Page 11 of 12 [ 184 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

22 Jan 2019, 5:21 am

funeralxempire wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
British heritage goes back millennia...


He's an individual, his heritage doesn't.


We our defined by our genes and our culture... both of which go way back.

funeralxempire wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
Where you are born, means nothing.

It's a meaningless statistic.


Where you were born and grew up defines your national identity, should I assume this is a poor attempt at humour? :?


Where you grow up, yes.

But being born in eg. France means nothing, if you grow up in eg. Russia.

But yes, growing up in France makes you culturally French, if you are not spend most of that time grown up in one of France's many Middle-Eastern ghettoes. But it won't ever make you racially French. Racially, you will always be an alien.

And yes, race does matter. It defines our identity as individuals the same way our gender, our personality, our neurotype & our life experience do!



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 6:32 am

aspiesavant wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
aspiesavant wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Yes Christianity can be taken literally but Islam can only be taken literally.


Says who?


Says Allah apparently.

https://www.whyislam.org/quran/quran-the-word-of-god/


Orthodox Jews would say the same applies to Yahweh.

Fundamentalist Christians would say the same applies to the Christian God.

Liberal Muslims would say that Allah does allow interpretation.

As I stated before : you find literal interpretations & "progressive" interpretations among believers of all three main Abrahamic branches.

You can't just single out Islam here.


Christians believe the bible was inspired by God so most of them pick and choose but some of them take it literally.

Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God so they cannot pick and choose, "Liberal Muslims" are probably just to afraid to leave Islam.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 6:33 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

I think Kara basically finished you off better than I could have, but every response you provided helped her tremendously. You're espousing ethno-nationalism and ethnic chauvinism, racism in more general speech; that's the textbook jargon applied to the positions you're taking - it's not an insulting label when it's objectively true, no matter how offensive you find it to be labelled as such.


Ethnonationalists do not consider mixed race people to be Natives whilst I do.

Ethnonationalists want to deport non natives, I do not.

If Britain doesn't belong to Britons then it belongs to no one.


Your argument basically boils down to 'some people are worse than me'.
A state belongs to it's people in terms of national citizenship, not in terms of ethnicity. At the end of the day diaspora have no claim to the nation except in terms of ethnic identity; immigrants with citizenship do regardless of their ethnic background - they're just as x as the x.


So I have thousands of years of Heritage on Britain but someone who moves here is as British as me because of piece of paper?


You don't have thousands of years of heritage anywhere, you have a few decades, tops.

Yes, I'm saying a native-born citizen is just as x as any other x. If you're going to insist otherwise, you're making my point for me.


Yes I do my ancestors have been on Britain for thousands of years that is my heritage.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Jan 2019, 6:46 am

We are all mongrels



aspiesavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2015
Posts: 579

22 Jan 2019, 10:30 am

Daniel89 wrote:
Christians believe the bible was inspired by God so most of them pick and choose but some of them take it literally.

Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God so they cannot pick and choose, "Liberal Muslims" are probably just to afraid to leave Islam.


False.

There is literally no difference between Christianity & Islam here...

None...

Zilch...

Zero...

Biscuitman wrote:
We are all mongrels


Why is it we take the existence of significant race & gender differences for granted in dogs, horses or any other species of animals, but somehow go all "OMG you stupid bigot" when it involves humans?

Image



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

22 Jan 2019, 1:20 pm

aspiesavant wrote:
And yes, race does matter. It defines our identity as individuals the same way our gender, our personality, our neurotype & our life experience do!

One of these is different from the others. Race is the one thing that doesn't affect your behaviour except through life experience with how much other people care about race. I know, you think there is an IQ difference, and I think you will count that as a difference in behaviour.

aspiesavant wrote:
Why is it we take the existence of significant race & gender differences for granted in dogs, horses or any other species of animals, but somehow go all "OMG you stupid bigot" when it involves humans?

Dogs: intense and differential selection for behaviour. Can you show any such thing in humans?
Species differences: different ecological niches AND millions of years of genetically isolated adaptation to those niches.
Humans: less genetic variation than within chimps, despite vastly larger population (references in Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine)

I have never seen any scientific study examining personality or behavioural differences related to anything resembling "race", except for IQ. If there is anything else, please do tell. And the IQ studies are less informative than you seem to think.

IQ does show high heritability. That is not the same as being under strong genetic control, because heritability is the proportion of variance that can be attributed to genetic variance, as opposed to other variance. The heritability estimate depends on how much genetic variability there is in the population you study, and how much other variance. Anyone who fails to understand that technical detail (most people) will misinterpret heritability data. For an exercise, what is your estimate of the heritability of the number of ears among humans in your home town? For more on the topic: How Heritability Misleads About Race.

Then there is the Flynn effect. IQ tests had to be re-normed because the average IQ today, as defined by norms from about 100 years ago, would be about 130. To get that through genetics, there would have had to be really intense selection for IQ in the last few generations. There is no evidence for that. So a 15 point difference is within the range of what is unlikely to be genetic.

aspiesavant wrote:
Image
[/quote][/quote]
And this is a case where you really need to know the original references for those two graphs. One interesting detail that I found in a text book (don't remember which) is that IQ tests used to have items that asked about tennis. Guess how much tennis people with little money play? To make the point, one psychologist constructed an IQ test asking about details of Black American culture, and you can guess who did well. Other anecdotes from text books discussing IQ tests are the anthropologist who found that members of an African tribe consistently sorted items by a category that developmental psychologists thought was simple, something that only young kids did. Eventually, the anthropoligist asked people to sort items how a fool would sort them, and they promptly sorted in the way Europeans considered more sophisticated. It is not trivial to make a culture neutral IQ test.

Then there is the question what motivates people to do well in school and to acquire the skills being measured in IQ tests. If you see no prospects of being rewarded for intellectual work, why bother? If you live where you are excluded from intellectually demanding jobs because your race or sex is assumed to be incapable, why put in the effort? (Perspective on Minority Education: An Interview with Anthropologist John Ogbu) That is precisely why diversity of roles in popular culture matters.

Then there are the Burakumin in Japan, who were discriminated against and showed lower average IQ. Those who emigrated to the USA showed no such disadvantage (Perspective on Minority Education: An Interview with Anthropologist John Ogbu).

Things are a bit more complicated than indicated by the graphs in your picture.



Last edited by Gromit on 22 Jan 2019, 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 1:23 pm

aspiesavant wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Christians believe the bible was inspired by God so most of them pick and choose but some of them take it literally.

Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God so they cannot pick and choose, "Liberal Muslims" are probably just to afraid to leave Islam.


False.

There is literally no difference between Christianity & Islam here...

None...

Zilch...

Zero...



What are you claiming is false?

That Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God but written by men?

Or That the Quran is the direct word of God?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 5:01 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

I think Kara basically finished you off better than I could have, but every response you provided helped her tremendously. You're espousing ethno-nationalism and ethnic chauvinism, racism in more general speech; that's the textbook jargon applied to the positions you're taking - it's not an insulting label when it's objectively true, no matter how offensive you find it to be labelled as such.


Ethnonationalists do not consider mixed race people to be Natives whilst I do.

Ethnonationalists want to deport non natives, I do not.

If Britain doesn't belong to Britons then it belongs to no one.


Your argument basically boils down to 'some people are worse than me'.
A state belongs to it's people in terms of national citizenship, not in terms of ethnicity. At the end of the day diaspora have no claim to the nation except in terms of ethnic identity; immigrants with citizenship do regardless of their ethnic background - they're just as x as the x.


So I have thousands of years of Heritage on Britain but someone who moves here is as British as me because of piece of paper?


You don't have thousands of years of heritage anywhere, you have a few decades, tops.

Yes, I'm saying a native-born citizen is just as x as any other x. If you're going to insist otherwise, you're making my point for me.


Yes I do my ancestors have been on Britain for thousands of years that is my heritage.


Are you certain that this is true for all of them? You're aware that besides invasions, population transfer/immigration within Europe isn't a new phenomena. You're absolutely certain none of your ancestors came from Saxony, Friesland, Jutland, Normandy, Ireland, etc?

Ultimately it's irrelevant to your identity if that true or not, you wouldn't be any less British even if you were to discover a Spaniard or Punjabi or Greek or Russian or whatever in your heritage, because that's the culture and national identity that you've been emerged in.

Similarly, me having significant English and Scottish ancestry, being an Anglophone, being familiar with the general concepts of common law, having a fondness for modern British and historical English and Scottish cultures, peoples and their achievements, etc doesn't make me British - because I'm not, I haven't lived there, didn't grow up there and have never had citizenship there.

Meanwhile there's at least a dozen Ravinder Singhs* and Simran Kaurs* who most certainly are British, whether or not you're willing to accept that. (*generic names) You don't get to tell other people they don't get to define their national identity, and that instead you are entitled to do it for them. That's the premise of your entire argument and that's why people will consistently roll their eyes and describe you as racist - because you are by your own admission and the logic of your arguments.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 5:10 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

Are you certain that this is true for all of them? You're aware that besides invasions, population transfer/immigration within Europe isn't a new phenomena. You're absolutely certain none of your ancestors came from Saxony, Friesland, Jutland, Normandy, Ireland, etc?

Ultimately it's irrelevant to your identity if that true or not, you wouldn't be any less British even if you were to discover a Spaniard or Punjabi or Greek or Russian or whatever in your heritage, because that's the culture and national identity that you've been emerged in.

Similarly, me having significant English and Scottish ancestry, being an Anglophone, being familiar with the general concepts of common law, having a fondness for modern British and historical English and Scottish cultures, peoples and their achievements, etc doesn't make me British - because I'm not, I haven't lived there, didn't grow up there and have never had citizenship there.

Meanwhile there's at least a dozen Ravinder Singhs* and Simran Kaurs* who most certainly are British, whether or not you're willing to accept that. (*generic names) You don't get to tell other people they don't get to define their national identity, and that instead you are entitled to do it for them. That's the premise of your entire argument and that's why people will consistently roll their eyes and describe you as racist - because you are by your own admission and the logic of your arguments.


I have Irish Heritage (I don't consider that foreign though), French, Italian and possibly African. My ancestry goes thousands of years on this Island though and to say that an Asian person born here is just as British as me is ridiculous. Lots of British Asians came over from Uganda, they are British Asians not British Ugandans if they moved to Australia they would be Australian Asians.

Racism is when you think your race makes you superior to others or hate other races. I do not hate people for their race or hate other races. I love 7 people on this planet and 3 of them are mixed race.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 5:27 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

Are you certain that this is true for all of them? You're aware that besides invasions, population transfer/immigration within Europe isn't a new phenomena. You're absolutely certain none of your ancestors came from Saxony, Friesland, Jutland, Normandy, Ireland, etc?

Ultimately it's irrelevant to your identity if that true or not, you wouldn't be any less British even if you were to discover a Spaniard or Punjabi or Greek or Russian or whatever in your heritage, because that's the culture and national identity that you've been emerged in.

Similarly, me having significant English and Scottish ancestry, being an Anglophone, being familiar with the general concepts of common law, having a fondness for modern British and historical English and Scottish cultures, peoples and their achievements, etc doesn't make me British - because I'm not, I haven't lived there, didn't grow up there and have never had citizenship there.

Meanwhile there's at least a dozen Ravinder Singhs* and Simran Kaurs* who most certainly are British, whether or not you're willing to accept that. (*generic names) You don't get to tell other people they don't get to define their national identity, and that instead you are entitled to do it for them. That's the premise of your entire argument and that's why people will consistently roll their eyes and describe you as racist - because you are by your own admission and the logic of your arguments.


I have Irish Heritage (I don't consider that foreign though), French, Italian and possibly African. My ancestry goes thousands of years on this Island though and to say that an Asian person born here is just as British as me is ridiculous. Lots of British Asians came over from Uganda, they are British Asians not British Ugandans if they moved to Australia they would be Australian Asians.

Racism is when you think your race makes you superior to others or hate other races. I do not hate people for their race or hate other races. I love 7 people on this planet and 3 of them are mixed race.


When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.

Edit:

Further, the colonial states (Canada, the US, Brazil, South Africa, etc) and the imperial states (the UK, France, Spain, Japan, China, Turkey, etc) effectively waived whatever claims they have to being an ethno-state, in the way that one could argue other states like say Norway or East Timor haven't. Just like the Roman Empire couldn't consider only ethnic Italians to be Romans, and effectively had to consider citizenship to not be defined by ethnic background in order to have the concept have meaning, once those countries starting having ties to regions outside of their homeland, it became inevitable that not-thems would start to work their way into society.

How would a Parsi family that's had multiple generations in the UK not be as British as an Irish-British family or Italian-British family with a similar degree of ties?


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Last edited by funeralxempire on 22 Jan 2019, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 5:37 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 5:46 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 6:02 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

22 Jan 2019, 9:53 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.


How many generations does it take? Are white Americans and Canadians sufficiently 'native' yet? Would the descendents of slaves, coolies, those sentenced to transportation, etc be in a different boat so-to-speak than those who had more say?

Just an aside, would you consider Freddie Mercury British? Do especially desirable to claim individuals get special treatment, if so, can Kenya claim Richard Dawkins, or using his hypothetical clone**, Dick Rawkins who self-identifies as Kenyan, works there and lives there, would the UK still be entitled to claim him?

(** yes, I understand this isn't reflective of how cloning really works)


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

22 Jan 2019, 9:59 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

When you go insisting that people who aren't of the majority ethnic stock in a nation can't truly be fully citizens of a nation, that is within most lay definitions of racism. While clearly both your position and your reasoning are fuzzy and inconsistent, taking the hardest line interpretation of what you've laid out is pretty unambiguously racist - what you've said since shows that you're more worried about being labelled racist than remaining consistent in reasoning.

One can be racist without explicitly advocating for racial or ethnic superiority. Ethno-nationalism might not be inherently racially supremacist, but even without that quality it's inherently racist. You appear to be towards the softer end of that ideology, but you're pretty consistent in advocating for positions that fit the definition.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the shoe, but it fits whether or not you're willing to wear it.


I said nothing about citizenship, I do not support taking citizenship away from people because they are not native Britons.

I do not consider the Indians living in Fiji to be Fijians is that racist? Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya does that make him Kenyan?


I never suggested you supported stripping legal citizenship, but your running argument has been that they're less entitled to view themselves and be viewed as full citizens of the nation.

Yes, if Indians living in Fiji view themselves as Fijians, they're entitled to define themselves as such and it would racist to insist they're not - whether it's you or their government doing it, I would describe that as racist.

Was he born in Kenya or British East Africa? Was he raised there? Does he consider himself Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan, or does he view himself as having another nationality? If he has citizenship and self-identifies as such and lives there, he's Kenyan, or Anglo-Kenyan by the definition I've consistently used. Considering he works in the UK, has British citizenship and was born in British Kenya, I don't think it would be appropriate to call him Kenyan.


That just seems colonialist to me. That you can move to someone else's homeland claim to it be equally your homeland.


How many generations does it take? Are white Americans and Canadians sufficiently 'native' yet? Would the descendents of slaves, coolies, those sentenced to transportation, etc be in a different boat so-to-speak than those who had more say?

Just an aside, would you consider Freddie Mercury British? Do especially desirable to claim individuals get special treatment, if so, can Kenya claim Richard Dawkins, or using his hypothetical clone**, Dick Rawkins who self-identifies as Kenyan, works there and lives there, would the UK still be entitled to claim him?

(** yes, I understand this isn't reflective of how cloning really works)


No White North Americans are not native, that doesn't make them less American or Canadian though as Europeans formed these countries.

I would consider Freddie Mercury to be British Asian not British doesn't mean I dislike him or consider him inferior.

The clone of Dawkins would still be British yes, the same way Chinese people who don't live in China are still Chinese.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

22 Jan 2019, 10:51 pm

aspiesavant wrote:
Louis Mackey wrote:
Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

The gap in what? That is a quantitative claim. If it reflect more than Louis Mackey's feeling about the subject, there must have been a measurement. What was measured, and how? If the claim is just based on Mackey's subjective feeling of awe, it has bugger all to do with any scientific assessment of the intellects of humans and chimps.