That's What Racism Isn't

Ketsugi said:
I love the person, not the family. I also realize that we can't choose our families. No one will get along with my mother, but no one I've been with has cared about that.
Click to expand...
I figure if the person is in their 20's, by then they should have a stable enough life to never have to see their family again. Which is a +++
 
Shai Gar said:
you live in hope eternal huh?
Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...
I don't know what that means, but I google it, and of course, first thing that comes up:

Hope springs eternal in the human breast; Man never Is, but always To be blest: The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home, Rests and expatiates in a life to...
Click to expand...
 
To this person I would say, I don't think you are a racist, but I guess it's just a little limiting for you to say that you don't like black men as a rule, because there may just be one out there that for some inexplicable reason you find incredibly attractive. You just haven't met them yet, or maybe you never will, but life is full of possibilities. It's a shame to deny yourself the chance, because your mind is closed to the possibility.
 
Huh.
Everyone who responded in kind to Sedna with snippy remarks and charges on her logic must feel called out on somethin'. Otherwise, why would you rise to the occasion? How awful.
 
Not to go off on a tangent,

but genetically speaking, race doesn't even exist. Humans share 99.9% of DNA. My friend's boyfriend even brought up an interesting term--subracist.

Because we're all the human race, anywho.
 
midnightmelody said:
Not to go off on a tangent,

but genetically speaking, race doesn't even exist. Humans share 99.9% of DNA. My friend's boyfriend even brought up an interesting term--subracist.

Because we're all the human race, anywho.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

How about, it's just closed-minded to state that you are not attracted to anyone of any given ethnicity..or only attracted to a particuliar ethnicity--because you don't really know that, you couldn't.
 
midnightmelody said:
Not to go off on a tangent,

but genetically speaking, race doesn't even exist. Humans share 99.9% of DNA. My friend's boyfriend even brought up an interesting term--subracist.

Because we're all the human race, anywho.
Click to expand...

That isn't technically true. Various factors like hairline, eye color, etc. could be used to delineate humans into a few dozen "races" based upon a common geographical ancestry. However, skin color alone does not equate to a race, and even members within the same race may not share a significant amount of genetic similarity.
 
midnightmelody said:
Not to go off on a tangent,

but genetically speaking, race doesn't even exist. Humans share 99.9% of DNA. My friend's boyfriend even brought up an interesting term--subracist.

Because we're all the human race, anywho.
Click to expand...
I agree with satya here. sure, humans share a LOT of genetic makeup, however, that .1% is very significant. For one, a vast amount of our genetic make up is useless. In transcription (or whatever process), the protein that starts copying the DNA to RNA skips down a huge portion of the chromosome before it finds a gene that actually codes for useful proteins. Also, yes all humans are 99.9% similar. However humans, on average, are 99.4% similar to chimps. I think you would agree that humans and chimps are very different. If .5% can be the difference of a genus, I think .1% is significant enough for a race.
 
Heh. We're all brown. Just on different hue percentages. I've never seen a black man, nor a white man...

Even Caucasian Albinos aren't truly white.

It's why I prefer to refer to people (when defining or describing), not by race, but by subspecies, or genus.

Homo Sapiens Australoid
Homo Sapiens Caucasian
Homo Sapiens Mongoloid
Homo Sapiens Negroid
Et Cetera.

There are, I think I recall reading, over 300 subspecies, or breeds of humanity.

We're like dogs. We can breed amongst each other and create new breeds or crosses. The only people who seem to object to my definitions are those who dislike the idea of us as primates rather than "A Species Apart". We can't possibly be a part of the animal kingdom.

God Created Us.
 
alt ctrl del said:
Huh.
Everyone who responded in kind to Sedna with snippy remarks and charges on her logic must feel called out on somethin'. Otherwise, why would you rise to the occasion? How awful.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't really care that she was calling people racist, specifically, I just thought she was being a complete ass pirate.
Hey, I call 'em as I see 'em.
 
Hee! "Ass pirate.":m131:

Seriously though - and this is where I agree with Satya - it's true. Despite the pseudo-science fallacies some currently hold ("one drop" blood rule, cranial phrenology, etc.), genetically I may look "Black" but I probably have more in common with other so-called races. We are different, and yet we are the same species (different dogs, as it were, according to Shai).

The problem is more cultural. We choose to make judgments based on the color of one's skin or the set of one's eyebrows, or the nose, or the jawline. When really, we could be more Caucasoid than the Caucasian in front of us. It's quite fascinating - you can send your DNA to a testing lab (for a ridiculous fee) and *really* find out what "race" you are. Or at least find out just how many genetic flags there are in your family tree.
 
Ten percent of Native Englanders have African Heritage.
Due to the Slaves the romans freed when they controlled the place. The slaves intermarried and became English.
 
Actually, genetically, there's no real "traits" that can obviously point to a certain race. In other words, when you look at a gene map of someone, you really wouldn't be able to tell what "race" they're from, only what traits they may physically have. Traits are concentrated to a certain race usually just because that's where it's passed down the most.
Either way, I think race is going to continue to become blurred as cultures intermesh in the future.
 
Race will be blurred, yes - but culture never is...and we'll always have folks who are angry at another group of folks for one reason or another. Cases in point: Troubles in Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda...etc.
 
That's true. Everyone needs a scapegoat to blame.
 
Agreed. The 'racism' in America is actually 'culturalism' that is assumed defined by physical appearance. More often than not, 'racism' is alleviated once someone of a given race proves to be part of an affable culture as opposed to an antagonistic culture.

For instance, when white people prove themselves to be 'cool with' black people, most black people drop their 'racist' barriers. When black people prove that they don't 'act black', most white people instantly accept them into their social circles. These are clearly examples of 'culturalism' that bases its first litmus on 'race based appearance' because these cultures are frequently associated with their respective races.

Ironic, really, since there is no such thing as race, and both cultures are quick to accept members of other races into their cultures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top