Question for the race supremacists...

Post Reply New Topic

Most white folks believe in race...

I believe in ethnicity, rather than race.

A black person raised in a mainstream American environment reflects that environment, usually. So does an East Asian person, and so on down the line.

There is no “supreme ethnicity”—though there are some which could, using totally subjective standards, seem “better” than others.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

Indian Americans have won the last dozen spelling bees held in America. How many race supremacists can calculate the odds of that happening?

It’s not because they’re “Indian” by race.

It’s at least partially because of their ethos when it come to education.

I think you are over-intellectualising unconcious bias

Obviously, there is bias—both unconscious and conscious....

There are many claims of “racial superiority” floating around....based on “evidence” obtained through a sort of “alchemical” mode of thought.

Think of the pseudoscience known as phrenology. Where one’s intelligence was determined, partially, through bumps on the head.

Obviously, to deny the existence of racism would be a fallacy.

My point is that this bias has no real basis in truth.

I think most people throughout the centuries have preferred their own race, culture, beliefs and methods over others.

These days there's propaganda that if you are not a liberal democrat you are a white supremacist racist bigot nazi or at least lean that way.

Last edited by EzraS on 01 Jun 2019, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That’s probably true.

But a strong minority always existed which disagreed.

Until relatively recently, this minority was afraid of rocking the boat.

I think because you can take a group of Europeans and put them on a barren island like Iceland and they can create a successful and safe country with high living standard, but put lots of Africans on an Island and tourists can't go out the holiday resort alone for fear of being attacked.
There's a man called Varg Vinkerness who thinks Europeans are more Neanderthal than is said, and autism is a Neanderthal trait.

I think a better question might be:

What makes one race inferior to another?

Then we could, perhaps, unpack some cognitive biases and deal with race issues from a rational and objective stance. A sociological approach when looking at race in America is especially beneficial and illuminating.

Since racism is thankfully frowned upon, people aren’t very likely to give their honest opinions (if they even admit these opinions to themselves).

Race is largely a social construct but I think it’s really important to get at the heart of this and examine the “evidence” that racist people use to support their stances. They tend to just look at specific facts and don’t apply critical thinking skills to get at the reasons behind that data.

I guess I was wrong when I said that racist people wouldn’t state their opinions.

WP keeps me humble.

What specific island are you referring to “Africans” colonizing?

Instead of just considering race couldn’t there be other socioeconomic factors to bear in mind?

In order to have any basis for comparison both races would have to have the same socioeconomic and educational backgrounds and would have to be colonizing identical islands.

If you’re referring to places that have a large black population due to the slave trade, it would be absolutely absurd!

People who have genetic relatedness possess similar inheritable traits, many of these in which their manifestation is dependent on the stimulus in their environment (epigenetics) and also determined by reproductive strategy and selection. This changes with time.

Therefore, one cannot say that a group is innately superior. Even if it is displaying a trait one has defined as advantageous (which is highly dependent on the views of the examiner), that trait could be lost over time or it could become disadvantageous in a new environment.

Trying to create a notion of "race" seems more like a social construct based upon melanin similarities, skull shape, and cultural similarity (which is highly subjective). It's way too big a net to cast. These traits like melanin and skull shape are less interesting than vulnerability and resistance to specific diseases or the inheritability of various metabolic efficiencies.

It's funny too, because the same people who preach race realism are typically also claiming strength through national unity, but their position and ideology accomplish the opposite in the current environment. The smart thing to do if you actually care about national strength is to emphasize diversity as genetically desirable, which it actually is. Instead of igniting racial tensions they should attempt to counter internalized racial bias in society by early education. The clock isn't turning back unless you're literally going to commit genocide.

What about the UK hating on "gingers"? Is that racist?

Nope

Very good...now try putting a viking here
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09 ... er-thought

or here
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/2016091 ... g-cauldron

I doubt the neanderthal traits will come in very handy...people adapt to the environment they evolve and the traits/habits/culture.

The legacy of this ideology
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 69396.html

Is still with us. It explains the lack of a level playing field and the almost apartheid neighborhoods/communities where native people were forced on reservations and Asians/blacks/Latinos forced into their own neighbourhoods. It also explains white flight when "darkies" move into all-white neighborhoods, happens here in Australia as well...