| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Racism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Racism

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Racism
    Posted: 14 Aug 2014 at 04:09

 

To be labelled a racist in todays society is highly detrimental to a persons reputation and possibly his chances of success in his chosen field. It is a term reflecting at least distaste or even hatred. But racism and racist are words which are used far too widely in todays society. They are used, imho, too often by people or minorities which are making a particular claim, as a defensive measure, one seeking to gain more support from the wider community.

 

It is a term which is more often directed at, dare I say it, at White People. These days if I call someone black, it’s called a racist remark, but if a coloured person calls me Whitey or something similar, that’s not racist?

 

A Racist is

Quote a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

 

The word race, in this context, is usually defined as

Quote Groups of people who have differences and similarities in biological traits deemed by society to be socially significant.
. That’s right, different, not inferior or superior.

The Oxford Dictionary defines Race as follows
Quote Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics: people of all races, colours, and creeds
So, if I were to say that some races are more brutal and savage than others, that’s an observation of fact, not a racist comment-isn’t it?
 

 If I were to say that I find the practices of some countries, for example, of Islamic religion, abhorrent, I would be labelled a racist. What title could be attached to me if I also said that Christianity has for long been associated with greed, tyranny and oppression?

The word Race, is one being used less these days in scientific references, probably due to the negative connotations. But are they negative? I don’t believe so.

So, popular or not, to describe a group of people as being of Asian or African origin is not racist, unless it is placed in the context of them being inferior. Is it?



Edited by toyomotor - 14 Aug 2014 at 04:10
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Eetion View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Eetion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2014 at 07:00
1- Making hate speech about Islam or Islamic Countries(or another religion) doesn't make you racist, because issue is not race.

2- But I see your point. I don't believe there is a rational and general behaviour about this topic.

Example: in the science, we divide every single species in to sub-species. such as Felix leo



however, you can't do it with homo sapiens, because it is racist.

Home Sapiens Africus
Home Sapiens Latini
Home Sapiens Turcosis.   I think, there is gap in here
Back to Top
Arlington View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Arlington Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Aug 2014 at 09:58
Race and racism/ist are not necessarily synonymous. As noted in the previous post the term 'race' is a long established term used to identify species difference in the scientific sense be it biological anthropological etc.

The real truth, afaic, is that 'racist' has become a common term of denigration to identify opponents; of others, (no matter their actual racial makeup), political and social developmental agendas.


While there is little doubt there are many who ascribe to the classic definition.


That has been overshadowed by those whose political and social agendas requires past conventions, traditions, customs, and even laws, that once segregated and minimized; to now fuel their own hatreds and bias when challenged.

And those types don't need a skin color-theological-sexual difference.

They merely need to be challenged.

And then, in all rejection of their complaints for past conduct. Their lying and hypocrisy 'true' nature is revealed. When they in turn cast labels. Simply because they are not receiving confirmation of their position.
Back to Top
RedHerring7 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedHerring7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 11:31
Hello.

Look, I do not know if this is the right topic so please  do not label me spam. It is a question about racism. I want to ask a moderator a question. Actually this is the first and maybe only purpose I made this account. I got banned on a similar forum for a reason and I want to know if this is general banning motive, or not - of course I cannot quote the original post, but I said something like this - it was on a topic about the origin of the word ~vlah~ or of the Romanian nation, and I begun to read it ,and a guy said , in Bosnia Vlachs are Gypsies. So I quoted him and I said, something like this - `In Poland, Romanians are believed to be Gypsies, which I believe it may be a confusion caused by the similarity of the words  romani/roma(gypsy)/romanian, and the reason for this confusion may be underlying xenophobia, since gypsies are despised. ( this is a common view in several countries. IS this the first reason for banning? ) And since Romanians too see gypsies as inferior, so the comparison is insulting for Romanians. ` So ,that is what I basically said.  I did add some clauses, that not all of them Poles /Romanias think that, and that I did not run sociological tests, but this is just something I heard. From folks in Poland. So, pretty much this is what I said. While paying attention not claiming that this is something desirable, whatever, I mean, what I said is plain truth. That it is uncomfortable, hell it is. But it is no lie. Is this a good reason for getting banned  as spam?

What I basically did is point at a racism triangle or whatever you wanna call it. westerners-romanians-gypsies. Which is of course not something pleasant to hear. But I did not imply anything else that this thing exists.
Anyway, that is all.
Thanks for any reply.

Disclaimer -I am not here to promote any kind of speech. This I am quite sure is my first and last post. I am really annoyed. I am not in the mood for any debate. I wanted just to ask this. I did not message the board that banned me because I do not want to argue with them. I did not yet messaged them. Maybe I will.  But I don`t think so.


Edited by RedHerring7 - 15 Sep 2015 at 11:52
Back to Top
RedHerring7 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RedHerring7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 12:08
Just one more thing, Basically, my point was the Romanian hypocrisy, and double oriented racism, form Westerners towards Romanians and from Romanians to Gypsies. and the same time at a double loaded racism, in Poland, towards Gypsies and towards Romanians labeled Gypsy. Ok, this is totally unpleasant. But it does exist. And this - the main reason Romanians are so touchy about this confusion is their own racism, oriented towards Gypsies. So yes, I pretty much annoyed anyone by merely expressing this. Which does not make it still untrue. OK, i am done.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 07:19
I don't see anything wrong with your post, but then again I am not a moderator or editor.  In the US, we don't have much experience of gypsies.  Rightfully or wrongfully, gypsies are associated with superstition and petty crime.  I think towns in Germany still pay them to _not_ settle down when they come to a town.  Gypsies are a little out of polite European society, which came first the discrimination? or the fact that they are outside of society?  I think the two feed into each other.  But again, I don't really know much about the gypsies, I did like the gypsy bare-knuckles boxer played by Brad Pitt in "Snatch."  Tough character, and I assume gypsies are pretty tough group.

I'm not sure one should consider gypsies a "race," at least no more or less than one could consider the English to be a race.  I think the term we would use in America would be "ethnicity."  One question to ask is could one tell the difference between a gypsy and a Romanian, or a Pole or a Frenchman, if there was nothing on their person that would culturally indicate that they are a Gypsy?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 03:32
Francis

There are gypsies throughout Europe, and what are commonly referred to as "Tinkers" or "Travellers" in England and Ireland. On this basis, and because I don't know of any genetic connection between them and the Gypsies of Europe, I would not have thought that the word ethnicity would sit comfortably.

Perhaps culture would be more accurate.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 06:47
I am not sure that ethnicity doesn't include culture, but your point is taken toyomotor.

It would be interesting if they had separate origins but similar institutions/customs/etc.

Gypsies tend to be outside of the main culture.  That tends to cause friction.  I am not saying
that is right or wrong, but I am not sure it will ever go away.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 10:49
Ethnicity includes culture 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 02:48
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Ethnicity includes culture 

Francis/Wolf:

Yes I agree with both of you, I was using the word "ethnicity" in the nationalistic sense.

As far as I know, the Tinkers and Travellers of the UK and Ireland have no common homeland with the Gypsies of Europe, although that could not be ruled out entirely I suppose.

I find it interesting that the two disparate groups share so much in common in their lifestyles.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 06:59
I wonder if it is a "cultural evolution?"  I see that maybe there was one group of finches, divided up into
two groups of finches that diverged from other, when one population separated from the other, and went to (another) island?  Especially with the intervention of two world wars??  One group going through national socialism, and the other, not.

Of course, I am talking metaphorically, but it does seem to match up pretty well metaphorically.  No??
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 08:34
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I wonder if it is a "cultural evolution?"  I see that maybe there was one group of finches, divided up into
two groups of finches that diverged from other, when one population separated from the other, and went to (another) island?  Especially with the intervention of two world wars??  One group going through national socialism, and the other, not.

Of course, I am talking metaphorically, but it does seem to match up pretty well metaphorically.  No??

I'm kind of tired and have a headache I will comment later when it isn't such a fog, of course senility will remain a problem.

Wink
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 08:45
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I wonder if it is a "cultural evolution?"  I see that maybe there was one group of finches, divided up into
two groups of finches that diverged from other, when one population separated from the other, and went to (another) island?  Especially with the intervention of two world wars??  One group going through national socialism, and the other, not.

Of course, I am talking metaphorically, but it does seem to match up pretty well metaphorically.  No??

I'm kind of tired and have a headache I will comment later when it isn't such a fog, of course senility will remain a problem.

Wink

The good thing about senility (Alzheimers) is that the only person who doesn't know that you've got it is you.

LOL


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 02:52
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I wonder if it is a "cultural evolution?"  I see that maybe there was one group of finches, divided up into
two groups of finches that diverged from other, when one population separated from the other, and went to (another) island?  Especially with the intervention of two world wars??  One group going through national socialism, and the other, not.

Of course, I am talking metaphorically, but it does seem to match up pretty well metaphorically.  No??

Parallel evolution is pretty common if environmental conditions favor certain traits.  

The problem with discussing cultural evolution is that unlike physical evolution it is almost impossible to determine what the environment actually was or is.  It changes rapidly and has no fixed location making it appear to be amorphous.   
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 18:22
Quote Parallel evolution is pretty common if environmental conditions favor certain traits. 

It also encourages 'convergent' evolution.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 01:00
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Parallel evolution is pretty common if environmental conditions favor certain traits. 

It also encourages 'convergent' evolution.

You have to tell me if we are dealing with the same ancestors or not?
Back to Top
alphabeta View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 17 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote alphabeta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2017 at 11:13
ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Back to Top
VeritasLux View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VeritasLux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2017 at 19:23
Few year late but there are simple answers to those questions. Just joined here and feel the urge to answer. :D
Gypsies of Europe migrated from India in several waves. Their move out of the area called Rajasthan, coincided with the times of muslims occupation of parts of India. Their nomadic way of life and craftsmanship is still found in Luhari, also sharing a similar language.
Continued nomadic way of life (clans with head or chief) over the centuries and an obviously different appearance from European populations made it hard to integrate in structured societies within a state's boundaries.

Going further to the ignorant assumption of some Bosnians that the Vlachs are Gypsies;

The answer is that great Slavic migration of 6th century from the north (current west Ukraine, South Poland), to the south of Danube happened to take the lands of those Vlachs.
Decimated, assimilated displaced to the mountainous areas of the Balkans.
Great Slavic migration to the south was facilitated by the move of Germanic populations, from the areas currently inhabited by West, East and South Slavic tribes.
Germanic Vandals from the Baltic areas through Iberic Peninsula to North Africa, Visigoths through current Romania, Balkans, to Italy to Spain, part of Ostrogoths crossed Black Sea into Anatolia, the other part formed the Ostrogoth kingdom over Italy after Visigoths moved further west, the Suebi (Swaben) moved to current day Portugal, Longobardi moved to North Italy then formed the Longobard Kingdom over most Italy, Heruli followed the Ostrogoths, Gepides moved over Transylvanian plateau and parts of Pannonia, until were destroyed by Avars in 6th century.  All those Germanic tribes and few more were stationed for centuries in current areas of Slavic and Baltic countries.

Slavic migration happened in waves and started actually in the 5th century, with the East Slavic tribes moving south from current Ukraine, over what is today Moldova and south Romania, to current day Bulgaria and Macedonia.
So those Slavic tribes moving south, over romanized populations, settled either peacefully or by war, attested destruction to the area and genocide. Further south, Greeks narrowly escaped occupation by incoming Slavs.

Bosnians are not attested as individually moving tribe to the south, but are assumed to be Croat and Serb settlers, in their current location since 6th century;
They say willingly converted to Islam, for social privileges in the Ottoman Empire.
Privileges were like muslims couldn't be taken slaves by the Islamic law, didn't pay taxes and had access to high ranking positions; Contrary to the christian subjects, in an area under Ottoman occupation since 15th century.

So actually the Bosnians are on the lands of the Vlachs. Those romanized  inhabitants of Thrace, Pelasgia, Illyria, were there thousands of years before the romans colonized.
The aspect that distinguishes them from the Greeks and Albanians is their romance language and the fact that other ethnicities' areal is almost intact.
Bulgars and slavs didn't come to those historically known areas in peace.

There are 19 Roman and Byzantine Emperors that claimed origin in the romanized areas of north and south of Danube;
Justinian clearly mentioned he is a Vlach from Epirus;
Claudius, Diocletian, Valens claimed to be romanized Dacians from north of Danube. To name some.
11 century Bulgar Emperors John and Peter Asen were also Vlachs;

Survival and tradition made Vlachs (scattered accross the Balkans and the Carphatian arch) live for thousands of years mainly a pastoral life. Specially since migrations arrived on their lands.

They can be found to date up to the end of Carphatian Mountains in Ukraine, Czech, Slovakia and south Poland. See Vlach villages on maps.

As for Romanians being considered gypsies by Poles, that's another arrogance and ignorance.
In WW2 30k Polish soldiers and 80 k civilians were received by Romania as refugees.

Making a parallel between Vlachs and Romanians,

In 1371 Pope Gregory XI sends to ruler Latzcu Musat the title "Dux Moldaviensis seu nationis Wlachie" (duke of Moldavia and his Vallachian nation) and the title is handed over by the Polish bishop of Siret, Andrej Jastrzebiec.
Latzcu's great grand son, Stephan the Great, had 47 victories against Ottomans, some are thought in military schools over the world.
On the other side of the mountains, in 'Wallachia', Stephen's cousin Vlad the Impaler doesn't need any presentation.
Their Vlach mentor from Transylvania, John Hunyadi, regent of Hungary, delayed the advance of Ottomans in Balkans for 60 years, through great victories such as the 1443 battle of Belgrade.

Well, from a Bosnian perspective that could be bad news. That's why, in such circumstances, some like Vlachs can be called Gypsies or infidels, but all that matters is the truth.

And the truth is some nations like Bosnia are proud to be tall and handsome, and that is also because of their good genes. ;)
Markers show a more than 70% ProtoIE ancestry (Y-I2a2, M423).
Around 20% is the Slavic IE Y-R1a, coming from west Ukraine (White Croats, Serbs, Slovenes);
It is obvious that any conquering population is initially a minority, before assimilating the local majority, if that happens. Fact that Vlachs still exist to date shows that they resisted assimilation, but are dispersed and could preserve their identity mainly in the mountains. Which suggests that over time was an ethnic cleansing and many Vlachs of the past are Turks, Bulgars, Macedonians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes of today.
Recent memory shows Greece convincing Vlachs that they were romanized Greeks, even though their location in history places them out of traditionally Greek areas.
It is important to integrate in a country where you live and is also important to preserve ethnic identity.   
 
To conclude,
Is there any coincidence that next highest percentage of Y M423, after Bosnia and Croatia, is spread all over Moldova and NW of Black Sea? White Croats and Serbs came from west Ukraine, never occupied those areas in history
Or some of highest mt-H5a1? in areas like north, north-east Italy, Slovenia and big parts of east, north-east Romania?
It is also recorded by Romans that Dacian tribe Carpi, attested biggest in Moldovan areas for hundreds of years, has been relocated in 3rd century to north Italy. In such a move I'd suspect that mitochondrial remains predominant.
 
Is there a coincidence that those Vlachs speak a similar language that can be understood by Romanians from Moldova, Muntenia (Wallachia), Transylvania, after thousands of years of living isolated, separate?

Is there any coincidence that Sardinian, Friuli(NE corner Italy) is closer to Romanian than Italian?
And there are still Vlach communities of Istro-Romanians, in nearby slavic Slovenia? It is not.

The sea between Sardinia and Italy is called Thyrrenian Sea. Tyrrenians were one of the Pelasgian tribes, from current day Macedonia, attested to be found there and displaced by Dorians;
After many years of living side by side Tyrrenians were outnumbered by Dorians and pushed to the Italic Peninsula. Check also the very high I2a2 in Sardinia. 

So there are a few questions with clear answers about the ancestry of those PIE, that populate, even today, north and south of Danube and long before migrations.

Going back to the main topic of 'Racism', lack of knowledge and superficial understanding make people assume ridiculous things.
Even though, is no shame to belong to any color or race, by the contrary, it is what makes us unique. By virtues, shame is to live in disrespect and ignorance.
Past is past, future is today.
 
    
   
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.