"Racism" is 100% natural, and is not evil. Homogenization is.

Originally posted by Bicent76
So if iam reading this right the op is saying racism is not evil, and having the human race coexist with its diferances is? Racism, is not natural... We ae not born to hate or love for that matter. Homgenization within our species would actually help us evolve, no limitations to knowledge. All hell I be damned if i am going to attempt to teach the ignorant...

Threads like this thou outline the vices of what man has done to pervert his meaning.

edit on 13-1-2012 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

That is incorrect.

Neither is evil. Homogenization means dissolving all unique cultures into a single super culture that would terminate the beauty and diversity of the human species that differing cultures offer.

I stated that humanity needs to UNITE under a banner of both personal individualism as well as cultural individualism, so coexisting and accepting others differences would be a prerequisite to that.

So let me get this right. You are now saying that ONLY America should be flooded with non White because of "White privilege?"

Am i right? That is quite a turn up for the books because anti-Whites usually like to castigate the entire White race for Slavery. My apologies if i picked you up wrong. Perhaps you aren't QUITE as bad as they usual rabid anti-White that puts my race past, present and future on trial for every evil known to man.

"White-supremecist?" You are only saying that because i am am White. How many times do i need to tell you that anti-racist is a code word for anti-White

reply to post by mr1alphaalpha


Wow that was...interesting. Especially since not once throughout the entire duration of this thread have i mentioned anything about immigration. So far your main debate tactic has been to put words in the mouths of others, which lends credence to the idea that you haven't a leg to stand on. It feels like Im talking to a brick wall, or perhaps a person sticking their fingers in their ears going "FALALALALALA!" And no, i didn't call you a white-supremecist because your white. It's because i think you're a white supremecist, I know plenty of white people that aren't as ignorant as you are. You're not even listening to anything anyone has to say to you and on top of that your arguing points that aren't even really there simply to support this idea that the government has it out for the white race, which is f*cking ridiculous if i do say so myself (and i do). I say again if the government is trying to extinguish the white race, then welcome to the club.

And to be honest, i have no idea how many times you're going to say it. You can repeat that "anti-white" rhetoric as many times as your heart desires.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by Bicent76
So if iam reading this right the op is saying racism is not evil, and having the human race coexist with its diferances is? Racism, is not natural... We ae not born to hate or love for that matter. Homgenization within our species would actually help us evolve, no limitations to knowledge. All hell I be damned if i am going to attempt to teach the ignorant...

Threads like this thou outline the vices of what man has done to pervert his meaning.

edit on 13-1-2012 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

That is incorrect.

Neither is evil. Homogenization means dissolving all unique cultures into a single super culture that would terminate the beauty and diversity of the human species that differing cultures offer.

edit on 1/13/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

So, when you say homogenization, are you referring to when all the races mix and become a whole brand new race so to speak?

When I think of homogenization, I think of places and peoples like the Japanese who refuse to intermarry with other cultures/races, even with other Asians.

I don't think of homogenization when it comes to places like America where it's multiracial and multicultural and people for the most part have no issue with race/cultural mixing.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by Bicent76
So if iam reading this right the op is saying racism is not evil, and having the human race coexist with its diferances is? Racism, is not natural... We ae not born to hate or love for that matter. Homgenization within our species would actually help us evolve, no limitations to knowledge. All hell I be damned if i am going to attempt to teach the ignorant...

Threads like this thou outline the vices of what man has done to pervert his meaning.

edit on 13-1-2012 by Bicent76 because: (no reason given)

That is incorrect.

Neither is evil. Homogenization means dissolving all unique cultures into a single super culture that would terminate the beauty and diversity of the human species that differing cultures offer.

edit on 1/13/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

I think rascism is evil, and if you don't we must have different definitions for evil, and rascism. Anyhow, I don't think it is possible to have homogenization, although this is what scares people into killing other people, or going after them, the us vs. them. They are afraid of there culture, losing to the other. I think we can all live as one, with no countries, but as long as we tell ourselves it can never work, it'll never happen.

Originally posted by kaiode1

So let me get this right. You are now saying that ONLY America should be flooded with non White because of "White privilege?"

Am i right? That is quite a turn up for the books because anti-Whites usually like to castigate the entire White race for Slavery. My apologies if i picked you up wrong. Perhaps you aren't QUITE as bad as they usual rabid anti-White that puts my race past, present and future on trial for every evil known to man.

"White-supremecist?" You are only saying that because i am am White. How many times do i need to tell you that anti-racist is a code word for anti-White

reply to post by mr1alphaalpha

 

Wow that was...interesting. Especially since not once throughout the entire duration of this thread have i mentioned anything about immigration. So far your main debate tactic has been to put words in the mouths of others, which lends credence to the idea that you haven't a leg to stand on. It feels like Im talking to a brick wall, or perhaps a person sticking their fingers in their ears going "FALALALALALA!" And no, i didn't call you a white-supremecist because your white. It's because i think you're a white supremecist, I know plenty of white people that aren't as ignorant as you are. You're not even listening to anything anyone has to say to you and on top of that your arguing points that aren't even really there simply to support this idea that the government has it out for the white race, which is f*cking ridiculous if i do say so myself (and i do). I say again if the government is trying to extinguish the white race, then welcome to the club.

And to be honest, i have no idea how many times you're going to say it. You can repeat that "anti-white" rhetoric as many times as your heart desires.

edit on 13-1-2012 by kaiode1 because: (no reason given)

Everything you post reeks of anti-White rhetoric. Are you now saying you do NOT support America being flooded with non Whites? Jeez! Make your mind up! Be consistent at least!!

Or how about taking my anti-White challenge? There have been a limited number of winner tonight. YOU could be one! Come on down..................

A simple yes or no answer is all i ask:

Do you agree that all races. Be it Blacks in Africa, Asians in Asia, or Whites in Europe, have an equal right to ensure the survival of their own race and cultures in their own countries?

Idon't think its anti- anything. I think the OP was clear about the need for us as individuals to unite based on shared experiences from diverse backgrounds and not on a conglomerate of the "new" identity neither of us have yet, or truthfully will ever have. I think this false sense of oneness actually destroys unity because one group has to surrender more than another. A large and powerful group would then define the "new" identity and the small one would have to conform.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
I stated that humanity needs to UNITE under a banner of both personal individualism as well as cultural individualism, so coexisting and accepting others differences would be a prerequisite to that.

edit on 1/13/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

Okay, I'm confused here as to what you are saying.

You say racism isn't evil and homogenization is. What you just said in the quote above is pretty much the liberal ideal of all races/cultures being united while respecting and accepting each others differences.

For someone who is truly racist, no matter what their race is, they would not want to co-exist with the other races/cultures. A racist wants to be far removed from the others and do not want to be united with them in anyway possible.

Originally posted by andersensrm
I think rascism is evil, and if you don't we must have different definitions for evil, and rascism. Anyhow, I don't think it is possible to have homogenization, although this is what scares people into killing other people, or going after them, the us vs. them. They are afraid of there culture, losing to the other. I think we can all live as one, with no countries, but as long as we tell ourselves it can never work, it'll never happen.

I prefer Western culture. I don't want to live in a mish mash of African/Asian/Arab etc. cultures.

Funnily enough, neither do the Africans, Asians and Arabs. In fact, they perfer their own culture so much that they keep it when they move to Europe.

Originally posted by casenately
I think it's interesting how the word racist implies the negative connotations of prejudice or discrimination. We cannot argue that about for example an animal that prefers his species over that of another. It's like calling dogs racist for chasing cats. It would be racist if they understood the concept and proceeded to act in a discriminatory manner out of that concept. I think the OP was arguing that that terminology is being used to fracture us as a society for the gain of a select few, regardless of their race.

I see it as a practice that was used to separate serfs from slaves in colonial America. Stop them from coming together based on a lie that they were different although they were living in similar circumstances. Much like poor whites and blacks do today.

Well someone understands my points

Yep, "racist" is used as a weapon now in situations where it should not technically apply. True racism, as I stated in the second to last paragraph, is not wanting to preserve cultures, but to eradicate all but one, effectively making the world cultureless. Whether that be advocated via physical means, such as genocide, or by mental means, such as demonizing pride in ones culture and stripping away one by one the adherents of such, both are true racism, that seek to overtly, or covertly, destroy cultures.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Racism, is not natural.. Your title is miseading. Meh not sure what your aiming at but i think the results your looking for aka. Idea's etc. Wont come to you with a ignorant title like the one you have on our message board..

For the member using man's big brain trying to say dogs are racists towards cats, please stop trying to justify hating people by comparing us to four legged animals, it makes you look ignorant.

Not evil but judgemental & hostile perhaps!

Originally posted by Bicent76

Racism, is not natural.. Your title is miseading. Meh not sure what your aiming at but i think the results your looking for aka. Idea's etc. Wont come to you with a ignorant title like the one you have on our message board..

Its perhaps misleading if one does not understand the context in which I was using the word "racism", of which I explained in the first paragraph, and of which I differentiated from true racism in the same OP.

Originally posted by Bicent76
Racism, is not natural.

But tribalism is.

It isn't about the color of peoples' skins.

It's about group identify, culture and competing against other groups for resources.

I didn't justify it. it's an analogy of what the OP said.

Ignorance really is not trying to understand. I am actually married to someone who is not of my race. My child has a dual racial identity. We didn't decide to go with one or the other. We have both at home and are better for it. If I told my child that pride in one or the other is justified or wrong, I would be ignorant. Since I tell her to have pride in both, I think she has the benefit of more points of view than either my wife or I had in our upbringing. If my wife had to conform to my culture, my child would be less for it.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by casenately
I think it's interesting how the word racist implies the negative connotations of prejudice or discrimination. We cannot argue that about for example an animal that prefers his species over that of another. It's like calling dogs racist for chasing cats. It would be racist if they understood the concept and proceeded to act in a discriminatory manner out of that concept. I think the OP was arguing that that terminology is being used to fracture us as a society for the gain of a select few, regardless of their race.

I see it as a practice that was used to separate serfs from slaves in colonial America. Stop them from coming together based on a lie that they were different although they were living in similar circumstances. Much like poor whites and blacks do today.

Well someone understands my points

Yep, "racist" is used as a weapon now in situations where it should not technically apply. True racism, as I stated in the second to last paragraph, is not wanting to preserve cultures, but to eradicate all but one, effectively making the world cultureless. Whether that be advocated via physical means, such as genocide, or by mental means, such as demonizing pride in ones culture and stripping away one by one the adherents of such, both are true racism, that seek to overtly, or covertly, destroy cultures.

As history has shown us time and time again, people have tried to eradicate one another based on racial/cultural means. But, when such people throughout history would do such a thing, there was an element of preserving a race/cultural.

Lets take Hitler for example:

Hitler was all for White German power (Contrary to popular belief, he didn't give a rat's ass about the other White European nationalities) and in the process maimed, killed, and destroyed other White European nationalities ALONG with the Jews. In his mindset, it was all about preserving White German culture/race and doing so meant eradicating all others.

I know, Hitler gets brought up a lot in internet discussions unnecessarily, but he was the only example I could think of at the time.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Bicent76
Racism, is not natural.

But tribalism is.

It isn't about the color of peoples' skins.

It's about group identify, culture and competing against other groups for resources.

Tribalism is very rampant amongst African, Asian, and Arab cultures who are not Westernized.

Granted, there was a time in White European history where tribalism was rampant, and it was rampant for a very long time, but, as time went on, they eventually got over it, so to speak.

Anyhow, I think the reason why so many people combine skin color/race with cultures is because, for the most part, your average cultural just usually represents one skin color/race.

Tribalism is a form of governance and social order. It reflects not on a race or period of progress in a culture, but rather is a preferred form of social codes put into place by all concerned. Tribes can be democratic, feudal, whatever. To imply it is rampant actually has a negative connotation to it, almost viral. It is simply a form of social order. It can take many forms, even to include tribes of different racial backgrounds in one unified yet separate group.

Originally posted by BinderExtra
Tribalism is very rampant amongst African, Asian, and Arab cultures who are not Westernized.

Granted, there was a time in White European history where tribalism was rampant, and it was rampant for a very long time, but, as time went on, they eventually got over it, so to speak.

But Europeans now co-operate to compete against the rest of the world (the 10% tariff to import goods into the EU is an example of European citizens favoring their own and discriminating against non Europeans).

Group identity and competing for resources as a group is a normal activity.

By the way, I have know a fair number of Europeans who are not white (icluding my half white son). They were no less European.

When they support another 'team' however, well then that is a problem.

Actually Europeans formed the European union so as to bring competitiveness out of Europe and focus it on the rest of the world. It was not done under a banner of unity for them, but rather as an answer to disunity they suffered and others took advantage of.

and yes, usually there is not one "race" to any geographic area anywhere on this planet. We are more diverse than we even know. It is a common fallacy to think that white is one race or even black. Hispanics (culturally, and racially)are everything from Asian Filipinos who speak perfect Castilian to Africans. same for whites, red hair, blond, black, freckles , blue eyes brown etc, these traits would have separated us before as it is they exist still today in their distinctive forms.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by BinderExtra
Tribalism is very rampant amongst African, Asian, and Arab cultures who are not Westernized.

Granted, there was a time in White European history where tribalism was rampant, and it was rampant for a very long time, but, as time went on, they eventually got over it, so to speak.

But Europeans now co-operate to compete against the rest of the world (the 10% tariff to import goods into the EU is an example of European citizens favoring their own and discriminating against non Europeans).

Group identity and competing for resources as a group is a normal activity.

By the way, I have know a fair number of Europeans who are not white (icluding my half white son). They were no less European.

When they support another 'team' however, well then that is a problem.

edit on 13-1-2012 by ollncasino because: spelling

First half of your post: That is what I'm pretty much trying to say. It's no longer Brits vs. French or Germany vs. Poland anymore. It's Europeans vs. the rest of the world. Just not for Europe either, it's the same for America, Asia, and other regional nations. This world has pretty much develop into an "every man for himself and own self" kind of place. Which could be used in a good way or a bad way.

Second half of your post: Oh, there's no doubt about non-White Europeans being just as much European as their fellow White Europeans. I think anybody would be highly ignorant to deny that. Far as supporting the other "team", I think that's where the problem has come in with immigration over the years.