 0


          

it was actually in time magazine (i think) a couple of years ago about how race has no real biological footing---never really got much play though huh?

"Well, I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love.
I like to work, read, learn, and understand life." - Langston Hughes "Theme for English B"

http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Danger

Thu Jul-06-00 11:50 AM

  
5. "RE: Is race "real"?"
In response to Reply # 3


          

Okay, if you're going to say that race is a false construct, you've got to define what we mean when we say "race." If you think of race in terms of legitimate biological differences, then I agree that the idea of race is ridiculous. My ancestry is close to 100% Celt Irish, and when it comes to phenotypical characteristics (physical manifestations of what we call "race") I've got the large lips and prominent bone structure commonly associated with black men. I've got black friends with lighter skin and straighter hair than most of my white friends. Fact is, the phenotypical markers of race are usually arbitrary and after-the-fact; we say someone is "black" or "white" or whatever, and then we come up with the physical evidence to back it up.

The thing is, even if race comes from a bullshit arbitrary distinction, the social manifestation of that bullshit arbitrary distinction is real. You can say that nobody is really black or white or hispanic or whatever, but when the taxis won't stop for you and the cops shoot first and answer questions at the autopsy it does no good to say that race is a false construct. When it comes to social realities, what society believes is what's true. We could say that everybody under 6 feet tall is a race, and scientists would come up with "Bell Curve"-type books showing how short people are genetically predisposed to perform poorly in school, and shop owners would start being suspicious of short people and no short people would be elected to public office and before you knew it, that racial construction would be real.
That's the scary thing about race. It's a lie -- whether it's from a malevolent capitalist system or ancient tribal behavior -- but it's a lie that enough people believe to make it operatively true. We have to recognize that even though race is a false construct, it's a construct that has all the social repercussions of fact. Even if race doesn't exist, people are racist.
There's a dope book by a man named Derrick Bell (don't trust my spelling of his first name) called "Faces at the Bottom of the Well." It's about the permanence of racism in America -- how even though it's wrong and stupid, it's a wrong and stupid thing that people believe, and we have to accept that if we're going to fight it. In my opinion, it's like this: Stealing is wrong, but you don't leave your bike on the street and then try to convince people not to want to steal; you lock it up. Racism is wrong, but there's a point where you can't convince people not to be racist anymore; you just have to figure out a way to beat those racist beliefs. Read the book. Bell says it far better than I.

"Shake the hand that shook the world"
-- Dropkick Murphys

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
bluetiger
Charter member
36723 posts
Thu Jul-06-00 06:57 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "a way to beat the lie?"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

>Racism is wrong, but there's
>a point where you can't
>convince people not to be
>racist anymore; you just have
>to figure out a way
>to beat those racist beliefs.

That way is called education, and in this lovely capitalist system, it also means decidely progressive economic empowerment for those considered to be "at the bottom."

Thanks for reading. I love you.


don't be fkn evil.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Danger

Fri Jul-07-00 04:57 AM

  
12. "RE: a way to beat the lie?"
In response to Reply # 8


          

>>Racism is wrong, but there's
>>a point where you can't
>>convince people not to be
>>racist anymore; you just have
>>to figure out a way
>>to beat those racist beliefs.
>
>That way is called education, and
>in this lovely capitalist system,
>it also means decidely progressive
>economic empowerment for those considered
>to be "at the bottom."

I agree with you partially. Progressive economic empowerment is a good idea for the victims of racial discrimination. It's a lot harder to discriminate against somebody when they're the ones giving you a job. As far as education goes, I think the problem is racism is a deeply entrenched belief for a lot of people. You can teach kids the hating people because of race is wrong in school, but if they go home and get the opposite lesson from their parents (not to mention from TV and virtually every other kind of media) it's not going to stick. In my opinion, the only way to really "cure" racist beliefs is through individual life experiences -- the classic "he saved my life so I quit the Klan" kind of stories. Since those are virtually impossible to engineer on a large scale societal level, I think the best bet is to say "Americans are racist. How are we going to change our policies and way of life so that people aren't victimized by that racism?"


"Shake the hand that shook the world"
-- Dropkick Murphys

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Wed Jul-12-00 06:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "RE: a way to beat the lie?"
In response to Reply # 12


          

Money isn't the answer. Jews in 1930's Gernmany had cash and they became scapegoats. I live in Pitsburgh and 2 racial murders occurred in a month, a blck guy killed 3 whites and a white guy killed a jew, a asian and a black. You can't keep accepting myth, How long do you wanna beleive in Santa Claus.

To an extent economic empowerment it will bring respect to a group of folks (kinda) But it will not eliminate race. That the ultimate goal, Reach level in which we are all human beings, until then there will always be beef.

peace

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Fri Jul-07-00 05:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
13. "RE: a way to beat the lie?"
In response to Reply # 8


          

Danger and blue---nicely written!


"Well, I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love.
I like to work, read, learn, and understand life." - Langston Hughes "Theme for English B"

http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

TinkyWinky
Charter member
2726 posts
Fri Jul-07-00 03:45 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "had an interesting discussion once...."
In response to Reply # 0


          

actually a discussion with my old latin teacher, who has a lot of interesting (although often closed-minded) beliefs, and varied interests re: reading and research. we were musing about the historical origins of the divisions of "race" (this including "race" the way ill broke it down, i.e. pheonicians vs. romans vs. greeks vs. teutons etc.). one of the things we concluded was that race as a social construct was for a long time (and in some ways still is now) a necessary social construct. "us" and "them" can be fruitful for both the us and the them, when one considers that the two need not be conjoined by a "vs." essentially, we surmised (he'd read on the subject, i hadn't yet, although i have since) that such classifications originated partially when people lived in smaller groups (anywhere between 25 and 300+). these could have been tribes, villages, clans, etc. essentially the cohesiveness of the "us" could only be enhanced by establishing a "them." but once this paradigm is accepted, it becomes an object of exploitation (here's where the "vs." comes in). i'm rambling and incoherent (i've been sneaking this post off and on for 20 mins, lol), but i'm simply putting out the idea that racial and societal divisions developed and gained establishment out of necessity and initially were very beneficial. now that we live in societies of 300 million or more at a time, however, it's necessary to find new classifications (as we couldn't survive with no classifications) because race has become to heavily exploited to be further beneficial. however, and i comment on this hesitantly (as a "white" person), race has become exploitable but it still strongly maintains a positive "us" in many cases. that is, by NOT being "white" or asian etc., black has become something unifying. black may not have biological basis, but it's still something that allows people help establish who they are. i'm about to get caught so i'm going back to fucking data entry now. whiteboy (sue me, k-love) out for now.

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

"This is OUR place. You want the walls to be orange get a brush..."
--BooDah

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"I'm SICK, and i'm TIRED, of your WHINING, COMPLAINING, and BITCHING, and MOANING! BOO-FUCKIN-HOO!"
--Ian Mackaye (Minor Threat)

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
AfricanHerbsman

Mon Jul-10-00 05:03 AM

  
14. "had an interesting discussion once...."
In response to Reply # 9


          


feel that..like when you build a fence to keep your own sht in..then become so focused on keeping everybody else's sht out that you forget the original purpose - & like tinky said..time to move on.
_______________________________________________________

Herbsman.

I dream filthy, my moms & pops mixed me
with jamaican rum & whisky..what a set off
should've pushed him dead off & wiped the sweat off - BIG (RIP)

seize your time! - marley

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

cpoindex
Charter member
243 posts
Tue Jul-11-00 08:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Danger hit the head on the nail!"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Dangers right, just because race is a social construct, doesn't mean it ain't real.


********

"Lyrically Handsome"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Tue Jul-11-00 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!"
In response to Reply # 15


          

It is not real in an inherent sense. It is man made which means it is artificial, must you continue to make psedo-intellectual comments from a juvenile devil's advocate position? You make the same argument as a 5 year old kid, "just because the boogey man is a construct of my childish mind does it make him not real?"

how intellegent...

please read more talk less....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
cpoindex
Charter member
243 posts
Tue Jul-11-00 07:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!"
In response to Reply # 16


          

Inherent or contrived what's the difference? The effects are the Same. People Instinctively form in/out group biases and they are almost always arbitrary. The significance of race is declining, i will agree, but for the mean time i find the classification still useful. When I am out in the dating pool, looking for girls who share the same interest and concerns as I do, race is often a good indicator.

BTW

Don't get personal. Stay Civil & watch your manners.

********

"Lyrically Handsome"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Wed Jul-12-00 06:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!"
In response to Reply # 17


          

Look fam , check my post Apologies, sorry for the illwill.

I'm Black and i've dated several non-black girls. To say you can't relate (I don't thonk you are saying that) is odd. We shouldn't use race to put us in a box like that. I'm not saying you do. But we can't keep perpetuating mythology even if it is conveinient.

one love

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Thu Jul-20-00 04:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "Race Indicator in dating.."
In response to Reply # 17


          

I think that view is flawed i beleive that culture is more than anything, not race. If you saw a Black woman in the club, and step to her and she was an African-American yes yyall maybe would relate. But if stepped to a Black girl in the club and she was from Nigeria yall may have a racial experince pheneomenon in common but culturaly you may be as different as you are from the Valley girl. I believe culture has more to do with race. Because culture is real.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
cpoindex
Charter member
243 posts
Tue Jul-11-00 07:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: Danger hit the head on the nail!"
In response to Reply # 16


          

How Am I Playing the Devil's Advocate when I am saying I agree with someone?

********

"Lyrically Handsome"


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
T

Wed Jul-19-00 04:37 PM

  
21. "RE: who'sgunna win tha race?"
In response to Reply # 18


          

its all in the word: a race implies a start, finsh line, winners and losers. lets not forget who invented the concept too, fucked up scientists who think that we was once apes and shhit!! so the race is evolution, and once everybody left the jungle and discoverd fire, or whatever, then we all split off and started racing for evolution, right?? whatever. ok so they find this skeleton in kennewick WA, and he's like super old 9,000 years and shit. they do all this reconstruction and try and figure out what he looked like, well he didnt look anything like the Indigenous people of the area, he looked more "caucasoid". so what, whiteys was here 9,000 years ago?? great, now they will get to trample all over Indigenous folks even more. nahhh, me thinks it was whiteys, but then they evolved into the Indigenous "race", you know with the cheekbones and rounnd faces and shit. you see when you turn shit around, and say that so called "primitive" folks might be the most advanced evolution wise, you might find that the convenience of race is no longer convenient.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
TinkyWinky
Charter member
2726 posts
Thu Jul-20-00 04:17 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "pardon me"
In response to Reply # 21


          

but i actually believe in evolution (koala, i didn't say darwinism, there IS a difference). i believe we were once "apes." all of us. well, our distant ancestors, at least. are "whites" more evolved than other races? of course not, that's ridiculous. whites look different because they exist in different climactic conditions. it's a commonly accepted belief among many in the biological community (don't jump on me if you disagree with it, i didn't say you had to like it) that if for instance a community of swedes were to relocate to maybe nigeria or another equatorial region and live there in complete seclusion from any outside people, local or foreign, in 1000 years their descendants would be as black as the natives. it's biology, and it's environmentally-driven.

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

"This is OUR place. You want the walls to be orange get a brush..."
--BooDah

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"I'm SICK, and i'm TIRED, of your WHINING, COMPLAINING, and BITCHING, and MOANING! BOO-FUCKIN-HOO!"
--Ian Mackaye (Minor Threat)

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Mon Jul-24-00 06:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
24. "My problem with the color blind argument..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Here's my problem with the color-blind argument: I have never heard a colorblind activist explain how we deal with the concrete problem of "racial discrimination" if we accept the colorblind premise. As long as some people do not follow the color blind theory and still discriminate by race, how could these discriminatory actions be penalized in a society that doesn't officially recognize race? To use a concrete example, take me, I'm "black". Let's say that I go to a bank looking for financing and get turned down. I give the ideas from my business plan to a "white" friend of mine and he is able to secure financing, using essentially the same plan. In absence of a "race" construct, anti-dsicrimination remedies related to race are out the window. So, what's my recourse? Ditto for job discrimination, housing discrimination, and so on...

Could on of the colorblind activists on this piece explain how current anti-discrimination law could deal with discrimination in the absence of a race paradigm?

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-24-00 07:55 AM

  
25. "Color blindness"
In response to Reply # 24


          

I think you confuse these theories with blindess to supposed racial variance when actually it proposes a more acurate account of what race is even moreso than popoular politics even allow.

" 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- the problem in this country is that it imposes that race ideology on its people and when it comes to accountability it only holds the people responsible while the ideology lives on and is further enacted by a pervasively infected society.

If you were a jew and you went to get a job but a anti-semite wouldnt let you would the gpvernment need to take sides in the matter to determine that civil rights had been infringed on? certinly not, a supposedly objective body can distinguish itself from the beliefs of singular communities or opposing ideologies. Likewise does the American government need to beilieve in and foster race classification to admit the crimes that are being enacted in its name- of course not, but it will do just that if we dont cite them for the crime of imposing it by national order in the first place.

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, issues of heritage- it is substantiated primarily in presumptions and hidden agendas and ideas that just arent true. If thats the case then why is it being used as a factual/pragmatic means of a census, why is it being used to determine stratification of wealth and assistance among people?

Why are we using it to run this country- and then wondering why the country's "race relations" are so fucked up- here's a hint- cuz the idea of race was fucked up in the first place!

To answer your question race can be dealt with pragmatically in determining its effects on society and it should be. However items like the census and all racial quuantifications and statistical data are not pragmatic in that they can only bare out the evidence of a characterization that is implicitly demeaning and untrue.

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.

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. The 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.

Whatever discrimination that takes place will still be dealt with in the absence of the "race paradigm" the key is understanding that that "race paradigm" is at the very root of the discrimination.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Wed Jul-26-00 07:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "RE: Color blindness"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

>I think you confuse these theories
>with blindess to supposed racial
>variance when actually it proposes
>a more acurate account of
>what race is even moreso
>than popoular politics even allow.

You never explained the difference betweem your theory and colorblind theory. 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"? If you don't believe in one racial category, they all crumble. And crumbling racial barriers is colorblind theory. Explain how your theory differentiates, please.

>
>" 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.

>If you were a jew and
>you went to get a
>job but a anti-semite wouldnt
>let you would the gpvernment
>need to take sides in
>the matter to determine that
>civil rights had been infringed
>on?

actually, the government (through the court system, part of our government, or administrative agencies) are the only source of relief when one is injured by discrimination (outside of vigilantism).

> certinly not, a supposedly
>objective body can distinguish itself
>from the beliefs of singular
>communities or opposing ideologies.

An objective body such as a court system? That's government.

> Likewise
>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?

> of course
>not, but it will do
>just that if we dont
>cite them for the crime
>of imposing it by national
>order in the first place.

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

>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? 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.

>, issues of
>heritage- it is substantiated primarily
>in presumptions and hidden agendas
>and ideas that just arent
>true.

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

> 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?

>, 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.

>Why are we using it to
>run this country- and then
>wondering why the country's "race
>relations" are so fucked up-
>here's a hint- cuz the
>idea of race was fucked
>up in the first place!

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

>To answer your question race can
>be dealt with pragmatically in
>determining its effects on society
>and it should be.

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

> However
>items like the census and
>all racial quuantifications and statistical
>data are not pragmatic in
>that they can only bare
>out the evidence of a
>characterization that is implicitly demeaning
>and untrue.

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

>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?

>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?

> The
>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.

>
>Whatever discrimination that takes place will
>still be dealt with in
>the absence of the "race
>paradigm"

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.

the key is understanding
>that that "race paradigm" is
>at the very root of
>the discrimination.
>
>K


Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Wed Jul-26-00 07:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
31. "mad typos...ha"
In response to Reply # 30


  

          

had mad typos in that joint...

Let me keep it simple. The unanswered question remains: how will the government enforce current anti-discrimination law in the absence of recognizing the existence of race? come up with a hypothetical program and explain how it would work.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 03:57 AM

  
32. "RE: Color blindness"
In response to Reply # 30


          


>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

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 04:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
34. "Still didn't answer the question"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

The question remains: HOW will the anti-discrimination laws be enforced absent a recognition of race? Don't just make a conclusory statement: "judges can figure out a way", tell me what basis they would use to determine *distinctions* b/t the two claimants, as a baseline. For example: "black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where "black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant discriminated against him. The judge, colorblind, cannot see any distinction between the two parties, replies "You both look American to me, the defendant has 100% American workforce (but no "blacks"), so I don't see any discrimination here". The "black" defendant's recourse is what, under your theory?


>>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.

Colorblind theory states that race is a social construct with no biological basis, which urges that people shouldn't be classified into racial groups. Sounds very close to what you propose.

>>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

Contradictory. You have told people "you are not white". You can't call someone "white", then tell them :you are not white" at the same time. If you accept what they call themselves, you accept the identifier. With race, the baby HAS to be thrown out with the bathwater. Either you think it exists or you think it doesn't.

> that the doctrine and
>ideology that fostered that term

Where do you think "white" as an identifier was established. You speak on being scientific. What is your source for the origin of the word "white" as an identifier?

>That presumes that all racial categories
>come from the same place
>and thats just not true.

Where did each racial term originate? Why aren;t Russians (from the eastern portion of the old USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"? Why is "Hispanic" considered a racial group, then divided into white and black Hispanics?

>Is the term Black based
>on the same scientific misgivings
>and presumptuous lies that fostered
>ideas of caucasians and negroes
>and mongloids- hell no.

The name black was created just like the names Negro (spanish for "black") and caucasian were created, at some point in history, were created. How are you going to justify the use of terms like "black" (which do not include "white" people born and raised in Africa, but is often used as a synonym for African)? You have to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. "Black" was a term used to encompass over 1 billion people with wide ranging physical and cultural differences...in that sense, the term has no scientific basis and is arbitrary: it isn't based merely on direct African lineage (which ALL people have) or even African lineage within a few generations (as many Latinos, with "African blood" do not consider themselves, and are not generally considered, black...while certain North African populations are so similar in appearance to "Arabs" that placing them in the same category as people in Zimbabwe or Los Angeles seems patently ridiculous).

>>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.

Actually, you can check any box you want. No imposition at all, IT'S VOLUNTARY WHICH RACIAL GROUP YOU CHOOSE. Maybe you need to check the Census again.

>>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.

I'm talking about the law. About when someone says they've been discriminated against and they go in court to find relief...or they go to Congress and ask for new laws to be passed....what you state above are cosmetic changes which don't deal with the pervasive racial discrimination in America today...changing census data won't stop job discrimination and without any legal apparatus to punish parties caught in the act discriminating, it can only get worse.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 05:28 AM

  
35. "YUCK"
In response to Reply # 34


          

>The question remains: HOW will the
>anti-discrimination laws be enforced absent
>a recognition of race? Don't
>just make a conclusory statement:
>"judges can figure out a
>way", tell me what basis
>they would use to determine
>*distinctions* b/t the two claimants,
>as a baseline. For example:
>"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>discriminated against him. The judge,
>colorblind, cannot see any distinction
>between the two parties, replies
>"You both look American to
>me, the defendant has 100%
>American workforce (but no "blacks"),
>so I don't see any
>discrimination here". The "black" defendant's
>recourse is what, under your
>theory?

Yuck you're presuming that people are stupid and cant see clearly beyond race that is just not the acse. As I said does the judge need to disavow Christ to judge a case on anti-semitic defamation? Does a judge need to be gay to rule on the case of Matt Shepard? The judge cant act upon examples of discrimination if he doesnt officially observe the parameters upon which that discrimination is founded- thats ludicrous.

>Colorblind theory states that race is
>a social construct with no
>biological basis, which urges that
>people shouldn't be classified into
>racial groups. Sounds very close
>to what you propose.

well that my friend is the truth- what are you suggesting that i propose lies instead?

>Contradictory. You have told people "you
>are not white". You can't
>call someone "white", then tell
>them :you are not white"
>at the same time. If
>you accept what they call
>themselves, you accept the identifier.

yuck Ive said plenty more than that sound bite and all of my views remain consistent unless of course you take it out of context as you just did. On occassions where I told people they werent right- they often came to the same conclusion themselves adding that they would have considered this early but had no reason to question that which they were told was true.

>With race, the baby HAS
>to be thrown out with
>the bathwater. Either you think
>it exists or you think
>it doesn't.

Yuck- if your mind has to work in such simple extreme fashion thats your business but you cant say that this is the manner in which others must think cuz thats just not demonstarted in real life.
I think it exists in a manner of being an oppressive and demeaning social construct, but it most certainly is not substantiated by science or biology- thats just the way it is spirit you can try to have it one way or the other if you want but this is still the truth.

>> that the doctrine and
>>ideology that fostered that term
>
>Where do you think "white" as
>an identifier was established. You
>speak on being scientific. What
>is your source for the
>origin of the word "white"
>as an identifier?

Charles Darwins' "The Origin of Species : By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation ofFavored Races in the Struggle for Life you can find it here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679600701/qid%3D957368729/sr%3D1-20/104-5523944-2795968

as well as the subsequent writing of charles lyle. These books provided that race had its "scientific" basis in the systems of evolution by which professing that "white" or "caucasians" were more evolved as their features were less "simian"

>>That presumes that all racial categories
>>come from the same place
>>and thats just not true.
>
>Where did each racial term originate?

you'll have to signify what you mean by "each" Ive already told you where "white" racial classifications came from; black ideology came from the Black power movement and pan african movements of the 50's and 60's

>Why aren;t Russians (from the
>eastern portion of the old
>USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"?

I dont know- whats your point?

>Why is "Hispanic" considered a
>racial group, then divided into
>white and black Hispanics?

Again I dont know- ask somebody who's Hispanic. and again- what is your point?

>The name black was created just
>like the names Negro (spanish
>for "black") and caucasian were
>created, at some point in
>history, were created.

Thats a lie- the term negro was created to substantiate an ideology that said caucasians were more evolved- you're telling me then they came up with "Black" to signify that we were equal- bullshit cuz that never happened and to this day we have yet to be considered equal- not even in terminology.

>How are
>you going to justify the
>use of terms like "black"
>(which do not include "white"
>people born and raised in
>Africa, but is often used
>as a synonym for African)?

I done this elsewhere and even here- that term has signified a new train of thought since the 50's and 60's you dont have to believe in it but you should at least respect it and where it comes from and not try so hard to rely on your juvenile presumptions of what it means. Read a book- soul on ice- amiri baraka- seven principles; who among them were just commenting on the color of the skin?

>You have to throw the
>baby out with the bathwater
>on this one. "Black" was
>a term used to encompass
>over 1 billion people with
>wide ranging physical and cultural
>differences...in that sense, the term
>has no scientific basis and
>is arbitrary: it isn't based
>merely on direct African lineage
>(which ALL people have) or
>even African lineage within a
>few generations (as many Latinos,
>with "African blood" do not
>consider themselves, and are not
>generally considered, black...while certain North
>African populations are so similar
>in appearance to "Arabs" that
>placing them in the same
>category as people in Zimbabwe
>or Los Angeles seems patently
>ridiculous).

You really should study the etymology of th term Black as it stemmed from the Black nationalist movements- your ideas only represent a colloquial and common use of the word but not necessarily the manner in which i or many Black nationalists use it- as such i cant really comment on what Black is according to a great number of people who may or may not know what it actually means. Doing that would be like accepting simply that since people believed they were white that they were.

>Actually, you can check any box
>you want. No imposition at
>all, IT'S VOLUNTARY WHICH RACIAL
>GROUP YOU CHOOSE. Maybe you
>need to check the Census
>again.

so why are there no boxes provided for european american peoples?

>>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.

>I'm talking about the law.

right and im talking about solutions- but you dont want to hear that.

>About
>when someone says they've been
>discriminated against and they go
>in court to find relief...or
>they go to Congress and
>ask for new laws to
>be passed....what you state above
>are cosmetic changes which don't
>deal with the pervasive racial
>discrimination in America today...

Oh word teaching cultural diversity and acceptance doesnt provide any alleviation of pervasively discriminatory society. Maybe we should stick to believing lies and legislating them eh?

>changing census
>data won't stop job discrimination
>and without any legal apparatus
>to punish parties caught in
>the act discriminating, it can
>only get worse.

yuck read the last line spirit.

I used to think you were good at debating but now I realize your only weapon is to avoid the issues raised and question other examples that work on you behalf. Ive answered all your questions and challenges try a few of mine.

What scientific property will demonstrate racial variance among groups that are socially considered racially diverse? What is the biological difference between a White person and a Jew?

Why does the US government or Court system need to adopt race ideology to judicate racial improprieties when it doesnt extend that favor in judicating discrimination of other ideologies- ie sex discrimination, faith discrimination, anti-semitism?

How do we prosecute someone for acting upon an ideology that you propse we continue to honor? The doctrine of race classification- the only pragmatic data that will substantiate anyone's claim of being "white"- says that Whites are more evolved than other races. As such if a "white" person discriminates on a Black man because they claim he's naturally inferior you can back that up by the "science" of race ideology- how do you avoid that if the court believes in and supports the same thing.

K


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
nahymsa
Charter member
1734 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 06:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "We were calling ourselves black prior to the nationalist movement"
In response to Reply # 35


          

Its my understanding that 'black' was used as an identifier long before the middle passage.

I think spirit's point is that the terms are somewhat irrelevant - when there are clear physical differences that are/ will continued to be used to discriminate. While the "labels" for race may be inaccurate at some level they are indicators for clear physical differences that can't be ignored. There is a basis for racism that is beyond the social or economic and has to do with preservation of a certain physical aesthetic. It is not totally crazy for caucasians to fear the blending away of blonde haired blued eyed people - which would then place those few remaining at a distinct disadvantage simply because they do not look like the rest of the group. One some levels it is purely about being able to blend in.

So far, nothing you've said gives a solution for that fundamental issue. Because in actuality, no one is truly colorblind. Just as you can see that a dog looks different than a cat though they are both mammals. At some point those physical differences result in behavioral differences as a result (ie hair braiding) which results in cultural differences.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 06:30 AM

  
39. "There's that blind thing again"
In response to Reply # 38


          

And again i say to you all that I never once suggested that people or society be "blind" to race ideology i simply advocate that we stop allowing the government to use it as a means of social order.

In all the discrimination and the aesthetic reasons you admit to you're begging the question of why we should allow the government to continue to substantiate claims that you admit are not true.

Its one thing if "white" people want to fit in- its a totally different thing if the US government allows and imposes the classifications into which they fit.

I cant say it any more clearly than that. If you understand that race is a lie and you understand what oppression race provides for then we must strike it at the root- you guys only seem willing to fight it at its face; supposing that its what they do and not what they think that brings our conditions to ruin.

In that case you absolve the "white" people who dont "do" anything" but nonetheless perpetuate racial classifications and ideologies to their logical conclusions- that all "colored" people be subordinate to the whim and will of whites.


"While the "labels" for race may be inaccurate at some level they are indicators for clear physical differences that can't be ignored."

What Im urging you to understand is that labels for race are inaccurate on all levels- as they are founded on science that is no longer there to support it. The only manner in which race classification "cant be ignored" is in that it presumes itself as fostering the "indicators for clear physical differences" that are a result not of racial variance but of ethnic and cultural diversity- to allow this to continue will breed further confusion and identity crisis and division among people of "race" and people of culture.

The difference is people of culture- have heritage and tradition and history to fall back on. People of race by and large have nothing of redeeming value as example of their heritage and refuse to admit the horrible deeds that pervade their history.

By refering to culture than the matter of accountability is clear and demonstrative- refer to people as White- and there's nothing demonstrative to hold them accountable for. They'll say- well my family didnt own slaves, my family didnt lynch people- and they'll be right- we'll have no choice but to absolve them.

I propose not that we disregard the fact that they are white- I propose that we expose what "being white" means and hold all people who continue to adopt such ideologies accountable to the crimes committed by and for White people- isnt that fair?

It solves the matter of determining who is accountable for our current conditions more so than the contrary resolves "the fundamental issue."

The fundamental issue as i see it is that people are indeed different but we shouldnt provide or allow ideologies that profess that any of those people are better, superior, or more evolved than others- that is all that race ideology ever had to offer.

We can continue to support race ideology if you want- but where is the solution in that?



K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
nahymsa
Charter member
1734 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 07:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "I think Spirit asked for an alternative"
In response to Reply # 39


          

You are right in that the government/society imposes "false" classifications. There is no disagreement.

The question NOW is where do you go from there? My point is that whatever the labels used, the point is that like looking people (white for lack of a better term at this time) have conspired together to hold themselves atop everyone & everything else. They use similar appearance & the propogation of those similarities as a basis for unity & advancement of their agenda. The same can be said for male vs female.

So what happens once you get rid of the current labels - how will you prevent the same problems under a different title?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 08:26 AM

  
44. "Thats unreasonable"
In response to Reply # 42


          

"So what happens once you get rid of the current labels - how will you prevent the same problems under a different title? "

All Im advocating is that we use labels that are accurate and true and that the government should disavow recognition and imposition of those labels.

I think anyone who woould claim that they could provide labels that would prevent natural human problems is overstating their beliefs.

The difference between labels and culture whoever is that man chooses a label or has it imposed upon him- culture is something that people grow from not simply something that they would subscribe to.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Sun Jul-30-00 06:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "RE: Thats unreasonable"
In response to Reply # 44


  

          

>"So what happens once you get
>rid of the current labels
>- how will you prevent
>the same problems under a
>different title? "
>
>All Im advocating is that we
>use labels that are accurate
>and true and that the
>government should disavow recognition and
>imposition of those labels.

Again, you avoid the question. You are avoiding the question of the practical consequences of what you are advocating. It's a very interesting theory, but you can't explain how it would operate in practice.

>I think anyone who woould claim
>that they could provide labels
>that would prevent natural human
>problems is overstating their beliefs.

I think a proposed "solution" that doesn't deal with modern problems isn't a solution. If you can't explain how your proposed solution will affect the problems of now, you need to work on your theory a bit more.

>
>The difference between labels and culture
>whoever is that man chooses
>a label or has it
>imposed upon him- culture is
>something that people grow from
>not simply something that they
>would subscribe to.

Ah, the cultural nationalist. The problem with this theory is you can choose to call yourself whatever you want right now. If you want to call yourself a Koalian, you certainly can. Just check "other" in that Census box, chief.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-31-00 03:48 AM

  
57. "spirit likes the yuck"
In response to Reply # 51


          


>Again, you avoid the question. You
>are avoiding the question of
>the practical consequences of what
>you are advocating. It's a
>very interesting theory, but you
>can't explain how it would
>operate in practice.

I already have- getting you to understand such ideas is a different matter.

>>I think anyone who woould claim
>>that they could provide labels
>>that would prevent natural human
>>problems is overstating their beliefs.
>
>I think a proposed "solution" that
>doesn't deal with modern problems
>isn't a solution. If you
>can't explain how your proposed
>solution will affect the problems
>of now, you need to
>work on your theory a
>bit more.

YUCK- look it up. Just because you cant understand doesnt mean its not effective.

>>The difference between labels and culture
>>whoever is that man chooses
>>a label or has it
>>imposed upon him- culture is
>>something that people grow from
>>not simply something that they
>>would subscribe to.
>
>Ah, the cultural nationalist. The problem
>with this theory is you
>can choose to call yourself
>whatever you want right now.

THATS WHAT IM ADVOCTAING AGAINST!!!!!!! Do you think we should be advocating anything different- yeah lets call ourselves whatever we want to nevermind what we really are. WHO NEEDS THE TRUTH.

>If you want to call
>yourself a Koalian, you certainly
>can. Just check "other" in
>that Census box, chief.

Being obstinate only affirms the intelligence of one's own mind. Its like a private joke for one (but everybody else is laughing).

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 09:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
64. "what we really are?"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          

> yeah lets
>call ourselves whatever we want
>to nevermind what we really
>are.

who are we? and what's the scientific and biological basis for who we are?

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
KoalaLove

Tue Aug-01-00 11:12 AM

  
67. "RE: what we really are?"
In response to Reply # 64


          

>> yeah lets
>>call ourselves whatever we want
>>to nevermind what we really
>>are.
>
>who are we? and what's the
>scientific and biological basis for
>who we are?

Umm- we are human spirit- thats something that race ideology doesnt allow for Black people- it claims that were are not as evolved as other humans (specifically whites) that we are more simian in nature and biology.

The biological basis for being African american, or European American, or Asian American, or Indian American, or Native American does not conflict with the biological and scientific premise that we are all human- RACE IDEOLOGY DOES.

keep defending it if ya want- just make sure you realize where its got us so far.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 10:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
75. "RE: what we really are?"
In response to Reply # 67


  

          

Obviously, we are human. We are also Democrats, Republicans, Americans, Africans, Armenians, etc.

Quite simply. group politics are here to stay. And race is just a subset of that (perhaps the most incendiary subset). There is no way to convince a substantial number of people, through argument, to surrender their group membership. Through war, subjugation, and forced assimilation, perhaps, but not through conversation.

Even if you did, other group dividers, equally unscientific, such as nationality, would still persist.

Humanism is a beautiful theory and it would be great to see it implemented. However, currently, the resources of the world are controlled by politics...and politics are controlled by groups.
Certain groups get more than others because of historical reasons (usu. b/c they killed, exploited, or enslaved someone else). Breaking large racial groups into smaller ethnic groups does nothing to redistribute these resources.

Black people currently mobilize ourselves through race. Certainly some black people "look white". Certainly black people have many disparate ethnic and cultural origins. Still, eliminating race as an organizing force just leaves us divided when we most need a united front. (I'm sure you aren't encouraging whites to eliminate their racial group while others maintain their own, as that would be illogical).

You cited "Soul on Ice"...Eldridge Cleaver was a strong believer in racial politics...if you told him your theory on eliminating racial classification at the time he wrote "Soul on Ice", he'd probably call you an Uncle Tom assimilationist...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Sun Jul-30-00 06:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
49. "RE: YUCK"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

>Yuck you're presuming that people are
>stupid and cant see clearly
>beyond race that is just
>not the acse.

Stop saying "yuck" and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Create the hypothetical, from top to bottom. Create the hypothetical case of racial discrimination and how the judge handles the case without acknowledging the existence of race.

> As I
>said does the judge need
>to disavow Christ to judge
>a case on anti-semitic defamation?

No, but the judge has to recognize that different religions exists in order to find religious discrimination. GIVE ME YOUR HYPOTHETHICAL AND STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-31-00 02:58 AM

  
54. "Yuck"
In response to Reply # 49


          

Its your challenge chump- you make up the hypothetical.

Let's say a man of European descent hangs a man of african descent- he's charged with murder and does about 10-15. If we allow evidence of his ideology that goes to premeditation and adds to the punitive damages - now he's doing 25-life.

I dont see why this is so hard for you- read it slowly.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Sun Jul-30-00 06:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
50. "ps:"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

>>Where do you think "white" as
>>an identifier was established. You
>>speak on being scientific. What
>>is your source for the
>>origin of the word "white"
>>as an identifier?
>
>Charles Darwins' "The Origin of Species
>: By Means of Natural
>Selection or the Preservation ofFavored
>Races in the Struggle for
>Life you can find it
>here

So, you actually think Charles Darwin came up with the idea that Europeans are part of a racial group? I have no idea how you could substantiate that. In fact, I don't think you can. European interaction with Native Americans and Africans throughout the colonial period is filled with writings which indicate that Europeans considered themselves superior to both, much of those writings pre-dating Darwin. The world's problems with race precede Darwin, I'm afraid.

>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679600701/qid%3D957368729/sr%3D1-20/104-5523944-2795968
>
>as well as the subsequent writing
>of charles lyle. These books
>provided that race had its
>"scientific" basis in the systems
>of evolution by which professing
>that "white" or "caucasians" were
>more evolved as their features
>were less "simian"

racial division predates any of this.

>>>That presumes that all racial categories
>>>come from the same place
>>>and thats just not true.
>>
>>Where did each racial term originate?
>
>you'll have to signify what you
>mean by "each" Ive already
>told you where "white" racial
>classifications came from; black ideology
>came from the Black power
>movement and pan african movements
>of the 50's and 60's

I don't have to signify anything. Anyone in America knows the general racial classifications: black, white, Asian, Hispanic.

>
>>Why aren;t Russians (from the
>>eastern portion of the old
>>USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"?
>
>I dont know- whats your point?

My point is, all racial classifications are arbitrary, not just the "white" racial classicification. Someone somewhere decided that "Asian" as a racial group did not encompass every human being who lived on the Asian continent.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-31-00 03:11 AM

  
55. "RE: ps:"
In response to Reply # 50


          


>So, you actually think Charles Darwin
>came up with the idea
>that Europeans are part of
>a racial group?

Actually Charles Darwin came up with that particular postualte.

I have
>no idea how you could
>substantiate that. In fact, I
>don't think you can.

Look it up

European
>interaction with Native Americans and
>Africans throughout the colonial period
>is filled with writings which
>indicate that Europeans considered themselves
>superior to both, much of
>those writings pre-dating Darwin. The
>world's problems with race precede
>Darwin, I'm afraid.

Superiority ideologies dont necessarily mean racial ideololgies- race ideologies were fostered as evolutionary science and that would follow the work of charles darwin and charles lyle. Race propogated the Europeans should not only consider themselves better but perpetuate social science that claimed other groups were subhuman- BIG DIFFERENCE.

>>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679600701/qid%3D957368729/sr%3D1-20/104-5523944-2795968
>>
>>as well as the subsequent writing
>>of charles lyle. These books
>>provided that race had its
>>"scientific" basis in the systems
>>of evolution by which professing
>>that "white" or "caucasians" were
>>more evolved as their features
>>were less "simian"
>
>racial division predates any of this.

PROOVE IT! find one book one race classification that precedes evolutionary theory- that's nonsense- that was the whole point- to explain human variance according to evolutionary theory.

>I don't have to signify anything.
>Anyone in America knows the
>general racial classifications: black, white,
>Asian, Hispanic.

Asia is a geographic origin, Hispanic is hardly accepted by several Latino people, Black is a nationalist term that is not officially observed by this nation and white is something signifies no national origin and no cultural origin. does that sound like a stable system of operation to you?

You've forgotten such racial classifications as Caucasian, Negroid, Mongloid, Oriental, Latino, Indian, and Native American where do all those people fit into your "general racial classifications" they dont... and they dont even want to!

>>>Why aren;t Russians (from the
>>>eastern portion of the old
>>>USSR )and Isrealis considered "Asians"?
>>
>>I dont know- whats your point?
>
>My point is, all racial classifications
>are arbitrary, not just the
>"white" racial classicification. Someone somewhere
>decided that "Asian" as a
>racial group did not encompass
>every human being who lived
>on the Asian continent.

No that derives of culture and geographic origin and the history of events. How far did asians travel their continent to make such delineations. Even a laymen's understanding will demonstrate the difference between the two areas; not only is there an obvious cultural variation filled with different traditions and different customs there is also a natural boundary of colder climate and terser terrain that separates the cultures. Thats not arbitrary its a damned mountain range.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 05:51 AM

  
36. "the question"
In response to Reply # 34


          

Here's your answer in a more concise fashion commenting on particular legal events that may rise for your supposition of "colorblind theories"

>The question remains: HOW will the
>anti-discrimination laws be enforced absent
>a recognition of race? Don't
>just make a conclusory statement:
>"judges can figure out a
>way", tell me what basis
>they would use to determine
>*distinctions* b/t the two claimants,
>as a baseline. For example:
>"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>discriminated against him. The judge,
>colorblind, cannot see any distinction
>between the two parties, replies
>"You both look American to
>me, the defendant has 100%
>American workforce (but no "blacks"),
>so I don't see any
>discrimination here". The "black" defendant's
>recourse is what, under your
>theory?

The problem with your question is that up until this point you made no particular details as to the hypothetical case as such i had to answer you in general terms, but even now you preculde to allow us pertinent details on which to effectively judge the case at hand. Furthermore a judge doesnt rule on the on the presumption of things in evidence nor on his perception of those events- a judge can only act on acts committed and acts in evidence. The matter of prejudice may be material to quantifyin punitive measures for acts committed but alone and of themselves its not substantial in the legal system and it cant be prosecuted.

for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where "black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
discriminated against him. Ok now lets establish the facts of the case, was there violence involved, was their demonstrated inequality in treatment of others, what are the inproprieties cited by the plaintiff- and what is the defendant's subsequent rebuttal?

These questions dont even need to involve race as discrimination cases are judged not on the merit of ideologies but rather on the inproprieties committed by the accused party.

In an extreme example- if a White man lynched a man cuz he was Black does the judge need to believe in the racial ideology of either party to convict the white man of murder- nope.

If a White man lynched a guy he thought was a jew but it turned out he was mistaken does he get released cuz the guy wasnt a jew? No because he's being judicated on the grounds of motivated criminal activity - whereby motivation is only a matter of determining punitive damages not necessarily guilt.

In a common example If a company doesnt hire a guy cuz he's Black if they hire somebody of lesser talent then discrimination is not hard to demonstrate or prosecute.

The point is it doesnt matter what either party thinks- that is not what will be prosecuted and i dont think any reasonable person would conclude that people should be prosecuted for their beliefs.

In terms of judicating racial discrimination without adopting racial ideology- we will proceed with little more or less than the status quo...

hereby people are held accountable to their actions not their beliefs- and not your acceptance or dispute of their beliefs.

If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind then give me the electric chari for all my future crimes- prince

K


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 06:00 AM

  
37. "furthermore"
In response to Reply # 36


          

Your argument still presides on the grounds that we must either accept race classification or not and thats just not a reasonable assessment of my ideologies nor do i think its the logical conclusion of the "colorblind theories" as youve presented them.

The fact of the matter is if we are to conduct ourselves and our society farily and truthfully then we are obligated to admit to ourselves and one another that race classifications have no basis in science or biology. Of course we're still aware of it, of course we realize that it has weaved its way throughout our social development, of course we can find non sequitor examples of race ideology that bare some semblance to reality but I see no good reason to continue to allow this to superced the examples of culture and ethnicity that race ideology hopes to obscure and I know you're not suggesting that we go further and consider it the truth.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Sun Jul-30-00 07:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
53. "RE: furthermore"
In response to Reply # 37


  

          

>The fact of the matter is
>if we are to conduct
>ourselves and our society farily
>and truthfully then we are
>obligated to admit to ourselves
>and one another that race
>classifications have no basis in
>science or biology.

That sounds lovely, but I don't see how it solves any of the issues currently facing black people. Folks have been saying "we're all human" for decades now.

also, if race had "no basis in biology", how do you explain the re-occurence of racial traits among certain groups? if your position was correct, two randomly selected "black" parents would be as likely to have a baby with blond hair and blue eyes as two randomly selected "white" parents. clearly, there is *some* biological basis for race division.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-31-00 05:02 AM

  
58. "i just dont give a YUCK!"
In response to Reply # 53


          

>>The fact of the matter is
>>if we are to conduct
>>ourselves and our society farily
>>and truthfully then we are
>>obligated to admit to ourselves
>>and one another that race
>>classifications have no basis in
>>science or biology.
>
>That sounds lovely, but I don't
>see how it solves any
>of the issues currently facing
>black people. Folks have been
>saying "we're all human" for
>decades now.

THIS IS SILLY- that problem IS the very issue that has faced Black people since the beginning of colonialism and racist theory. Its not just the oppression of race ideology it is that the ideology itself encourages such oppression.

Folks may have been saying "we're all human" but as long as we continue to allow people to say they are "white" and as long as we allow the government to recognize them as such then they are quite simply saying that we are all human but some of us are "less human" as that is the idea that race ideology professes. If that is the case then the logical conclusion is that we be dominated by the superior race- i would call that a pretty current problem.

>also, if race had "no basis
>in biology", how do you
>explain the re-occurence of racial
>traits among certain groups?

what traits are those? thick lips, "nappy hair" those are ethnic traits of african peoples. dark curly hair - those would be traits of middle eastern people, red hair- irish peoples etc.

the "racial traits" of white people is that they are supposedly less similar to apes, other traits like plae skin and thin hair strecth across a great number of ethnicities and providing that some of them (like jews) arent considered whites your presumption of "racial traits" falls flat on its face- science and biology doesnt support such claims and neither do all the people who would fall under the category so there's nothing left to substaniate it.

if
>your position was correct, two
>randomly selected "black" parents would
>be as likely to have
>a baby with blond hair
>and blue eyes as two
>randomly selected "white" parents. clearly,
>there is *some* biological basis
>for race division.

Again you're begging the question.

Study genetics there is no genetic difference between supposedly white and supposedly black people. There is howvere a difference in ethnicty and that fosters the variance that you suggest.

if a jewish person had a baby with a so-called "white" person

what would the baby be?

WHO KNOWS!?

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 08:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
60. "back to our regularly scheduled convo"
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

>>>The fact of the matter is
>>>if we are to conduct
>>>ourselves and our society farily
>>>and truthfully then we are
>>>obligated to admit to ourselves
>>>and one another that race
>>>classifications have no basis in
>>>science or biology.
>>
>>That sounds lovely, but I don't
>>see how it solves any
>>of the issues currently facing
>>black people. Folks have been
>>saying "we're all human" for
>>decades now.
>
>THIS IS SILLY- that problem IS
>the very issue that has
>faced Black people since the
>beginning of colonialism and racist
>theory. Its not just the
>oppression of race ideology it
>is that the ideology itself
>encourages such oppression.
>Folks may have been saying "we're
>all human" but as long
>as we continue to allow
>people to say they are
>"white" and as long as
>we allow the government to
>recognize them as such then
>they are quite simply saying
>that we are all human
>but some of us are
>"less human" as that is
>the idea that race ideology
>professes.

frankly, the usage of "white" as a group identifier, even if it was erased, wouldn't change the economic and social status of "black" people.

If that is the
>case then the logical conclusion
>is that we be dominated
>by the superior race- i
>would call that a pretty
>current problem.
>
>>also, if race had "no basis
>>in biology", how do you
>>explain the re-occurence of racial
>>traits among certain groups?
>
>what traits are those? thick lips,
>"nappy hair" those are ethnic
>traits of african peoples. dark
>curly hair - those would
>be traits of middle eastern
>people, red hair- irish peoples
>etc.

exactly. why are two brown people more likely to have a brown baby than two "white" people? if the odds of a baby from similarly hued parents sharing the parental hue (or close to that hue), isn't that *some* biological basis for racial classification? By saying there is *no* biological basis for racial classification, you speak contrary to common sense and basic genetics. Surely you must acknowledge that two "black" parents are more likely to reproduce a "black" baby than two "white" parents.

>the "racial traits" of white people
>is that they are supposedly
>less similar to apes, other
>traits like plae skin and
>thin hair

APES HAVE PALE SKIN AND THIN HAIR (look at a baboon's pink behind for the evidence...under their often black hair, they are pale). Yes, Darwin was wrong about the whole "ape/racial theory". That doesn't mean that there is no validity to racial classification...frankly, the fact that babies from "same race" parents exhibit, more often than not, similar racial traits (hair type, some facial features) is evidence that there is some correlation between racial classification and biology.

>Study genetics there is no genetic
>difference between supposedly white and
>supposedly black people.

there is enough of a genetic difference to result in higher incidences of certain hair types, skin tones, and facial features across racial groups.

> There is
>howvere a difference in ethnicty
>and that fosters the variance
>that you suggest.

Granted, you can break down larger racial groups into ethnicities, but there are also similarities across racial groups. This is how people visually identify race, 99 times out of 100 (surely you will admit that there are physical generalities about blacks as a group that 99% of the time allow you to visually identify someone as "black").

>if a jewish person had a
>baby with a so-called "white"
>person
>
>what would the baby be?

"Jew" has never been one of the main racial types (negroid, caucasoid, mongolian and...??). also, the terminology "black Jew" is indicative implictly of an acknowledgement that Jews are not a homogenous racial group, but rather a diverse ethnic group.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
bluetiger
Charter member
36723 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 10:32 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Phenotypes are not racial characteristics..."
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

Race (for those who skipped genetics class) implies sub-species. Sub-species cannot interbreed or produce offspring. Of the few known exceptions to this rule, the offspring produced is sterile.
What you are arguing is that phenotypes equal racial identifiers, and that is simply not the case. Homo sapiens (which is what we are biologically and scientifically speaking) are for the most part genotypically homogeneous. There is very little real variation. Phenotypically, we span a spectrum/continuum that also has very little variation. We are not comparing house cats and tigers here (two different races). We are talking about homo sapiens/humans (one race). Our phenotypical variation depends largely on climate and selective breeding, which again does not equate to race. You can argue all you want that there are black and white races, but there isn't any real science that will back you up. Thus we only have ethnicities and cultures, and those are closer identifiers of who we really are socially because scientifically we are all pretty much the same.
While this is mainly between you and Koala, I felt the need to explain this from a scientific/common sense perspective. I hope this helps.

Thanks for reading. I love you.


don't be fkn evil.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
KoalaLove

Tue Aug-01-00 11:18 AM

  
69. "Thank you for your help"
In response to Reply # 65


          

Any revelation of truth is a joy to my heart.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 10:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
71. "RE: Phenotypes are not racial characteristics..."
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

>Race (for those who skipped genetics
>class) implies sub-species.

No, it doesn't imply that unless you believe in outdated disproven theories...no modern geneticist would argue that the difference races are "subspecies" of the human race. You must be reading genetics books from the 1850s.

> Sub-species cannot
>interbreed or produce offspring. Of
>the few known exceptions to
>this rule, the offspring produced
>is sterile.
>What you are arguing is that
>phenotypes equal racial identifiers,

That's not what I'm arguing at all. I didn't even use the word phenotypes.

> and
>that is simply not the
>case. Homo sapiens (which is
>what we are biologically and
>scientifically speaking) are for the
>most part genotypically homogeneous. There
>is very little real variation.

But there is some variation. And that variation correlates with racial categorization. Two "black" parents are more likely to produce a brown-skinned baby than two "white" parents. That variation is the basis for racial classification.

>Phenotypically, we span a spectrum/continuum
>that also has very little
>variation. We are not comparing
>house cats and tigers here
>(two different races).

Two different SPECIES.

> We are
>talking about homo sapiens/humans (one
>race).

You are mixing up the concept of species and race. I'd like to see what genetics book you're reading from, I'm sure it's outdated.

> Our phenotypical variation depends
>largely on climate and selective
>breeding, which again does not
>equate to race.

Not in your species/race paradigm, but for folks who use race to categorize folks with minor variations like skin tone and hair texture, those phenological variations, to use your terminology, are how are people are categorized.

> You can
>argue all you want that
>there are black and white
>races, but there isn't any
>real science that will back
>you up.

"real science"? pray tell, what is that?

> Thus we only
>have ethnicities and cultures,

I disagree. How does "ethnicity and culture" explain the likelihood that two "black" parents are more likely to create a child of a certain skin tone/hair texture than two "white" parents? It doesn't.

and
>those are closer identifiers of
>who we really are socially
>because scientifically we are all
>pretty much the same.
>While this is mainly between you
>and Koala, I felt the
>need to explain this from
>a scientific/common sense perspective. I
>hope this helps.

Science and common sense are two seperate concepts. Science often refutes "common sense".

>Thanks for reading. I love you.

I love you too, but I disagree entirely.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
KoalaLove

Thu Aug-10-00 10:52 AM

  
74. "RE: Phenotypes are not racial characteristics..."
In response to Reply # 71


          

>>Race (for those who skipped genetics
>>class) implies sub-species.
>
>No, it doesn't imply that unless
>you believe in outdated disproven
>theories...no modern geneticist would argue
>that the difference races are
>"subspecies" of the human race.
>You must be reading genetics
>books from the 1850s.

Spirit the problem is race has no accurate demonstration if you abandon those premises. Race doesnt exist under any other evidence, under any other property of science. As it comments on the variance of human kind it just holds no weight.

Those genetic books of the 1850's fostered terminology and ideology that is still used today even though we can all admit that science doesnt support the claims we still accept the idea.

Thats what colorblind theory hopes to change.

>> Sub-species cannot
>>interbreed or produce offspring. Of
>>the few known exceptions to
>>this rule, the offspring produced
>>is sterile.
>>What you are arguing is that
>>phenotypes equal racial identifiers,
>
>That's not what I'm arguing at
>all. I didn't even use
>the word phenotypes.

Well- spirit the topic is about the validity of racial classification and in all your arguments against colorblind theory and what havoc it would bring to the judicial system you presumed that there was some practictally valid sense of race that the people in discussion here are willing to serve- I dont think thats case.

without understanding and realizing the simpl premise that is the topic of this discussion you will be at a loss trying to determine its effects on a system that is pervasively corrupted by that ideology.

You still believe it spirit- we cant change that- and you seem think we need to in order to provide these as valid and profound ideas. Sorry dude these truths extend far beyond me and anybody else who speaks in this fashion- this is the truth as demonstrated by nature, history, science, and critical thinking. Common sense may foster something contrary but other than COMMON I dont think common sense has much place around here. These cats is about critical and analitical and activist sense okayplayer?

>> and
>>that is simply not the
>>case. Homo sapiens (which is
>>what we are biologically and
>>scientifically speaking) are for the
>>most part genotypically homogeneous. There
>>is very little real variation.
>
>But there is some variation. And
>that variation correlates with racial
>categorization. Two "black" parents are
>more likely to produce a
>brown-skinned baby than two "white"
>parents. That variation is the
>basis for racial classification.

First your begging the question again. The whole discussion is as to whether or not race is valid or accurate and you presume that it is in order to proceed with your argument. As a correction that variation IS NOT the basis for racial classification, the basis for racial classification is to justify dominance of supposedly less evolved human beings. It wasnt about skin color that was the least of demarcations of race- its was presumed that the features of Negroids and Mongloids were ape-like- moreso than Caucasians. There were light skinned Black people back then (Cleopatra was high yellow) and there were certainly light skinned "mongloids"- the basis of racial classification was to establish a social order by which those people could be dominated and enslaved.

The variation that race classification comments on has been appropriated from other properties as the man says "Our phenotypical variation depends largely on climate and selective breeding, which again does not equate to race." The correlation that race classification brings is only for its own behalf not that it bears out any truth. Much like race culture all evidence of race is by and large stolen from other properties of similar themes. And even in its actuality only serves to deomstrate the initial premise which is that "whites" are more evolved than other "races."

White people can be olive skinned, pale skinned, they can have curly or straight hair of all sorts of colors, noses of all shapes and sizes, national origins that vary and span the globe while no other race has such characteristic inconstistency explain this through race classification. You still have yet to answer the question..

If a white person and a jew have a baby- what race is the baby?

race just doesnt add up

>You are mixing up the concept
>of species and race. I'd
>like to see what genetics
>book you're reading from, I'm
>sure it's outdated.

No you're mixed up in that you think those theories are mutually exclusive- they arent, maybe colloquially we are under the impression that they are but thats just not what the theory has to offer in the case of its doctrine or subsequent considerations.

There isnt a book on racial genetics that isnt "outdated" there have been no further developments on race science- its a lie, why would they continue investigating it?

>> Our phenotypical variation depends
>>largely on climate and selective
>>breeding, which again does not
>>equate to race.
>
>Not in your species/race paradigm, but
>for folks who use race
>to categorize folks with minor
>variations like skin tone and
>hair texture, those phenological variations,
>to use your terminology, are
>how are people are categorized.

those who use race to categorize people- can only be as incorrect as the thoery that they are acting upon. How many times do we have to say it spirit- look it up. THERE IS NO SCIENCTIFIC VALIDITY TO RACIAL CLASSIFICATION AMONG HUMANS.

its just not there you can suppose it exists as a matter of social order and public presumption but you cant grain any other ground as much as you try.

>> You can
>>argue all you want that
>>there are black and white
>>races, but there isn't any
>>real science that will back
>>you up.
>
>"real science"? pray tell, what is
>that?

demonstrative biology, genetics, evidence through science, objective emprical data- none of that can quantify race, none of them can demonstrate it in actuality. And if you havent heard REAl scientists will tell you quite clearly that racial variance in humans is a malicious myth.

>> Thus we only
>>have ethnicities and cultures,
>
>I disagree. How does "ethnicity and
>culture" explain the likelihood that
>two "black" parents are more
>likely to create a child
>of a certain skin tone/hair
>texture than two "white" parents?
>It doesn't.

You're not listening are you... rememeber when he said "Our phenotypical variation depends largely on climate and selective breeding, which again does not equate to race"... this is what culminates in properties of culture and ethnicity- selective breeding, climate, etc those thing very much preside on the basis and correlation of a people's customs and native origin. race classification presides on the basis that one race group is further evolved than others and al subsequent evidences only go back to substantiate the initial claim.

You cant subtract the thesis of the theory and then allow it to exist on the substantiation of its claims- especially when those claims are just as much evidence of other things.

> and
>>those are closer identifiers of
>>who we really are socially
>>because scientifically we are all
>>pretty much the same.
>>While this is mainly between you
>>and Koala, I felt the
>>need to explain this from
>>a scientific/common sense perspective. I
>>hope this helps.
>
>Science and common sense are two
>seperate concepts. Science often refutes
>"common sense".

Well this post is about the science- you can try to post up another one about common sense but i doubt youd find anybody whod be encouraged to go along with popular opinion especially in terms of self determination.

Race is not real- scientifically or biologically- it alarms me that we are obligated to actually argue over the matter.

You people really should know better.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Sun Jul-30-00 07:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
52. "talking long, saying nothing"
In response to Reply # 36


  

          

>Here's
>The problem with your question is
>that up until this point
>you made no particular details
>as to the hypothetical case

up until now, i invited YOU to make up your own hypothetical details by leaving the question open-ended.

>as such i had to
>answer you in general terms,

Scroll back up, you didn't answer at all. The answer to a question starting with "how...?" involves an explanation. Instead of explaining how a judge would handle such a case, you stuck to odd analogies with Jews and gays which did not fit (because in your examples, the judge still would have to acknowledge differences religion or sexuality in order to determine whether discrimination occurred across those lines).

>a judge can only act
>on acts committed and acts
>in evidence. The matter of
>prejudice may be material to
>quantifyin punitive measures for acts

No idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about job discrimination. If the plaintiff can't establish the act was prejudicial (biased against the plaintiff's group membership), there goes his/her case, to keep it simple.

>for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>
>discriminated against him. Ok now lets
>establish the facts of the
>case, was there violence involved,

wtf? it's a discrimination case. "black plaintiff" claims he was not promoted due to blackness. sues for difference in back pay he would have received had he been promoted (which he would have absent his skin color, or so he seeks to show).

>These questions dont even need to
>involve race as discrimination cases
>are judged not on the
>merit of ideologies but rather
>on the inproprieties committed by
>the accused party.

You're babbling here. Discrimination cases ARE judged on something analogous to "ideology", in religious cases for example. The judge must recognize religious difference between the parties to proceed (for if the judge made a factual finding that there was no distinction b/t the religion of the party claiming harm and the party granted the benefit -- here, a promotion -- then discrimination could not be shown on that basis).

Ex: "black" plaintiff claims he wasn't hired due to blackness, yet "white" defendant hired another "black person" to fill the position. "black" plaintiff" claim likely fails.

in your race-ideology world, what occurs in the following scenario, from three parties, all born in Brooklyn: Brooklyn employee ("white") hires Brooklyn construction worker ("white") over another Brooklyn construction worker ("black"). All of the construction workers on site are from Brooklyn (and "white") but there are no "blacks" from Brooklyn hired to the site, ever. How does your philosophy deal with that?

"African" can't be the culture ascribed to "black" people, because (1) all African born people are not "black" and (2) all 'black' people were not born in Africa. Further, most black people in America cannot trace their lineage back to specific ethnic groups (Ethiopia, Egyptian, etc.). Confusing the issue even further, many anthropologists agree that all people originate from Africa.

>
>In an extreme example- if a
>White man lynched a man
>cuz he was Black does
>the judge need to believe
>in the racial ideology of
>either party to convict the
>white man of murder- nope.

We're talkign about job discrimination, not lenching. So, your "extreme example" is actually a worthless example.

>In a common example If a
>company doesnt hire a guy
>cuz he's Black if they
>hire somebody of lesser talent
>then discrimination is not hard
>to demonstrate or prosecute.

You're assuming "talent" is (1) easy to quantify when often applicants have similar credentials and (2) the only thing employers look for (they also look for whether they think the applicant will fit in and other factors). if two applicants are close to equal, one white and one black, and a certain firm continues to hire whites at a disproportionate rate, how could such discrimination be proved if a court did not recognize "whiteness" as an identity trait? "your honor, our firm is very diverse: we have Norwegians, French people, British people..."

>The point is it doesnt matter
>what either party thinks- that
>is not what will be
>prosecuted and i dont think
>any reasonable person would conclude
>that people should be prosecuted
>for their beliefs.

In discrimination law, people are indeed prosecuted for their beliefs if their belief is that certain groups should not be hired, promoted, or housed....

>hereby people are held accountable to
>their actions not their beliefs-
>and not your acceptance or
>dispute of their beliefs.

You're still in the abstract theoretical, not the world of concrete application. How does this work in an actual case?

The question remains...

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
KoalaLove

Mon Jul-31-00 03:38 AM

  
56. "RE: talking long, saying nothing"
In response to Reply # 52


          


>up until now, i invited YOU
>to make up your own
>hypothetical details by leaving the
>question open-ended.

and i did

>Scroll back up, you didn't answer
>at all. The answer to
>a question starting with "how...?"
>involves an explanation. Instead of
>explaining how a judge would
>handle such a case, you
>stuck to odd analogies with
>Jews and gays which did
>not fit

you've allowed it so it must have fit.

(because in your
>examples, the judge still would
>have to acknowledge differences religion
>or sexuality in order to
>determine whether discrimination occurred across
>those lines).

YUCK- the point was that he wouldnt have to adopt ether philosophy to make so a ruling- you left that part out eh sparky. He wouldnt have to be gay, he wouldnt have to be christian, he wouldnt have to be a jew- he would need only understand the ideologies and judge the acts committed.

see it doesnt work if you leave out the conclusion

>>a judge can only act
>>on acts committed and acts
>>in evidence. The matter of
>>prejudice may be material to
>>quantifyin punitive measures for acts
>
>No idea what you're talking about.

then you dont understand law and probablys houldnt bother discussing it

>I'm talking about job discrimination.

which is settled in civil litigation- law

>If the plaintiff can't establish
>the act was prejudicial (biased
>against the plaintiff's group membership),
>there goes his/her case, to
>keep it simple.

but he can establish an act as prejudicial- the judge doesnt need to adopt either philosophy to issue a fair warning. If that plaintiff were Black you're saying the judge would have to consider himself "white" to make a propper ruling. If that plaintiff were gay you're saying that either the judge would have to be gay or homophobic to rule. That doesnt make sense.

>>for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>>
>>discriminated against him. Ok now lets
>>establish the facts of the
>>case, was there violence involved,
>
>wtf? it's a discrimination case. "black
>plaintiff" claims he was not
>promoted due to blackness. sues
>for difference in back pay
>he would have received had
>he been promoted (which he
>would have absent his skin
>color, or so he seeks
>to show).

Yuck- so i can make my own hypothetical unless it doesnt comply with the one you want me to set-up.

this is a horrible discussion

ive already demonstrated how a judge would see this case through. He'd take account of the evidence of disparity and if that is the case who would rule with consideration of ideology which add to punitive measure (calculation, pre meditation, conpiracy etc)

but you dont understand law- so why am i still explaining it?

>>These questions dont even need to
>>involve race as discrimination cases
>>are judged not on the
>>merit of ideologies but rather
>>on the inproprieties committed by
>>the accused party.

>You're babbling here. Discrimination cases ARE
>judged on something analogous to
>"ideology", in religious cases for
>example. The judge must recognize
>religious difference between the parties
>to proceed (for if the
>judge made a factual finding
>that there was no distinction
>b/t the religion of the
>party claiming harm and the
>party granted the benefit --
>here, a promotion -- then
>discrimination could not be shown
>on that basis).

You're a hack-neyed attorney spirit quit guessing at what should happen in court and read a bookj on judicial procedure. A judge cant make any ruling on his presumption of the merit of a belief system. That means he cant hold you accountable for what you think- especially since he can initially only muster his presumption or- what he thinks you think.

Evidence of ideology however can go to characterize acts of calculation which go to punitive considerations.

If a mormon lynched a follower of wicca he would charged with murder and his punitive damages would comply with those of hate crimes as for the premeditation; the judge would neither need to be wiccan or mormon to make a ruling.

>Ex: "black" plaintiff claims he wasn't
>hired due to blackness, yet
>"white" defendant hired another "black
>person" to fill the position.
>"black" plaintiff" claim likely fails.
>
>
>in your race-ideology world, what occurs
>in the following scenario, from
>three parties, all born in
>Brooklyn: Brooklyn employee ("white") hires
>Brooklyn construction worker ("white") over
>another Brooklyn construction worker ("black").
>All of the construction workers
>on site are from Brooklyn
>(and "white") but there are
>no "blacks" from Brooklyn hired
>to the site, ever. How
>does your philosophy deal with
>that?

My philosophy establishes that all the people you just mentioned are being unfairly categorized by racial philosophies that hold no scientific or biological wieght and go to establish nothing but a demeaning social order. As such seeing as this compy has acted in an infringing manner on the basis of the ideology against another citizen then aa a civil crime is demonstrated and proven so too will it be judicated.

>"African" can't be the culture ascribed
>to "black" people, because (1)
>all African born people are
>not "black" and (2) all
>'black' people were not born
>in Africa. Further, most black
>people in America cannot trace
>their lineage back to specific
>ethnic groups (Ethiopia, Egyptian, etc.).
>Confusing the issue even further,
>many anthropologists agree that all
>people originate from Africa.

I dont see what this has to do with anything.

>>In an extreme example- if a
>>White man lynched a man
>>cuz he was Black does
>>the judge need to believe
>>in the racial ideology of
>>either party to convict the
>>white man of murder- nope.
>
>We're talkign about job discrimination, not
>lenching. So, your "extreme example"
>is actually a worthless example.

YUCKITY YUCK YUCK

remember when you said this...

"Create the hypothetical, from top to bottom. Create the hypothetical case of racial discrimination and how the judge handles the case without acknowledging the existence of race."

and then this

"GIVE ME YOUR HYPOTHETHICAL AND STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION."

it went from racial discrimination to job discrimination but all the while you're telling me Im supposed to create the hypothetical from "top to bottom" even.

this is the nastiest debate ive evern seen

>>In a common example If a
>>company doesnt hire a guy
>>cuz he's Black if they
>>hire somebody of lesser talent
>>then discrimination is not hard
>>to demonstrate or prosecute.

>You're assuming "talent" is (1) easy
>to quantify when often applicants
>have similar credentials and (2)
>the only thing employers look
>for (they also look for
>whether they think the applicant
>will fit in and other
>factors). if two applicants are
>close to equal, one white
>and one black, and a
>certain firm continues to hire
>whites at a disproportionate rate,
>how could such discrimination be
>proved if a court did
>not recognize "whiteness" as an
>identity trait? "your honor, our
>firm is very diverse: we
>have Norwegians, French people, British
>people..."

so i guess we're back to you creating this hypothetical again eh. look if a company hires only European american people- then thats still discrimination , easy as that. Any African American still has a very good case. And if we're dealing in your hypothetical were teh parties are close to even well then the plaintiff will have just as hard of a case under either circumstances; although i think hed be better off in the one where the judge wasnt under the ideological impression that that black man subhuman- dont you?

>>The point is it doesnt matter
>>what either party thinks- that
>>is not what will be
>>prosecuted and i dont think
>>any reasonable person would conclude
>>that people should be prosecuted
>>for their beliefs.
>
>In discrimination law, people are indeed
>prosecuted for their beliefs if
>their belief is that certain
>groups should not be hired,
>promoted, or housed....

BULLSHIT- when did you start studying discriminatory law. You can not prosecute someone for what they think- if that were the case we'd all be locked up. It is the thoughts you act upon that will be prosecuted and in that instance the thoughts can only be used to substantiate punitive damages. If their belief is that certain groups should not be hired or promoted they are welcome to such thoughts- the freedom of speech even entitles them to say it; but if they DO IT and ONLY if they do it- then youve got a case against them.

this is ridiculous- this is fundamental law

>>hereby people are held accountable to
>>their actions not their beliefs-
>>and not your acceptance or
>>dispute of their beliefs.
>
>You're still in the abstract theoretical,
>not the world of concrete
>application. How does this work
>in an actual case?

Already told you- and if you think the law is anything more than abract theoretics then thats why you dont understand what im trying to tell you.

>The question remains...

Why do i bother trying?


K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 09:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
63. "The pot calling the kettle..."
In response to Reply # 56


  

          

You have just given definitive proof of your utter stupidity by stating the following:

>but you dont understand law- so
>why am i still explaining
>it?

This from the man who stated:

"If a White man lynched a guy he thought was a jew but it turned out he was mistaken does he get released cuz the guy wasnt a jew? No because he's being judicated on the grounds of motivated criminal activity - whereby motivation is only a matter of determining punitive damages not necessarily guilt."

....not even realizing that there are no "punitive damages" in criminal trials...that's in civil trials.

And, further, from the man who knows I am in law school, who has never been to law school himself, evidences complete ignorance about the law, writes in torturously wordy sentences ("motivated criminal activity") that rarely make a point, and generally fails to read anything the other party says in a debate.

Okay, that said, let me touch the rest of your points and be on my merry way out of this pointless discussion (pointless because what you propose, a name change for whites as a group, won't change the social reality of the world at all).

>you've allowed it so it must
>have fit.
>
>(because in your
>>examples, the judge still would
>>have to acknowledge differences religion
>>or sexuality in order to
>>determine whether discrimination occurred across
>>those lines).
>
>YUCK- the point was that he
>wouldnt have to adopt ether
>philosophy to make so a
>ruling- you left that part
>out eh sparky.

That part doesn't address the question. The judge has to acknowledge difference b/t the parties benefitted and burdened before making a finding that discrimination occurred. I explained this to you already, but you seem to have failed to read it. The judge would have to acknowledge the differences b/t sexual orientation to find discrimination against a gay person occurred...if the judge didn't acknowledge gays as a group, gays would have no protection under anti-discrimination laws. The same holds true for colorblind principle. A judge who does not recognize racial distinctions cannot find racial discrimination.

Now, if you would have said "well, the judge could look at the ethnicity of the parties", that might be compelling, but of course then you have parties of mixed ethnicity (how would a "black" Latino argue that a firm discriminated by only hiring "white" Latinos?). You haven't even attempted to deal with the complexities involved in adopted your "elimination of racial classification" thesis. At this point, I doubt that you can deal with those complexities, esp. since you seem more inclined to say "yuck" than discuss your ideas in any serious fashion.

He wouldnt
>have to be gay, he
>wouldnt have to be christian,
>he wouldnt have to be
>a jew- he would need
>only understand the ideologies and
>judge the acts committed.
>
>see it doesnt work if you
>leave out the conclusion

The ideology of the judge is never supposed to be the issue, because the judge is theoretically impartial (we all know this isn't completely true, but it's what's supposed to happen).

However, much of current discrimination law works on a presumption of racial difference.

You propose to eliminate racial categories (even if it is only the "white" category) without explaining how discrimination law will operate absent the presumption of racial difference (your musings about whether a judge has to be gay to judge gay discrimination completely misses the point and avoids the issue...the analogous situation would be whether the judge believe "gay people" or "straight people" are a group).

>>>a judge can only act
>>>on acts committed and acts
>>>in evidence. The matter of
>>>prejudice may be material to
>>>quantifyin punitive measures for acts
>>
>>No idea what you're talking about.
>
>then you dont understand law and
>probablys houldnt bother discussing it

No, you probably can't write a cogent sentence. The matter of prejudice IS evidence in discrimination cases....it isn't merely used in determining "punitive measures" (again, here you mean to say "punitive DAMAGES"), it is used to determine whether the plaintiff prevails at all. In the absence of establishing the occurrence of discrimination, the plaintiff LOSES...there is no discussion of punitive damages if the plaintiff fails to make the basic elements of his/her case. If you understood law as well as you THINK YOU DO, you would know that.

>>I'm talking about job discrimination.
>
>which is settled in civil litigation-
>law
>
>>If the plaintiff can't establish
>>the act was prejudicial (biased
>>against the plaintiff's group membership),
>>there goes his/her case, to
>>keep it simple.
>
>but he can establish an act
>as prejudicial-

But you made the following fallacious assumption:
"The matter of prejudice may be material to quantifyin punitive measures..." There is no "may" about it...if prejudice isn't established, the plaintiff LOSES THE CASE and cannot receive punitive damages AT ALL. It's not "may be material", it IS material. That's what I meant by "if the plaintiff cannot establish the act was prejudicial...". If you knew the law, I wouldn't have even had to explain that.

> the judge doesnt
>need to adopt either philosophy
>to issue a fair warning.
>If that plaintiff were Black
>you're saying the judge would
>have to consider himself "white"
>to make a propper ruling.

WRONG. You obviously are not reading. THE JUDGE HAS TO ACCEPT RACIAL CLASSIFICATION TO EVEN CONSIDER THE PLAINTIFF "BLACK". All this talk you're spitting about "black" being a term created by 60's nationalists has nothing at all to do with how the vast majority of Americans perceive racial classifications. The average white person considers you black because of your physical appearance, not because a black nationalist said it. The term "black" predates the 60's. "Negro" is Spanish for black and was used for centuries prior to the 60's.

>If that plaintiff were gay
>you're saying that either the
>judge would have to be
>gay or homophobic to rule.
>That doesnt make sense.

You REALLY aren't reading what I'm saying. Quote the language where I said anything CLOSE to that. You can't, because I never said anything close to that. Reading is fundamental.

>>>for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>>>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>>>
>>>discriminated against him. Ok now lets
>>>establish the facts of the
>>>case, was there violence involved,
>>
>>wtf? it's a discrimination case. "black
>>plaintiff" claims he was not
>>promoted due to blackness. sues
>>for difference in back pay
>>he would have received had
>>he been promoted (which he
>>would have absent his skin
>>color, or so he seeks
>>to show).
>
>Yuck- so i can make my
>own hypothetical unless it doesnt
>comply with the one you
>want me to set-up.

Hey, genius, not many discrimination cases involve violence. You're getting discrimination law mixed up with hate crime laws. Yeah, you're right, I'm not going to let you mix up apples and oranges. You already had your chance to make up a hypothetical and failed horrible, coming up with some pretty poor analogies.

>this is a horrible discussion
>
>ive already demonstrated how a judge
>would see this case through.
>He'd take account of the
>evidence of disparity

What evidence of disparity? You say incredibly vague things like this throughout all your posts. If the judge can't find the defendant or its employees to be "white", how can he measure racial disparity where a workplace is all "white"? He can't. That's the issue. He has to determine that the employer has a bias (implicitly, this means he hires one group over another) to find discrimination.

> and if
>that is the case who
>would rule with consideration of
>ideology which add to punitive
>measure (calculation, pre meditation, conpiracy
>etc)

Premeditation is a state of mind, not a "punitive measure". Conspiracy is an act, not a "punitive measure". So, what exactly are you saying? Nothing really...and that's the nature of this whole "discussion". What "ideology" are you talking about? you live on a theoretical cloud and can't seem to come down to the realm of concrete application.

>>>These questions dont even need to
>>>involve race as discrimination cases
>>>are judged not on the
>>>merit of ideologies but rather
>>>on the inproprieties committed by
>>>the accused party.
>
>>You're babbling here. Discrimination cases ARE
>>judged on something analogous to
>>"ideology", in religious cases for
>>example. The judge must recognize
>>religious difference between the parties
>>to proceed (for if the
>>judge made a factual finding
>>that there was no distinction
>>b/t the religion of the
>>party claiming harm and the
>>party granted the benefit --
>>here, a promotion -- then
>>discrimination could not be shown
>>on that basis).
>
>You're a hack-neyed attorney spirit quit
>guessing at what should happen
>in court and read a
>bookj on judicial procedure. A
>judge cant make any ruling
>on his presumption of the
>merit of a belief system.

You're a horrible reader, Koala, quit guessing what I'm saying and read my actual words. And read a book on discrimination law. I'm not talking about the "merit" of a belief system, I'm talking about the judge making a baseline finding that a BELIEF SYSTEM EXISTS. To use your race analogy, instead of saying "whites" are not a group, say "Christians" are not recognized as a religious group. A plaintiff alleges religious bias in hiring against a department store that only hires "Christians". The judge, looking at the statistical evidence, could not find that "Christians" are hired to the detriment of other religious groups if the judge did not recognize Christians themselves as a religious group. The plaintiff couldn't argue "he hired him because they shared a religion" if the judge doesn't recognize that religion exists.

Take this back to the race issue. If a workplace only hired "whites" but "whites" were not recognized as a group, how could you show racial bias? You couldn't, because "whites" wouldn't be recognized as a race.

Also, if you count your fingers, you'll figure out that I've been in law school for two years now, so I've read quite a few books on jurisprudence.

>Evidence of ideology however can go
>to characterize acts of calculation
>which go to punitive considerations.
>
>If a mormon lynched a follower
>of wicca he would charged
>with murder and his punitive
>damages

THERE ARE NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. If you're going to speak about the law, at least get your terms right. Finally, we aren't talking about murder, we're talking about job discrimination. If you don't understand the difference between discrimination law and hate crimes legislation, I'd suggest YOU get some books on the law yourself.

> would comply with those
>of hate crimes as for
>the premeditation; the judge would
>neither need to be wiccan
>or mormon to make a
>ruling.

The judge would, however, have to recognize the distinction between wiccans and mormons, as hate crime law is not applicable to intra-group crimes.

>>Ex: "black" plaintiff claims he wasn't
>>hired due to blackness, yet
>>"white" defendant hired another "black
>>person" to fill the position.
>>"black" plaintiff" claim likely fails.
>>
>>
>>in your race-ideology world, what occurs
>>in the following scenario, from
>>three parties, all born in
>>Brooklyn: Brooklyn employee ("white") hires
>>Brooklyn construction worker ("white") over
>>another Brooklyn construction worker ("black").
>>All of the construction workers
>>on site are from Brooklyn
>>(and "white") but there are
>>no "blacks" from Brooklyn hired
>>to the site, ever. How
>>does your philosophy deal with
>>that?
>
>My philosophy establishes that all the
>people you just mentioned are
>being unfairly categorized by racial
>philosophies that hold no scientific
>or biological wieght and go
>to establish nothing but a
>demeaning social order. As such
>seeing as this compy has
>acted in an infringing manner
>on the basis of the
>ideology against another citizen

An infringing manner? How do you PROVE that? That's the question. How do you prove infringement without saying "this person is white and only hires whites".

> then
>aa a civil crime is
>demonstrated and proven so too
>will it be judicated.
>
>>"African" can't be the culture ascribed
>>to "black" people, because (1)
>>all African born people are
>>not "black" and (2) all
>>'black' people were not born
>>in Africa. Further, most black
>>people in America cannot trace
>>their lineage back to specific
>>ethnic groups (Ethiopia, Egyptian, etc.).
>>Confusing the issue even further,
>>many anthropologists agree that all
>>people originate from Africa.
>
>I dont see what this has
>to do with anything.

What it means is, using "black" as a group identifier is just as arbitrary as "white" as a group identifier. It's always amazing how you can't see how things detrimental to your point "ha(ve) to do with anything".

>>>In an extreme example- if a
>>>White man lynched a man
>>>cuz he was Black does
>>>the judge need to believe
>>>in the racial ideology of
>>>either party to convict the
>>>white man of murder- nope.
>>
>>We're talkign about job discrimination, not
>>lenching. So, your "extreme example"
>>is actually a worthless example.
>
>YUCKITY YUCK YUCK
>
>remember when you said this...
>
>"Create the hypothetical, from top to
>bottom. Create the hypothetical case
>of racial discrimination and how
>the judge handles the case
>without acknowledging the existence of
>race."

LENCHING IS DISTINCT FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Lenching is a criminal offense, job discrimination (how I meant "racial discrimination" in the context of this entire discussion) is a civil offense.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
KoalaLove

Tue Aug-01-00 11:09 AM

  
66. "Yawn"
In response to Reply # 63


          

Lets keep it simple.

In all the analogies of jews and gays you can only determine that the judge must "acknowledge" their supposed groups yet and still you insist that the judge must "ACCEPT" race category and race ideology in order to rule.

Sorry spirit- acceptance and acknowledgement are two different things you know that. If you insist tht the judge must accept race ideology in order to acknowledge the inproprieties of either group then the analogy must be applied laterally and that is to say the judge must also be gay to rule on cases about gay people.

All Im saying is there is no excuse for "ACCEPTING" race ideology in social order- if we do not allow this people are still allowed to "acknowledge" it or even believe in it as they see fit or as they would with any faith (faith- and idea that is not substantiated by science or nature- kinda like race isnt it?). As for judges- being that they are supposedly "impartial" then perhaps they SHOULD be prohibitted from allowing such ideologies to influence their judgement- but it doesnt mean that if a white person came in the courtroom the judge's hands would be tied- thats preposterous (you tend to do that alot)

The problem with your extremist argument is that you suppose there is no middle ground between telling the lie and acting as if the lie does not exist- there Is a middle ground its called telling the truth.


Any person that says they are "white" but does not admit and accept the premises of that ideology is NOT telling the truth.

Any government that encourages people to classify themselves under such ideologies and professes that they are a valid means of quantifying human kind- is also not telling the truth.

Anybody who claims that a judge is only beholden to "acknowledge" certain ideologies but endorses and encourages that the same judge should "accept" the implicitly prejudicial and demaning ideology of race is tad confused.


K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
KoalaLove

Tue Aug-01-00 11:16 AM

  
68. "Simpler than that"
In response to Reply # 66


          

If a man is accused of discriminating against all non purple people and subsequently is proven to be under the impression that he is purple would a judge have to accept that that man is purple to charge him with discrimination?

obviously not, the analogy is pure and simple spirit, the judge can acknowledge that the guy thinks he is purple but he doesnt have to accept that to rule on acts of commission (namely discrmination).

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 10:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
73. "RE: Simpler than that"
In response to Reply # 68


  

          

Current discrimination law does not protect "non-purple people" from discrimination, as a group. If a white male made a claim that he was a non-purple person who was discriminated against, his claim would thus fail. Discrimination law is based on a statutory and/or common law recognition
of a group's existence. That's what I've been trying to explain to you all along.

If race "doesn't exist", modern discrimination law couldn't protect anyone against racial discrimination, because "racial minorities" couldn't claim membership in any recognized protected group.

Breaking protected groups down into ethnicities would be highly problematic, as there would be no relief from those discriminated against by believers in old racial ideology. This is the problem in eual protection cases now under the current Supreme Court...they are "colorblind" in a world where color still matters very much.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
KoalaLove

Thu Aug-10-00 11:00 AM

  
76. "Yuck spirit"
In response to Reply # 73


          

You purposefully glanced over the discrepancy you perpetrated between acknowledgement and acceptance. I pointed it out to you- you dodged it.

"Discrimination law is based on a statutory and/or common law recognition of a group's existence."

Then you must agree that the court need only recognize the group's views and not adopt their ideology. Much like jews they can be recognized for their ideology but the courts are not obliged to accept that ideology. In the case of rac- the courts can acknowledge the racial ideology of the people in question but it does not need to accept that ideology nor encourage other people to go along with it.

DO YOU DISAGREE?

If the judge adopts the ideology of a defendant that is implicitly demeaning and discriminatory to Blacks then how could he ever be impartial. On this matter all you can demonstrate is the status quo and how it has led to a very disparaging judicial system in regards to how it handles Black people- this evidence doesnt make your claims look very good.

The courts dont do much good protecting us from discrimination as it is- as such going along with it is hardly a solution.


K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
spirit
Charter member
21338 posts
Thu Aug-10-00 10:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
72. "RE: Yawn"
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

>Sorry spirit- acceptance and acknowledgement are
>two different things you know
>that. If you insist tht
>the judge must accept race
>ideology in order to acknowledge
>the inproprieties of either group
>then the analogy must be
>applied laterally and that is
>to say the judge must
>also be gay to rule
>on cases about gay people.

No, the judge just has to understand that gays are a group which can be discriminated against. Discrimination law is based on group theory. There is no legal remedy for "individual discrimination" ("they didn't hire me because I'm me"), only group-based discrimination ("they didn't hire me because I'm black/gay/Catholic, etc"). Non-recognized groups (ugly people, for example) cannot find relief under discrimination law because they are not legally recognized as a group...thus, you could not prevail in court arguing that you were discriminated against because you were ugly, under current discrimination law.

If your proposal were adopted, "racial" groups would be broken down into ethnic types. Because many ethnic backgrounds cross racial barriers (a black person with an Irish paternal grandfather, a Jamaican paternal grandmother, an African-American maternal grandmother, etc...would be classified as what?). In a group-based form of law like discrimination law, splintering large groups into potentially hundreds of small factions based on ethnicity and culture would impractical and IMHO, unworkable.

>As
>for judges- being that they
>are supposedly "impartial" then perhaps
>they SHOULD be prohibitted from
>allowing such ideologies to influence
>their judgement- but it doesnt
>mean that if a white
>person came in the courtroom
>the judge's hands would be
>tied- thats preposterous (you tend
>to do that alot)

Their hands wouldn't be tied, it would just be immeasurably more difficult to prove discrimination. The ethnic histories of the parties would have to be determined, where in most racial cases, the race of the parties is physically apparent and accepted as a given, based on skin tone/hair texture, etc.

>The problem with your extremist argument
>is that you suppose there
>is no middle ground between
>telling the lie and acting
>as if the lie does
>not exist- there Is a
>middle ground its called telling
>the truth.

There is no "truth". Ethnicity, such as Russian, French, German, etc. isn't based on scientific principles any more than race, because what's the true difference (beyond culture) between an **American** of French-German descent and an American of Irish-French descent? After years of integration, the difference is nil. Would you extend discrimination law to cases involving a lack of people of Irish descent in a management structure?

>Any person that says they are
>"white" but does not admit
>and accept the premises of
>that ideology is NOT telling
>the truth.

Actually, most white people just consider themselves white because society says so. Same with black people. If a black baby was born in a "white" town where no one made note of his/her race at all, that baby would have no racial consciousness, regardless of perceived biological differences in skin tone/hair texture. Racial consciousness is societal.

>Any government that encourages people to
>classify themselves under such ideologies
>and professes that they are
>a valid means of quantifying
>human kind- is also not
>telling the truth.

The government...you keep harping on that. However, it's PEOPLE moreso than any official government policy that keeps race intact. People comprise the government anyway...I tire of people who refer to 'government' as if government is on some mountaintop...the people ARE the government....they elect (and ARE) the officials who run it, they staff the public agencies.

>Anybody who claims that a judge
>is only beholden to "acknowledge"
>certain ideologies but endorses and
>encourages that the same judge
>should "accept" the implicitly prejudicial
>and demaning ideology of race
>is tad confused.

Not really. There is nothing implicitly demeaning about race, unless you question the entire black liberation struggle. Noting your racial background is a means of creating group solidarity. It's based on physical racial traits such as skin tone/hair color, which generally appear throughout the racial group (there are exceptions to everything of course, thus there are blacks who "look white", but can trace their immediate ancestry to someone who "looks black").

This is the OkayActivist board. I don't see any activism in your ideology...changing the names doesn't change the social reality...if whites are broken into their individual ethnic groups, those ethnic groups still control a disproportionate amount of the world's resources.

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.

Peace,

Spirit (Alan)
http://wutangbook.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 03:57 AM

  
33. "RE: Color blindness"
In response to Reply # 30


          


>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

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
TinkyWinky
Charter member
2726 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 06:59 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "my god...."
In response to Reply # 24


          

i quote myself: "come to this board if you want to watch okayplayers koalalove and spirit fight to the death about anything and everything."

http://www.greatergood.com (hit two in one now)

i held out, but i finally put an IM in my sig. me and steve talking isht about biz markie:
Gigfog: He scares me alot
Gigfog: he's like king kong
Xkrh1X: LOL
Xkrh1X: you're fucked up
Gigfog: I saw him at the hotel with a biz markie sweater on LOL
Gigfog: I was like "why wear a sweater with your name on it?"
Xkrh1X: in case he forgets
Xkrh1X: lol
Gigfog: HAHAHAHa
Gigfog: just in case he gets lost..the police can contact his owner
Xkrh1X: yeah, you didn't see, but it has his address and a contact number on the back
Gigfog: hAHAHA
Xkrh1X: "if found, please call..."
Gigfog: and his proof of rabies vaccination?
Xkrh1X: LOL
Gigfog: man I am mean
Gigfog: LOL
Xkrh1X: yeah, you also may have just made my signature
Xkrh1X: lol

Stevelover and the purple Tubber: confusing freestyle suckas into a three-count pin

"Where the F*CK is my purse icon??????"

:::::::::::::
"And I know what the fuck an option quarterback is. He's the black QB under six feet that ends up being converted to wide receiver once he's selected on day two of the NFL draft because he can't hit the ocean from the edge of a boat."

--

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
MicheleQJ
Charter member
5380 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 07:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
41. "RE: my god...."
In response to Reply # 40


          

self-fulfilling prophesy---youve subliminally implated it in their brains....


"Well, I like to eat, sleep, drink, and be in love.
I like to work, read, learn, and understand life." - Langston Hughes "Theme for English B"

http://myspace.com/139003080
http://www.last.fm/user/micheleqj/
http://myspace.com/alluswe
http://myspace.com/fermentedspirits
http://www.last.fm/music/Alluswe

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
fire
Charter member
111370 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 09:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "it'll make you second guess urself......"
In response to Reply # 41


          

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane


________________________________________
who gonna check me boo?!

www.twitter.com/firefire100
http://instagram.com/firefire100
www.philadelphiaeagles.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

nappiness
Charter member
1145 posts
Tue Jul-25-00 05:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "RE: Why Race is Not Real...Scientifically Speaking"
In response to Reply # 0


          

general response to this whole race issue.
i agree that race is a social construct. but as an educator when i see children whose skin color is brown and black not receive the same resources as children whose skin color is pale then this whole argument means nothing to me. yeah there are pale skinned children getting the short end of the stick in this country but there is a disproportionate number of brown and black skinned children getting the short end. for brown and black skinned people socio-economic status and skin color are synomyns, b/c there is a disproportionate number of black and brown skinned poeple living below the poverty line. to me this whole debate is just an argument that intelligensia and academicians fight about in scholarly journals. a hypothetical question is, how does this argument play out in real life?
Nappiness is next to Godliness!!!
"To thy ownself be true"
Ms. Nappiness

---------------
Veronica-Precious
'Moon'

Check out my publishing company
UnSilenced Woman Press
www.unsilencedwomanpress.com


AquaMoon
Aqua Beats and Moon Verses: Volume I
http://www.spokenexistence.com/aqua_moon.html

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
KoalaLove

Wed Jul-26-00 05:26 AM

  
27. "In real life.."
In response to Reply # 26


          

They use this term and ideology to quantifu and substantiate such things as social order and census taking- things supposedly meant to accomadte fair distribution of resources among US citizens.

If the means by which they quantify us is not fair and furthermore false and demeaning then there's no suprise why the resulting resource distribution is as you indicate in such dire straits.

Think about it for a second- you claim there are a few "white" families suffering under poverty now weigh them against the acerage "white" family and then again weigh them cumulatively against the Black community.

At this point you've provided a pervasively confused equation and propose to redeem fair distribution- its just not gonna happen.

Until we beginning classifying people fairly and accurately the powers that be (those who are effectively concealed by such classifications) will continue to flourish while we fight amongst the scraps.

If the Black community gets the resources it needs- those funds will more than likely come from rural (supposedly) "white" communities while the rich "white" communities go unnoticed; they will be absolved by the race politics that you seem to think are benign. the statistics of their community resources will look promising but there will still be a great discrepancy between the upper and middle class- the Black community will still progress no farther than that middle class.

Realzing the fallacy of race classification means that we will all be counted fairly and not according to presumptions of superiority, majority, or even the mere hopes to be on the winning team. In the real world it means that we classify ourselves and distribute our resources according to who is in need and not some false notion of who we think we are.

K


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
nappiness
Charter member
1145 posts
Thu Jul-27-00 07:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "RE: In real life.."
In response to Reply # 27


          

i was just wondering why is Black capitalized and w/out quotations and white is lowercase and with quotations? did i miss someting in a previous discussion about this.
may i ask, a. what is or was your field of study, if you attended university?
b. what do you do for a living?
i ask these things b/c it helps in discussing things with you.

Nappiness is next to Godliness!!!
"To thy ownself be true"
Ms. Nappiness

---------------
Veronica-Precious
'Moon'

Check out my publishing company
UnSilenced Woman Press
www.unsilencedwomanpress.com


AquaMoon
Aqua Beats and Moon Verses: Volume I
http://www.spokenexistence.com/aqua_moon.html

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
KoalaLove

Thu Jul-27-00 08:37 AM

  
45. "RE: In real life.."
In response to Reply # 43


          

>i was just wondering why is
>Black capitalized and w/out quotations
>and white is lowercase and
>with quotations?

Black is a term signifying the Black nation a movement of cultural pride that swelled about the 1950's and 60's- that is the cultural and national identity that i refer to and it regards a very specific and demonstrative set of customs traditions- it harkens on particular doctrine- and bears out as a succint admission of geaographical and native origin- as such I dont use quotes. The term "white" evolves from racist theories that contemporary "white" people either, disregard, disavow, or dont even know about that when challenged fall aparts on such grounds as science, biology, national origin, cultural merit, and socio/anthropological logic as such my using the term "white" must be signified by the idea that it is a demonstratively misguided and false notion of self determination.

>did i miss
>someting in a previous discussion
>about this.

yes

>may i ask, a. what is
>or was your field of
>study, if you attended university?

I did attend a university and my area of study was art. (aside from my initial intent which was to follow law and apply for the FBI)

>b. what do you do for
>a living?

I do me drawerings- comic books are coming soon to a store near you.

>i ask these things b/c it
>helps in discussing things with
>you.

ok

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
nappiness
Charter member
1145 posts
Fri Jul-28-00 02:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "RE: In real life.."
In response to Reply # 45


          

but if you are saying let's do away with such terms as Black and white how are we still to use these words with a twist on the definition?
Nappiness is next to Godliness!!!
"To thy ownself be true"
Ms. Nappiness

---------------
Veronica-Precious
'Moon'

Check out my publishing company
UnSilenced Woman Press
www.unsilencedwomanpress.com


AquaMoon
Aqua Beats and Moon Verses: Volume I
http://www.spokenexistence.com/aqua_moon.html

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
KoalaLove

Fri Jul-28-00 03:12 AM

  
47. "RE: In real life.."
In response to Reply # 46


          

>but if you are saying let's
>do away with such terms
>as Black and white how
>are we still to use
>these words with a twist
>on the definition?

What you will find is that Im not discussing a 'twist' on the definition it is in fact the contemporary casual acceptance of such terms and the pervasive ignorance as to their real meanings that is twisted.

Im not saying let's do away with such terms (and that makes about 5 times ive said this) Im saying we must take a look at what these words mean and understand that they either seriously demonstrative of our struggle or have had a serious effect on the social order. Its one thing to tolerate people who believe it- but to allow a major system of goverment to impose it upon the masses is sinister.

Its about time we eliminate racist theory from social order- we've seen quite clearly where it leads and to continue to follow behind it trying to repair the destruction it leaves behind is futile.

Black people as a community need to understand that a conspiracy is not always a matter of targetting a group but moreso benefitting one's own group. The problem with racism in this country is not so much what "they" do to us- but what "they" think of themselves... as what they think of themselves has encouraged them to unreasonable dominance

DONT LET THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGE THEM ANY FURTHER.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
illosopher
Charter member
596 posts
Fri Jul-28-00 03:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "I agree Koala"
In response to Reply # 47


          

If we ever hope to reach equality we must strip the superficiality from our visual perspectives. This also goes fo gender also but that's a whole other thing. As long as we look at each other by these arbitrary juvenile terms, we will never free our minds to allow us to see people as they truly are. Until we can see each other as humans without all the bullshit terminology.(we may think they are convienient but they only trivialize our existance into a handful shortsighted descriptions like the Black guy wit a bald head, the short white girl, the thick black girl, etc.) We you look at it you see how simple minded this approach is, those who choose to accept this outdated detrimental philosophy openly endorse the the negative results it produces. Those who are vehemntly against racial classification openly champion the cause of opening our hearts and minds in the hopes creating a better tommorrow.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

NiaRa

Wed Jul-26-00 06:17 AM

  
28. "truth indeed"
In response to Reply # 0


          


This would be infact very easy to realize if one would just observe the way our brothas and sistahs on other lands defines their existence

I recall my mother being very insulted if some one called her black.
In lands foreign to America there is no color or race concept… there is only a name that is determined by origin lineage or birthplace

But see… the problem lies in trying to convince those African people who were born in America this. Because of history and circumstance being called an American is most times not acceptable so the easiest way out is to be “Black” no past… no origin just “Blackness”
I also have a problem with the whole African American thing… that may seem like the way… but that is also a very divisive and shallow way to define yourself.

Because there is then the issue of people not considering those of us who were not born in Africa or America… African or “Black”


as i paint to the wind's breath
freestyle to my footsteps
and create till the heartbeat's got no rhythm left...
-archangel_500years

So my path switches
Now devoted to uncovering all the glitches
That they left when they tried to hide my past
Under vast lies and advertisement pitches
So I dig deeper than subterranean level ditches
Deeper than the seeds of hate planted over those of vitality
Deeper than the hole I dug my self in when I was slaving for a salary
Deeper than the sin soil that his roots were cowardly planted in
Deep enough to find my soul again
And bring an end to confusion and fallacy
I must go deeper
-Amina NiaRa (deeper existence)





  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
KoalaLove

Wed Jul-26-00 10:34 AM

  
29. "Very good..."
In response to Reply # 28


          

The term Blackness does derive from ideas of origin and culture. as ive said before Black was a nationalist term that rose out of the militant sixties and implicit in the term is that it refers to the cultural heritage of african american (in the geological sense) and colored (in the social sense) people.

'Black' does not connote the same fallacious claims of race ideology or classification as Black was never an idea offered or supported by race doctrine. In that Black is a lateral or equal term to "white" its easy to admit that racists would have nevere included this idea in the original doctrines of race and to this day those ideas have yet to be changed.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

KoalaLove

Tue Aug-01-00 03:22 AM

  
59. "The greatest trick spirit ever pulled..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

...convincing the world he didnt exist.

and just like that (poof)

hes gone

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
fire
Charter member
111370 posts
Tue Aug-01-00 09:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "haahahahaha"
In response to Reply # 59


          

u're funny

_______________________________
Celebrating Bitch Month

23july2000
u can't have my fire/they fear'd ur flame/& so sprayed caustic foam out of dbl sided lips/speakin like pale faces
w/broken peace pipes/U BLK/U UGLY/U
INK SPOT/which in it's translation of nigganglish resounded to/I AM BLK/
I AM UGLY/I DON'T HAVE IT SO I CAN'T WANNA LOVE U/beautiful transcriptionist u are...dark elegy/that heightens midnight stars/which pale in daylight
u spot of convection.../u say fierce real slow & be sayin "fire"/turn ur faces now to ur bricked bahamanian sphinx/look at her in ur wanton NEED
to be DARK as the meetin of mary's thighs/to be as BLK as sun spots
as UGLY as her heretofore eradicated nose/LOOK!!! at that blk girl gone blk
gone blue beyond blue beyond u
lookit fire y'all... leavin them w/burnt faces -k l moore
one...- the bad bitch asighn4jane


________________________________________
who gonna check me boo?!

www.twitter.com/firefire100
http://instagram.com/firefire100
www.philadelphiaeagles.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

KoalaLove

Wed Aug-02-00 05:53 AM

  
70. "The bottom line- especially for spirit"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Look- our discussion is way off topic. i know law is your passion but whatever disruption my views have the potential of causing that system are long overdue and certainly not of the nature unlike anything current in judicial proceedings.

You say my views would mean that courts couldnt handle discrimination cases effectively- I think many would insist that the courts DONT handle them effectively as it is. You flip back and forth between the matter of a judge accepting and acknowledging race but from the very start I have never ruled out that a can judge can and should still acknowledge the ideologies in question- in fact i insisted that this is the EXACT fashion in which an impartial judge would proceed. you ruled that out and said the judge is obligated to accept race- thats just not reasonable and its certainly not demonstratd by the analogies that i presented (analogies that you cleverly avoided).

The thing is Spirit- in all your posturing on legal matters the topic at hand is stil whether or not race is validated by science and the answer is simply NO. You can argue with me about how it might affect our system of government but i dont really care as its is the truth. The truth rarely has a beneficial affect on politics- especially when those polotics are geared towards perpetuating lies.

Truth be told it may wreak havor on the system- but that havoc is certainly not something that it hasnt brought on itself and i think the sysem has demonstrated quite clearly that it can handle the occassional shaking and often deserves one. In this case I only ask the American system to admit what race is- but you propose that they engender the lie so that we the oppressed can be provided for. You're advocating that those who have been systematically oppressed continue to have faith in that system and to even honor the label that which the oppressor regards and benefits himself with.

I have no such faith- nor such honor.

bottom line:

I would rather have a government be undermined by the truth than overraught with lies.

K

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #22695 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com