Americans Now support Interacial Dating

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Nygdan, your last post has made me wonder: what are races then, at least by the definition you're going with? What requirements are there for a "biological" race, as opposed to the "social" races we've been discussing in here? Just curious...




posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
what are races then, at least by the definition you're going with?

I use the fuzzy sociao-culture definition of races. IE, when I say 'black' we all tend to know what I am talking about in general, because we as a society agree, in general, who's black and who's not. Of course, ther eare lots of individuals who we'd all tend to disagree on. With 'white', its even more problematic, because some don't consider hispanics white, some don't consider some hispanics white, some wouldn't consider jews white, others question if sicilians or greeks are white, and if greeks are white then what about turks, etc etc.



What requirements are there for a "biological" race

A biological species is defined (or or less, there are varying defintions and some disagrement on it) as a group that can't breed with another group, ie if you have two populations of insect that can't inter-breed to produce viable offspring, then they are seperate species. A species has all sorts of things that help 'maintain it' and that set up barriers to hold it together, like this incompatibility of breeding. Thats a species. A race would of course be a subdivision of a species, but I'd expect that it'd have to have something similar going on with it, ie some sort of biological mechanism to 'maintain it', along with, say, a suit of characteristics (or perhaps even a single characteristic) that identifies it.
However, it gets tricky, because there are subdivions within species that are not races, these are called demes. A deme is merely a population that tends to associate with one another that lives in a specific location. So arabs in the suburbs or detroit might be said to represent a deme, since arabs culturally tend to not breed outside of what htey recognize as their race and we're talking about people in a specific locality. But 'arab' doesn't become a race there because people in, say, iraq don't tend to mix with people from libya and yemen, or arabs from detroit. Blacks in america, for example, might be thought of as a deme I suppose, but black in total isn't a deme, since people in harlem aren't exchanging genes with people in ghana or swaziland.
Indeed, rate of gene transfer might also be a good way to identify a deme.

So we recognize that a race should be intermediate between a deme and a species, and probably 'lower' in category than a sub-species. I would say that a deme that has been isolated for a long time, or that has accumulated some characteristics that really distinguish it, might categorize as a race. Problem is, (well, not really a 'problem'), there aren't any groups of humans that have had this happen with them. There is gene flow, even if not actual inter-mixing of individuals, between all the populations. If a race were to ever exist, I'd think it'd've been in australia, where the inhabitants are severly isolated, or on any one of the various polynesian islands. But they all end up not being nearly as isolated as one would require, or as having arrived there too recently to have accumulated enough differences.
And of course in the modern era mixing increases dramatically.

Here is an abstract of a paper on race formation within insects, for example.
At other times, a race is used to describe a species within a genus where teh members are all very similar, as in here. This obviouly doesn't apply to man tho.

There also used to be something called a 'sport' in biology, but I don't think that that usage is really used anymore and its probably too archaic to be relevant.


Basically, i'd like to see, say, some definition of race, or 'diagnosis' of any particular race, that makes sense. Skin colour isn't enough, and anything anyone picks is just too arbitrary of a divison, picking a point in a spectrum and saying 'thats where it is'.



as opposed to the "social" races we've been discussing in here?

A socially defined race has no requirements, other than that some people recognize it. So in the past we had the latin race, or the gallic race, but today society is different and we have white, black, etc.


edit:

So i just want to add, if there was a sensible biological basis for the existence of races in man, then, despite what anyone wants in terms of being socially cordial and pc and all that, it'd be irrational to not recognize these races and act and respond appropriately with that biological 'fact'. There just happen to not be any races in man. Man is, stunndingly and soberingly, incredibly invariant, all men are simply too similar. Man has, so I have read, less genetic diversity than the Chimps, which is simply stunning, because all chimps look pretty much the same to me, to amoung themselves, they must recognize an undreamt of diversity compared to man.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Thanks Nygdan, I appreciate it
I've got a few more questions, but I think it might be more appropriate to place those in a different thread in ATS.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hmm intresting, twisted aspects to what is race, and how it's define, Ho weird? Most of those arguments still will not convince me on this issue on interacial dating.

Ask me why I have so much hatred against interacial marriages.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader
Hmm intresting, twisted aspects to what is race, and how it's define, Ho weird? Most of those arguments still will not convince me on this issue on interacial dating.


I'm curious as to what you mean by "twisted"; seemed rather rational to me.



Ask me why I have so much hatred against interacial marriages.


Okay, I'll bite; why do you harbor so much hatred?

---------

I was getting started on the post I was referring to earlier, and decided it's only a couple of questions and not really worth a seperate thread.

Wouldn't what we term as "race" for humans be consistent with what we term as "breed" for animals? Same species, same animal all around, just different coloration and features. Genetically compatible as far as breeding is concerned, and while the physical differences between an Asian and a Hispanic aren't as drastic as those between a pit bull and a great dane, there are some traits aside from color that aren't the same.

Thinking about it a little further Nygdan, wouldn't a deme possibly be more directly applicable to a culture than a race? I can see it applying to racial seperation, but it seems to me that it would be more reasonable to assume someone growing up as a muslim would stick with muslims, regardless of their skin color, same with christians, people growing up in a particular integrated neighborhood, etc. I don't know if I'm making myself clear enough or not on that....



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader
Ask me why I have so much hatred against interacial marriages.


Well, why?


On the 'race' issue, I used to go with a black man from Africa (for about 1.5 years, and although we had fights, I never even thought of using the 'n' word, by the way)
He said that a person that has ANY black ancestors is considered black, even if they have blond hair and fair skin, he considers them black.

So, when a white person and black person have a child, is it black? If that kid marries a white person and they have a 'white-looking ' kid, is he black? Why does black take precedence over white?

What is 'black' if not just a color? I could be African-American if I came from Africa and lived in the US now, right? But that wouldn't make me black. My boyfriend was African.

If you're born in America and raised in American culture, it really doesn't matter what shade your skin is or what your ancestors went through, you're an American. I don't call myself Scotch-Irish-American or Native- American-American. I was born here! I'm an American and it matters not the color of my skin or what my ancestors endured.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
First off, race exists as a biological entity. Its pure PC garbage to say otherwise. Saying race does not exist except politically and socially is pure blind PC nonsense. Its like saying that different breeds of dog and cat dont exist. Thats what race is. Its a breed of humans. And each breed has its own defining characteristics and predisposition to problems medically. No breed is superior to another breed, except in personal preference. But to deny race is to endanger people for a ;political goal. It has been found in many studies that different drugs and medications are not metabolized the same by whites. blacks, and asians. Most medical research was done on whites, thus, it wasnt till recently scientists discovered that good ol beta blockers did not metabolize or work as well for blacks as they did for whites. And many studies show various birth control medications have a higher failure rate in asians.

That said, I find nothing wrong with different breeds of human breeding outside their breed. The results of such intermarriage and mixing of genes are often extremely fascinating and attractive physically, plus the resulting "mutt" is extremely healthy and resistant towards disease.

I myself have no real interest in dating outside my race, although I have dated persons of mixed race and enjoyed myself. I have no problem with other people dating other races, more power to them. Out of 8 grandchildren my granny had, 5 married outside their race and had beautiful, healthy kids. Thier spouses are wonderful.

But I object to being called racist simply because I date strictly white people. Its my preference. Its what I like. I am not attracted to persons of other races, thus, I stick with who I am attracted to. I have no problems with casual or close friendships with other race people. And if a friend or family member marries or dates someone not their race, I do not object, and would support them as long as the person was decent.

But I say again, simply because a person dates exclusively within their own race does not make them haters.

To answer another question, interacial mating doesnt necessarily increase genetic diversity, but it does create genetyic strength. Just like mixing two breeds of dog makes a healthier, unique animal, mixing two humans of different race breeds a healthy, unique individual.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
But I object to being called racist simply because I date strictly white people. Its my preference. Its what I like. I am not attracted to persons of other races, thus, I stick with who I am attracted to.


Again, by definition, that is racist. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, an action based strictly on race is racist. Qualifying that statement by saying "I haven't been attracted to a (black/asian/whatever) yet" is a different story because then you're removing (or at least reducing) the racial basis of it. You turn it into an action based on individual qualities you have perceived without including a rather large group of people.



But I say again, simply because a person dates exclusively within their own race does not make them haters.


The term racist, by definition, does not directly relate to hate. That's merely the connotation it has gotten over the years (and deservedly in most instances as well.) Racist ONLY MEANS of or pertaining to race. Making a racist choice does not automatically include you in line with the KKK.

If a movie script calls for a black man to play a part, that is a racist script; hiring a black man to play that part is a racist decision. It's not racist because they have something against white people, nor something against black people, it's racist because they are making a choice based solely on race. That's it. It does not mean that the casting crew, the script writer, the producer, the director, etc. hate any particular race or have ultimate love for any particular race.

Am I just that dense? What exactly am I missing here; I thought the definition of racism was pretty straight forward, but I seem to be in the minority here...



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
Again, by definition, that is racist. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, an action based strictly on race is racist.


I am with you. I think an action based on race is racist. It does seem we are in the minority, though, even according to most dictionaries, which define racism as:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Racism has meant different things over the years so it's hard to nail down a definition, as it is with many 'isms'. Terrorism, for example.



Am I just that dense? What exactly am I missing here; I thought the definition of racism was pretty straight forward, but I seem to be in the minority here...


I would say when discrimination, hatred and other prejudices come in the term changes to racial discrimination, racial superiority and racial steroetype. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a white girl...

I do know that when a family member of mine said that black people shouldn't have pets and that she didn't trust black people because they're lazy, and I asked her if her mother was racist, too, she didn't take very kindly to it. She got really pissed, in fact.

I was like, What? You didn't know you were racist?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   


Well, why?

First Interacial marriages/dating whatever is a fad, a myth, whatever you want to call it, and not everyone is going to jump in this stupid bandwagon,

accordingly, Race mixing and intermarrying is practcally wrong, and dangerous step on the wrong path fro millions of young black men, thank God they are in the minority(those who date interacially). Never in the liight of day, will you guys see mass intermarrying on the face of this planet.

Anyway, This thread isn't to spread hate, but to point the wrongs of this new FAD. I don't care, Mrs. whoever you dated, and african or whatever, and you were in a loving relationship, it is wrong..... very wrong, what will become of both genes of the two parents?

what a falllacy!!! HA!



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Do you know how ignorant you sound? Can you think of another word for ignorant? I can.


Originally posted by crusader
what will become of both genes of the two parents?


They will combine to create an offspring that is free from your outdated and ignorant prejudices.

Hell, even the Nazi's over at stormfront know that race mixing is more than a recent "fad". Was it a fad thirty years ago when I wass born? Was it a fad 60 years ago when my grandfather was born? Tell me exactly, when did this fad start?
[img]http://www.[hate-site-nolink]/whitehistory/hwr10_files/artem.jpg[/img]

You still have failed to give a reason as to why you are so opposed to the idea, can you even?
[edit for additional point]

[edit on 19-10-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader



Well, why?

First Interacial marriages/dating whatever is a fad,

Anyway, This thread isn't to spread hate, but to point the wrongs of this new FAD.


You hate it becaue it's a fad? Do you hate the hula-hoop and yo-yos too?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I believe I now see where some of the confusion about the word racist or racism comes from. The popular widely used but probably slang definition I'm familiar with is someone who believes their race is superior to others and may possibly hate other races. However as has already been pointed out, the technical definition is not necessarily the above but simply someone who does an action based on a certain race. Doing an action such as dating only black people or only white people etc etc would be defined as racist according to the last technical definition. I never really thought too much about the technical definition. I now believe most people could usually be labeled by the technical definition but they would be upset being called that because they are only familiar with the popular slang definition. Therefore if I say I will only date white females that is a racist remark by the technical definition because it is an action according to a race. However if I said I will only date people with a light shading of melatonin and certain nice physical features than it is not a racist remark.

The same words having a different meaning to different people probably have been the source of several arguments. I felt like summarizing what I have read in this thread in my own words.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This is the first time I post something on ATS. I usually just read other people's posts to see what different ideas and views people have on certain subjects. After reading this one I felt obliged to say something.

My parents come from different backgrounds, my dad is half Sweedish and Swiss and my mom is Filipina with a blend of Spanish, Malay, and Chinese. I was born in South Korea and left when I was 4 years old, moved to Brazil and lived there for 4 years and a half, moved to Colombia and also lived there for 4 years and a half, moved to West Africa (Ivory Coast) lived there for 6 years and graduated from highschool, moved to Mexico and stayed there for 6 months, I then moved to Switzerland to study hotel management and spent 6 months in Barcelona for an internship. I am currently in Switzerland but will be moving to the States real soon.

As you can see, I have a complicated background. When people ask me where I'm from, I reply "Do you have the time"? A lot of people think I'm an American Latino because I kinda look Latino and have an American accent. I have an American accent because I went to international schools abroad that followed the American curriculum and most of the teachers are American. And ever since I was a kid I would spend the summer in the States to see my Filipino American family (uncles and aunts).

I believe that interacial dating or marriage is a great thing. As long as two people love eachother, that's all that counts. If you believe in only dating or marrying people of your own race because you rather marry someone who is like you, that's cool, go for it but you shouldn't hate on others for marrying out of their race.

By the way, my older brother got married to a Korean girl and they just had the cutest baby girl.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   
yeah interacial as in white americans dating imported europeans (the majority Italian migrants for example), not black africans living in america. The example used in the first post is quite ridiculous as white american probably still do support black lynching, and there really never was much discrimination against europeans in America, let alone some dramatic sudden change of acceptance. There were never any pure races in the world anyway except assumingly when the races were originally created, but some became cross bred anyway. Even the english are actually formed from Normandy's (who later became the french) and scandanavian races such as the Vikings from places such as Denmark. Also, globalisation through migration has basically destroyed the rest of the races off by destroying the true cultures and identities of countries but people still think countries have identities and cultures (and this is the profiteering faux tourism comes in). Do you really think people in Australia throw boomerangs, wear acobras and ride kangaroos and are white, no. Most of asia has migrated here now. Do you really think you can find white english people eating fish and chips in England. No. You find more white australians in england than in Australia and the rest of england is made up of Tanzanians and other Africans, and a large proportion of the muslims from the Middle East. Similarly Germany and Austria are significantly filled with Turkish middle easterners now. And France should be renamed Africa!! One thing that pi$$es me off is China for example, with it's two child policy, the people don't like it so they go to countries like Australia where they can overpopulate our country and exhaust our resources instead.

Basically inter-racial breeding has always been but currently, is globally out of control by mass proportions.



[edit on 20-10-2005 by sugeshotcha]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by crusader
Ask me why I have so much hatred against interacial marriages.


Well, why?


On the 'race' issue, I used to go with a black man from Africa (for about 1.5 years, and although we had fights, I never even thought of using the 'n' word, by the way)
He said that a person that has ANY black ancestors is considered black, even if they have blond hair and fair skin, he considers them black.

So, when a white person and black person have a child, is it black? If that kid marries a white person and they have a 'white-looking ' kid, is he black? Why does black take precedence over white?

What is 'black' if not just a color? I could be African-American if I came from Africa and lived in the US now, right? But that wouldn't make me black. My boyfriend was African.

If you're born in America and raised in American culture, it really doesn't matter what shade your skin is or what your ancestors went through, you're an American. I don't call myself Scotch-Irish-American or Native- American-American. I was born here! I'm an American and it matters not the color of my skin or what my ancestors endured.


So why do italian people who've lived in Australia all their life call themselves Italian??? The Italians are one of the most arrogant up themselves races on Earth, just because they had some kind of Roman empire and spend all their time making art which they claim is the worlds best, and then develop the worlds best propaganda machine in Vatican City, more powerful than Hitler and the nazi party in Germany.

I think if races like them living in our countries of England, Australia and the US want to refer to themselves as being nationalities of their own then we should refer to our roots also, (Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish).

[edit on 20-10-2005 by sugeshotcha]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugeshotcha


So why do italian people who've lived in Australia all their life call themselves Italian??? The Italians are one of the most arrogant up themselves races on Earth, just because they had some kind of Roman empire and spend all their time making art which they claim is the worlds best, and then develop the worlds best propaganda machine in Vatican City, more powerful than Hitler and the nazi party in Germany.

I think if races like them living in our countries of England, Australia and the US want to refer to themselves as being nationalities of their own then we should refer to our roots also, (Welsh, English, Scottish, Irish).

[edit on 20-10-2005 by sugeshotcha]


Well, Italian is not a race, as Welsh, Scottish, German, and French are not. They are cultures, national identities.

And I still stand by my own opinion, and this is just for myself, taht I would not marry outside my race. Not that I am better than any other 'said' race, it's just that I believe in bloodlines and family/cultural heritage.

Kings from around the world since the beginning of civilizations only married into other royal families, or noble families. This was to maintain a bloodline; a succession of family that will inherit and keep alive family/noble traditions. That is way I think of it. Once again, not that any one race is better than the other. But tradition is important to me.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   


And I still stand by my own opinion, and this is just for myself, taht I would not marry outside my race. Not that I am better than any other 'said' race, it's just that I believe in bloodlines and family/cultural heritage.


ahem , Amen to that my brother, I still believe in that also. But I do believ also that whites, blacks whatever should remain separated. That way, diffrences can be appreciated as well as hated. you must have something to compare it with.

As bloodlines, and family, I am at this time , currently enjoying the fruits of a lucrative business venture..... And I will like it to be passed on this genrational wealth, and share this wealth, not with a white female, or any other female, but with a black female. and there we share our wealth to our children and pass on this wealth to a whole genration of black people, not mixed race or any other, You guys get the picture.???!

You know what disgusts me? a wealthy black man, disregarding a woman of colour. i.e a black woman to go and marry and share the fruits of his labour with a white woman or some other woman.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq

And I still stand by my own opinion, and this is just for myself, taht I would not marry outside my race. Not that I am better than any other 'said' race, it's just that I believe in bloodlines and family/cultural heritage.

Kings from around the world since the beginning of civilizations only married into other royal families, or noble families. This was to maintain a bloodline; a succession of family that will inherit and keep alive family/noble traditions. That is way I think of it. Once again, not that any one race is better than the other. But tradition is important to me.



Well that is a strange way of looking at it since we no longer look up to kings or royal families (much less nobles) as divine beings of 'pure' blood who need to inter-marry to preserve their genetic line. Perserving their line through time has brought about hereditary blood disorders in royals like porphyria, hemophilia, anaemia and madness.

It has unfortunately also provided royals with countless justifications for wars, power struggles, land disputes, religious dominance (starting up, changing or persecuting beliefs according to fashion and/or whim) and the cruelty of lording it over others simply by virtue of birthright.

In addition, the romantic propogation of kings, royals and nobels is just that - a 'romantized notion' of preserving a bloodline to gentically pass down the 'good' characteristics and genes of a people. The flaw in that argument is quite visible to the naked eye. Even the royals themselves didn't always buy this belief, they sometimes went outside the royal bloodline to stregthen it with a bit of commoner blood to spice up the gene pool.

Traditions are important yes. As are culture, heritage and history. Class, background, education and religion, have a lot to do with what other people are looking for in mates, althought most would probably not carry their shoplistings around in a conscious way.

The nobel bloodline concept however, is outdated, erroneous and more at home in the fantasy fiction genre. Oh yeah, ever hear of that little german guy with the mustache? He believed in purity of bloodlines too.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I was using the "blue blood" metaphor as a reference, nothing more.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join