It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Btw, I am still waiting for that smoking gun of a news story that names any other race of illegal immigrants "illegals" other than South Americans.

Historically, has America ever built a wall to keep the Irish, Russians, Polish, Jewish and Italian immigrants out?

How has the laws historically about immigration differ between the European immigrants and those of other races? I can tell you that they didn't pass restrictive laws in the same manner as they did against the Chinese immigrants in the 19th century. In the 19th century, the Chinese in America were considered the "Yellow Peril".

How does their treatment differ from that of South Americans, Mexicans, Haitians and Cubans? And on this board, I have read people refer to Mexican illegal immigrants as the "Mexican invasion" as well as "filth, trash and vermin".

Has any illegal immigrants who are European been referred to in that way?

That is the problem. That is why with the severeness of nationalism in the U.S. in the post 9/11 world, our opinion leaders still sanction prejudices against those who are "different". Illegal immigration is one of those issues in which "difference" is especially derided in terms of class and race. Except, people don't think it is racist because they refuse to entertain issues related to racism. That absolves them from their negative feelings regarding illegal immigration.

I believe as long as you keep it on the issue of illegality, illegal immigration does not touch the racial aspects.

Racism cannot escape this new anti-illegal immigration movement when it is being subtly portrayed that way by the government and the MSM.

And about racial division, who do you think started this divisiveness in the first place? Who forced who through "redlining" into racially specific neighborhoods? Who passed the laws of segregation? Who established Jim Crow?

That is why the melting pot myth is powerful, but inapplicable. Whose culture are we to adopt if we did practice the myth of the melting pot?





[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
wrong link used...brb

[edit on 9-8-2006 by mooonhoxe]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
update: I see that you posted the wrong link. I am sorry.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Ok, Ceci, here you go.


There is no official count of the many others who entered the country illegally or have overstayed their visas and who are likely to be less well off.

Kim Nichols, co-executive director of the African Services Committee, which directs newcomers to health care, housing and other services in the New York region, estimates that the number of illegal African immigrants dwarfs the legal ones. "We think it's a multiple of at least four," she said.


More Africans Enter U.S. Than in Days of Slavery

Although the article is from 2005, living in NY, I have to tell you: I meet illegal African immigrants everyday. How do I know? I ask them. They're usually my cabdriver.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Thank you very much for your article, Harlem Hottie. I stand corrected. That gives me more food for thought when dealing with this issue.

At the outset, I believe that this problem perhaps still has to do with the fear generated from 9/11.

Beside that:

1)I still think that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. I've said this on every illegal immigration thread I've participated in.

2)I am not aiding and abetting illegal immigrants by my stance of treating them as people.

3)They are human beings and deserve the respect of human beings. They should not have to be called "illegals". That term is pejorative and does nothing to solve the issue. It only incites prejudice and hatred.

4)No, I don't think that people who support measures against illegal immigration are racist. I tend to think the frustration is stirred up on a nationalist level. However, topics like illegal immigration that allows people to vent their prejudicial views with being absolved for them.

5)No, I do not support the building of a wall on the border of Mexico. If we wanted to keep everyone out, there should also be a wall built on the border of Canada as well as on the East and West Coast if you wanted to keep things fair. However, I still believe that the building of the wall is racially and nationally problematic. Imagine a wall across the Malibu coastline. It blocks out the view, but it keeps everyone out.

6)You cannot escape the issue of illegal immigration without talking about race. It can't be done--especially with the perception created from the MSM and the government.


[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Okay, as I summed up everyone's answers to these two important issues:

To solve race relations:

1)There needs to be a mixing of the races so that no "race" cards are played.

2)That people ought to recognize that there will be certain people that will hate each other no matter what.

3)To approach issues of illegal immigration apart from race

4)To stop talking about racism

5)Educate your children about tolerance

6)Get rid of Affirmative Action

7)Talking helps solve racism and issues of race-relations.


The con side of the argument:

1)The Melting Pot theory is inapplicable because prejudice will happen despite this measure.

2)Illegal immigration does talk about racial polarization due to the fact that it is focused on one set race opposed to "other illegal immigrants".

3)Forty-two years is too short of a time to stop affirmative action programs. Without them there is not a legal redress for racist acts. Taking these programs away will not solve anything. The glass ceiling will still be in place. And racism will still happen.

4)There are families and people of mixed race in society. They are living representatives of the melting pot model. Racism and prejudice has not changed despite this. The social problem afforded to race-relations still exists.



Some other things to further think about as we continue discussing this issue:

1)Do you think that the attitudes regarding the "Melting Pot" Theory is racially based? Why is this theory accepted more among one race opposed to another?

2)What culture should we adopt if we were all one race?

3)Who started the separation of the races? How did the separation of the races begin? Whose influence do we owe for this "separation of the races" now?

4)Why is diversity (afforded to race and culture) seen as divisiveness?

5)If the Melting Pot theory was not applicable, what should be done in its place?


P.S. TrueAmerican, I am still thinking of a way to explain my side. You will get a post about it later today. Sorry for the delay.




[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

I know you were talking to Ceci but I wondered this myself when you reprimanded whoever you reprimanded earlier. Are you a moderator? Or is there another level of staff?

Just wondering about ATS infrastructure.


I have not reprimanded anyone. What I have done is to set some guidelines at the outset of what can be, and historically has been, a volatile topic. As I have said before, I welcome this topic here, but I will not allow it to become hostile. Recent posts have looked far better than the tone that characterized some of the earlier posts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FSMEs are staff members.

This is a synopsis of our duties:


Originally posted by Majic

FSMEs are responsible for encouraging discussion in their forums, responding to member interests, leading discussion by example, discouraging minor T&C infractions, alerting moderators to more serious violations, helping keep threads on topic by persuasion and in general being advocates for their forums.


I have been very proactive on this forum with very positive results. I intend to continue in that vein. I am here for everyone's benefit. Therefore, I request the cooperation of our participants, rather than scorn.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
It is nice that you've been sent to watch us like a hawk. But seriously, everyone has been fine. But, of course, I suppose that you have to keep on reminding us of the dangerous and volatile nature concerning discussions about race.

It's almost as if you want a self-fulfilling prophecy to happen.

I've had another thread about race here. And we kept it going for twenty pages without argument. And that was before your help.

But thanks anyway of reminding us once again of your duties. But really, I think we'll do very well. Nevertheless, I will cooperate with you in every way despite your misgivings.









[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
IMHO, the reason you didn't blame the whole race is because you knew other people of that race who didn't harrass you, like black neighbors, or classmates.


Well, I went to a predominantly white school for K-8, with maybe 400 total students, and maybe 20 of those being of a minority. It was a private, Catholic school outside of Detroit (in Redford, for those familiar with the area). It wasn't until high school that I really encountered minorities, going to school in Detroit that was split about 50/50 white/minorities.

As for the neighbors? Who do you think were the ones beating me up? I really had no positive interactions with minorities until freshman year of high school. Also, growing up I had to see past the racism of my parents.


Hold on, black Americans don't get reparations...hell, we get shouted down everytime we mention it.

It's funny that you automatically singled this out to "black Americans." Where in my posts have I singled out any race?

Anyway, I digress... Perhaps "reparations" was the wrong term to use. I only meant to describe programs such as affirmitive action, special funds, etc.



Please allow me to clear up what seems to be a common misperception in ATS-land: so-called 'black colleges' are referred to as "HBCU's," or "historically black colleges (and) universities," implying, obviously, history. Today, they're integrated.


Thanks. I didn't know that. I found it interesting that one HCBU is actually 95% white now.

Just for the record, though, the only reason I used Morehouse as an example was because it's the only minority designated university I could think of. Are there unis for Hispanics, Native Americans, other minorities in the US?

But you ignored my question of what if there was a university that accepted predominantly whites? Would that still be racist?



Unfortunately, I fear that once all the protections (or, as you called them, "special treatments") have been lifted, white people will lose incentive to 'play fair,' which is why the protections were needed in the first place. The way I see it, and I could be wrong, white people no longer have any NEED for blacks.


So all white people are evil and will just take advantage of the minorities? I need to let you know that I take offense to that racist statement.

Again, I said the special treatments that "all races" receive. That is a blanket statement that covers... Well... All races.




In general, in interpersonal relationships, unless you just naturally like someone, there's no reason, or compulsion, to be nice to them unless you need something from them.


I believe that that is where we differ amongst our personal philosophies... I believe people can be inherently good, and will just do good things in thier nature - not to get something out of it.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
...honestly, I don't want to assimiliate. I want to be accepted for who I am.


And that there, folks, is the attitude that keeps racism alive today! (My emboldening)


Also, are you implying that welfare is a form of affirmative action?


I already cleared that bit up previously in this post.


Originally posted by ceci2006
Do you think that people would be building a wall to keep out White immigrants?


White immigrants or white illegal immigrants? Personally, I would build a wall only for the purposes of keeping out illegal immigrants - regardless of color.



Historically, has America ever built a wall to keep the Irish, Russians, Polish, Jewish and Italian immigrants out?


What, and we didn't turn them back at Ellis Island or other ports where they could enter the country?

There in lies the difference, in case you didn't catch it... Ports. People coming from Central and South America only have to cross land. It's a lot easier to do that to stow aboard a ship to take you across the Atlantic.

Odd, though, that you're only singling out predominantly white countries for those who have to cross an ocean to get here, when there are more than a billion Asian people across the Pacific who would have to come the same way...



And on this board, I have read people refer to Mexican illegal immigrants as the "Mexican invasion" as well as "filth, trash and vermin".

Has any illegal immigrants who are European been referred to in that way?


Compare the amount of Mexican illegal immigrants to the amount of European illegal immigrants in the US... I bet there are a whole lot more from south of the border.

Also, please cite your sources that people have called specifically Mexican illegal immigrants as "filth, trash and vermin." Personally, I know I would call all illegal immigrants those adjectives.



They are human beings and deserve the respect of human beings. They should not have to be called "illegals". That term is pejorative and does nothing to solve the issue. It only incites prejudice and hatred.


Then we can no longer use the following words, for the same reasons: Muderer, rapist, child pornographer, sex offender, drunk...



If we wanted to keep everyone out, there should also be a wall built on the border of Canada as well as on the East and West Coast if you wanted to keep things fair.


I believe a wall should be built along the southern and northern borders of the nation, and thought that even before all of they hype about building one along the southern border. Basically, once we seal off the southern border, people will head up to Canada and come in through that border. If anything, we should block that border off first, then do the southern one.

As for the walls on the coasts? We already have one, but it needs major beefing up - The US Coast Guard. It needs a drastic increase in ships, helicopters, manpower, weapons, etc to become truely effective.

A BRIEF NOTE ON FSMEs

I do the exact same thing Grady has done in the Space Exploration forum (of which I am the FSME) when its volatile threads come up. I've also been in that position for almost two years now, so this isn't anything of a new position or anything. Grady is simply new to the position, and in my experienced opinion is doing a great job - so calm down and please take a moment to heed what he says, instead of brushing it off as him being a racist or something inane like that. Thank you.

[edit on 8/9/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The topic of this thread is What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism? Staff responsibilities, staff actions, and members' posts on other threads are not part of this topic.

Please focus your discussion on the topic at hand, not on each other. If you have a complaint against a member or staff member, please feel free to submit your complaint via the appropriate avenue as provided for you on the menu bar at the top of your page. Off topic posts from this post forward will be deleted without exception, and repeat incidences will result in the thread being locked.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
"Racism" is a natural socio-biological mechanism designed to keep us away from other people and animals who are recognizably different than we are.


Sorry, but there's not such theory in any of my books, Enkidu.

The one used in the 1by Arthur de Gobineau in the 1800's was disprove. The idea that "race" is a separate biological entity, has no basis. So Enkidu where did you take your theory from? Try and find a contemporary biologist who agrees with the theory you have promoted. In fact, it is the first thing you’re taught when you study things like Sociology, Biology and Psychology that ethnicity should replace it.

In fact, even in a historical context - racism, was nothing more than Nationalism. They believed the Irish, were a different race from the British. The French believed they were a different race from both and so on and so fourth. [Sir Edward Coke’s work in the 1600’s for reference and also Nicolas Fréret.]

Then you can look at it through, Michael Benton’s Theories of ‘Race’:
  • Those who see ‘race’ as lineage;
  • Those which see it as a type:
  • Those which see it as a subspecies.
In the end of his theory he summarises it with this:


Race as a folk-concept differentiating present-day groups on the basis of their appearance has no theoretical value’.


Then there is the legal aspect. In the United State’s the concept of race, is best summed up by a 1987 case in Virginia where a woman was ruled as: “not black due to having red hair.” and then later on as “not being white because she attended a black school”.

In FACT the most accepted theory is the one pushed by Steve Jones in Genetics and Evolution. Where he shows that only 10 genes have a basis in the development of different skin pigmentation and these reflect the climate we are in. It is also down just to the level of ultraviolet radiation that we are limited to - so over thousands if not hundreds of years - skin colour would change. A present example of this is Native Americans.

Racism itself, can not ever be beaten while such false theories are pushed forward. Furthermore, while such books as the “A Civic Biology” are allowed to spew their vile filth into society. Also, while text books represent such a evidently racist agenda, with the majority of which showing homo-sapiens as white, but homo erectus and other groups as African. [Reference: Time Life, The Neanderthals, and Early Men, April 1984 Science 84 cover.]

If people would stop educating people in such a manor it would help to combat racism. However, it is likely that it will continue till we accept that it is a social construct. [Reference: Richardson and Lambert 1985.] When we do accept it, we can move on to look at why some social groups do better in other situations. When we accept people are different due to ethnicity, we can finally begin to move on. Take black people for example. In the United Kingdom, they differ not only if they are Caribbean or African but what part of Africa they are from or where in Caribbean Islands they are from. Then it also differs on gender, with Black Caribbean women doing better than their African counterparts. Clearly, they are both black due to skin pigmentation but the attainment they do differ. [Reference: Page 196: Haralambos and Holborn: Sixth Edition.]

However, ethnic groups do play some part in racism. The book by Paul Gilroy - There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, identified one of the key reasons racism happens is ethnic groups shut themselves off. He identified this as why Indians and Chinese ethnic groups do better than, Blacks, Irish or Pakistani ethnic groups do in contemporary Britain. When people are able to see that these ethnic groups are not bad than things will change, but lack of understand of one another isn’t helping the issue. However, the more racism that happens the more these groups hide themselves away and the cycle continues.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

1)Do you think that the attitudes regarding the "Melting Pot" Theory is racially based? Why is this theory accepted more among one race opposed to another?

2)What culture should we adopt if we were all one race?

3)Who started the separation of the races? How did the separation of the races begin? Whose influence do we owe for this "separation of the races" now?

4)Why is diversity (afforded to race and culture) seen as divisiveness?

5)If the Melting Pot theory was not applicable, what should be done in its place?



1. For one, it's not a theory. Just a logical fact. No race = no racism. Why do feel
it's racially based? Which race accepts this 'theory' more than others? Do you
know what race I am? I don't know what race you are.

2. One race doesn't equate one culture.


3. The first group of hominids that ventured away from the fertile cresent?

4. Who said diversity is division?

5. Please stop using the word 'applicable'. It doesn't fit here. What should be done
is to educate people that communication of the issues is the only way to mitigate
racism's damage. Also to educate them that communication doesn't mean
swaying your participants to your view. That the mere act of speaking aloud
for others to hear begins the mitigation. And that as long as there are races
there will be racism, and to except that and deal with it the best we can.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'd also like to make a statement about affirmative action. I support it not because it gives those folks who get the jobs some sense of retribution, rather, it bolsters the children who see those folks in those positions so that they, the children, can be confident that if they strive for the education they too can hold those positions.

Children are the variable that will end racism or blunt it to a manageable state.
If you don't agree just watch Mtv.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Enkidu
"Racism" is a natural socio-biological mechanism designed to keep us away from other people and animals who are recognizably different than we are.


Sorry, but there's not such theory in any of my books, Enkidu.


Then you need to get some new books. After a 15-second search on Google, I found a number of papers on similarity/difference as a guide to mate selection that support my assertion. Here's just one of them:

human-nature.com...

This is such a commonly-held notion in the social sciences that it almost borders on a "rule." Humans tend to seek out other humans who are similar, and tend to reject and distrust those who are different. This tends to express itself as "racism," because it's more recognizable between groups with obvious regional variations in physical morphotypes. But it can also be found intra-racially, in behaviors such as tormenting the "different" kid in school.

It's all the same thing. A genetic predisposition for selecting similar mates to minimize the risk of aberrant mutations. The physiological response to an outsider is a state of heightened arousal leading to aggression, and that's generally labeled as "hate." So the hater and the hated both end up labeled as "bad."

It's unfortunate that so many people don't understand just how much our behavior is controlled by our genetics. Maybe if they did, they wouldn't be so quick to attach inflamatory value labels to such things or people and maybe we'd get past it. Sure "racists" are "bad," but only if you don't understand the basis of the behavior.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
okay........

This is a heated issue no doubt, but..........


Please stay on topic and refrain from calling out, insulting, and the like. It adds nothing to the debate at hand and if your best argument for that poition requires you go after other posters, perhaps you need to take a bit of time to re-think your position or argument.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Enkidu the matching hypothesis which you are using has no relevance to race and this study is just another version of the one conducted by Walster et al in 1966.. [Reference: Foundations of Psychology: An Introductory Text by Nicky Hayes.] If you pay attention to your source, it begins to speak about race about 15% into it and they speak of it in the context of the study by Vezjak and Stephancic and Hauber and Sherman. This actually is to do with face recognition in memory and has nothing to do with racism or matching with ones partner.

However, these theories when used in context would suggest one thing. The African Stereotype of a much stronger male, bigger built, etc, would make them more attractive to women from an evolutionary prospective. In fact, the whole article paints a very different picture to the one you did.

Even better is when you go right down the bottom:


Our results can not discard that assortative mating in humans is at least partially achieved through competition for the most attractive potential partner, or by matching attractiveness.


And then this part taken from the results:


The number of correct guesses, i.e. guessed pairs of photographs corresponding to actual couples, made by tests subjects was far larger than expected by random guessing in most experiments.


You honestly think, sitting down and using cards and trying to match partners honestly has anything to do with race? Let alone do they not even define race, but they define it as: Dark , Slightly-Dark, White. Then you have the problem with where the study was conducted:


city of Mérida, Venezuela


So, 36 people used and this is representative? This is almost laughable.

Then


As face recognition abilities are dependent on early visual experience (Le Grand et al. 2001) and are better between individuals of the same race (Golby et al. 2001), we correlated the number of correct guesses made by test subjects with the skin colour difference between the test subject and the average of the faces of the correctly guessed couples.


So in areas such as Northern Africa, Americas, South East Asia, they’d not be racist to one another? However, that’s not strictly true. Take for example North and South Korea, Japan and Chinese relations. India and Pakistani relations. If your reason for racism was true, then the hatred between these groups which has existed for hundreds of years wouldn’t exist.

The most accepted theory, is one of ethnicity. The difference between ethnic groups and the lack of understanding, goes to explain why such hatred can be found between groups of the same skin colour. Irish and the English. French and the English. Tribal Americans and so on and so fourth.

It's odd how you state things like this:
So unless you want to go digging around in our DNA and make some heavy modifications, people are going to be racist.

Yet, the study bares no mention of DNA or genetics. It actualy states:


face recognition abilities are dependent on early visual experience


So, if the person was introduced at an early age to groups of all races, than recognition would be fine. This would mean the results were changed but that won't change their DNA.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The issue of Anti-Immigrant Racism in the US is something that we have seen lately with the migrant issues.

One thing for sure . . . it is in the rise in the US, the anti-immigrant racism is causing barriers to equality and already immigrants that has acquired the status of citizens and the ones that are still non-citizens.

You can no discriminate against Illegal immigrants from one particular race without getting been racist against the same people or races that are already legal citizens.

Believe it or not the anti-immigrant racist put a hold to the well-being on a growing sector that is becoming the biggest growing minority in America.

Immigration has changed the racial profile of America as a whole, now been racist is not only because of the color of your skin but also is base on accent, nation of origin and whenever if you are a legal or illegal.

The groups most targeted by anti-immigrant racism are African, Asian, Latino and Caribbean. They in the groups that are more detained deported and denied legal status and protections.

Also the government is making possible that with anti-immigrant legislation can justify racial discrimination against immigrants, by law enforcement and civilians.

The people wonder how come racism can be control. . .

We can not!!!!!

No matter the well intentions of some good hart people racism comes in many kinds of shapes. We always are going to find discrimination in some way or the other.

We also as human will discriminate even if we are not aware off in one way or the other in our life time.




[edit on 9-8-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Hello all,

In light of the divisiveness that has been fostered in today's society due to current events, I just wanted to pose two questions to you about how we could be a better society based on understanding one another.

1)What can we do to address race-relations?


What exactly are your goals? Are you wanting to see more people in mixed relationships are just getting along better?



2)How can racism be solved?


I personally was not taught to hate any given race. The few problems I have seen with my own children is boys of a different race being just outright mean with comments at school. When things like that happen they don't have to be taught at home to feel a certain way about a race of people. When kids are out of the presence of an adult they can be visious with thier mouths.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Burnt Offering
kids are out of the presence of an adult they can be vicious with their mouths.


Exactly!!!! that was my example of how a victim of racism remarks can become racist also when trying to defend him or herself from the racist remarks.

It can be intentionally or none intentionally but when it comes to children they will react to any racial remark on once family, personal or love one and usually is with a racial remark in the similar faction as the one he or she was targeted with even if the victim was though that it should never judge people of other races.

Its a human reaction.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6040
The issue of Anti-Immigrant Racism in the US is something that we have seen lately with the migrant issues.


Marge, for the love of all that is supposedly holy, and for the love of god, whom I don’t particularly believe in can you please not say "anti-immigration"!? Illegal immigration is the term you’re looking for. You have no idea how much it angers me when people lump all immigrants together regardless of their legal status. It does a great disservice to the people who went through the proper channels and who waited years to get into this country legally. And by the way, people who are against illegal immigration are not against immigration all together, all that we ask for is that our current laws regarding immigration are upheld and enforced.

Furthermore, I do not apprentice the suggestions by some that most people who are against illegal immigration must automatically have a racist agenda, I’m sorry but that is just BS. People who cannot accept that perhaps the issue of legality is the reason behind the anti-illegal immigrant "movement" should look in the mirror before claiming that racism is behind it all. We will never get rid of the "divisiveness" if people see racism where there is none.

Sorry, but this is a really touchy subject with me, I’ve had too many past experiences with people making false accusations over this issue.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by WestPoint23]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join