What is racism?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey

It matters not if their DNA is 99.999% common - the level of difference is only significant to claim seperate species or sub-species. By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race.

This statement is 150% accurate. Our DNA as it happens is 98.874% IDENTICAL to that of a chimpanzee. Perhaps moreso in the case of one particular poster on this thread, who shall remain nameless. How closely DNA structures resemble each other isn't the issue, how these genes are *expressed* and evolve in the context of different geographical environments is however. Jc is right, you won't see many black swimmers just like you won't see many white 100m runners. I think it was my dad, plain-spoken as he is who observed in a slightly ironic tone that the 100m race seems to be the American blacks vs. the British Blacks vs. the French blacks, vs. the Carribean blacks.

Thus, while it may be true to say that we can trace a single common ancestor from that time, the mathematics and logistics of it show that it is probable that we all share a common ancestry with many others who were alive at the time, but that their maternal mitochondrial lineages died out over time.

jc

Also 100% correct. Let's also not forget mutations, chromosome crossover, locus changes and helicase duplication errors, all of which lead to evolution of the human genome outside of environmental stimulus. How well those genes do is of course entirely dependent on the environment, and possibly on accessory gene expression. For example, a mutation that allows one to make insulin 400% more efficiently than anyone else will not be passed on if the accessory gene for pancreas embryology is critically flawed. The signal peptide might be incredibly efficient, but the actual production of insulin won't be possible(analogy would be a super efficient factory worker who has no factory to work in).

Gene diversity is nothing to be feared, but to be marveled at. I find it somewhat ironic that while there are over 50 sub-genus variations of field mice, they all seem to happily mate, play, and congregate together in relatively large communities. While human beings have obsessed over our differences for generations. It's this sort of attitude that in some ways, restricts our evolution as a species- opening and diversifying the gene pool without passion or prejudice is our best chance for survival, yet we blatantly don't pursue this course (except for an enlightened few). Food for thought certainly.

Occy

Zombrex

Okay, getting slightly off the topic of racism, but anyway ...

Originally posted by bonkey
But the very definition of race is people from a common geographic location sharing common genetically-inherited traits.

But "race" that definition is purely an unscientific observation of the most "obvious" (to us as people) physical traits of a person, and an assumption of where they are from. It is not scientific and ignores that fact that since the dawn of time there has been continual migration and cross breeding of people around the globe. By your definition of race, tall blond people living in Cork are a race apart from short blond people living in Spain.

Originally from the Guardian (extract from “Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes” by Prof Steve Olson)
There are gene-frequency differences between populations in north and south Wales for instance, not generally regarded as separate "races", while we Ashekenazi Jews are genetically closer to our Polish Catholic neighbours than we are to Sephardi Jews

Would the people of North and South Wales be of different races?

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid were the 3 races believed to exist on between the humans, in the 19th and early 20th century. People were put into these groups depending on skin colour, hair type and other traits. Basically in modern terms it is White, Asian (Yellow) and African (Black).

But there is no scientific basis for this idea of "race." The only possible scientific basis could be the genetic diversity of different people, and as my original post above stated, there is not enough diversity between what we would call the races, to define them scientifically. There is more genetic diversity with what you would call a race than between them.

Human have this need to group and classify everything they see, and so naturally we have applied the same to ourselves. I may be considered to belong to the "white race," but this is merely an observation of my skin colour. I could just as easily be considered part of the "black haired race" or the "tall people race". A dark skinned American is called "black" even if they have one white parent and one black parent. What race would they be classified as? Genetically he/she can't be classified as a race. There is no box they can be put into. By your definition of race are they belong to the North American, slightly dark skinned, race of people.

Originally posted by bonkey
By adapting genetically to their environment, they become a race

But everyone everywhere has adapted genetically to his or her environment. We choose the trait of black skin to define the black/African race. But that was just an observation of the most striking difference between the people of Middle and Southern Africa and Europeans. Within African there are many different environments which people have naturally adapted to, but we still consider them all to belong to the black race, because we chose skin colour as the definition of their race. The people of North Africa are not even that dark skinned. Are the people of North African and Southern African the same race or not? What race are they if they are not Black? The answer will not be found in there genes.

Originally posted by bonkey
If you take the sporting world, you will find, for example, that there are very few, if any, successful black swimmers. Why? Simple - their physiology is sufficiently different to whites that their physique is simply not suited to the event. Their bone density differs in a small but significant way to whites.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Jc is right, you won't see many black swimmers just like you won't see many white 100m runners.

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race. Black people are not good at running, some black people, from certain areas, are good at running. If you ignore the skin colour, it simply becomes “some people” from certain areas are good at running. People in certain areas of Africa may have adapted to fast running, and passed that on to the descendants. But this is an issue of a group of people adapting to their environment and passing on genetically traits to their descendants. People from some areas of Africa and their descendants, are good at running. It is not a trait that you can define a "black race" with. A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

The Gopher

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus



. There's a historical precedent for this...think it was coincidence that Capone, Don Guissepe and Paul Castellano were of Italian descent? The Italian community from the early 20s onwards were horribly ostracized in the seaboard states. After a few decades of police oppression in many forms, they decided to go postal and take the crime world by storm.

I agree with alot of what you said but contrary to your belief the Italians did not form the mafia because they were poor immigrants sick of having the hard time that greedy natives were giving them.The mafia was already around in Siciily and the rest of the south for hundreds of years before the large migrations began.Italians formed the first powerful mafia in New Orleans in the 1890s.It was made up of Italian immigrants who had been in it for the most part before leaving Italy.It was not something that was set up by the opressed sons of immigrants who wanted their slice of their native countrys wealth-it was formed by Italians and most of the lower soldiers were former teenage gang members and drug dealers-skangers in other words.The fact is it didnt take them a few decades to do this-they were doing it the second they arrived in the states.And if it is such a get out of the ghetto card for the poor how come there were a sizeable amount of members who were actually the types who grew up out in a mansion in Long Island,sons of mobsters from the hoods.Surely you cant say this about them can you?Castelenno and Gottis son ranked among these types.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Wicknight

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race. Black people are not good at running, some black people, from certain areas, are good at running. If you ignore the skin colour, it simply becomes “some people” from certain areas are good at running. People in certain areas of Africa may have adapted to fast running, and passed that on to the descendants. But this is an issue of a group of people adapting to their environment and passing on genetically traits to their descendants. People from some areas of Africa and their descendants, are good at running. It is not a trait that you can define a "black race" with. A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

First off, I'd dispute the assertion that there weren't many black 100m runners 100 years ago. Jesse Owens, Colin Farden, Marcus Deacon were all renowned atheletes in their day. I find it truly amazing they managed to overcome the stupendous boundaries of race in their times. If there wasn't a predominance of black sprinters back then it was due to political factors, institutionalized racism and nepotism that wracked sports that far back in the past. Medical studies have shown that sprinting potential is almost 90% genetically based. In other words, one's max threshold is very much based on how well quick-fire sarcoplasms metabolize sugars. And there is a far greater prevalence of this genetic makeup in black people, there's no denying that, it's in black and white and in more than one study. Also take a look at the other genetic factors concerned, such as height. Count all the centers in the NBA, I think you'll find the vast majority of them are black- that's for a reason. Height is strongly influenced by genetic factors, and the same comparison applies here.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

You couldn't be more wrong I'm afraid. There are very recognizable genetic boundaries that can be easily drawn between races. Observe how much more common sickle-cell anemia is in those of Afro-Carribean descent for example. This was an evolutionary trait that gained primacy because of its indisputable defence against malaria. Our genes define what we are, just as the breed of a dog is very much dictated by subtle gene expression. Facial bone structure, melanin content in dermal tissues, lung capacity, down to the efficiency of metabolism, a fundamental distinguishing factor BETWEEN species, never mind within a species. Granted on a *geological* scale only, these differences are probably insignificant. But then so would the existance of humanity itself. If you compressed the history of our planet into a single year, we as a defined modern species have existed for the last hour of December 31st. We're gnats on the dungheap geologically. Taking a reasonable historical scale there is no way of denying genetic boundaries that seperate races. I'm not saying believe the crap Charles Bell writes in The Bell Curve, but simply that as far as physical characteristics and potential goes, there's no doubt scientifically.



Gopher, perhaps I worded it poorly. I'm not suggesting these organizations FORMED via the route of poverty and oppression. I'm saying that's how they RECRUITED. The manner in which poor Italian immigrants were sucked into a life of crime by the dons strongly resembles the manner in which much of urban black youth in modern America takes the same route. Many of the areas in which crime is highest in New York for example (the Bronx, Harlem) are desperately poor and deprived areas, over a third of the people living in some districts sleep rough and go to bed hungry at night. Desperation sets in, backs to the wall, and crime will inevitably increase from these sources. The causes of crime are a lot harder to fight than the crime itself, a fact that keeps all our nations' penal systems waterlogged to this day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Wicknight
But "race" that definition is purely an unscientific observation of the most "obvious" (to us as people) physical traits of a person, and an assumption of where they are from. It is not scientific and ignores that fact that since the dawn of time there has been continual migration and cross breeding of people around the globe. By your definition of race, tall blond people living in Cork are a race apart from short blond people living in Spain.

Axtually, you're not only wrong, you're missing the point(s) I was making.

First of all, race is scientifically distinguishable. You yourself admitted that instead of "race", we had people genetically adapting to their immediate surroundings.

I argue that this exactly what defines race. Just as we have certain characteristics which are engendered from common environmental factors over large areas (most notably, skin colour), we also have more localised versions - such as Occy's example of sickle-cell anemia in malarial regions.

And yes, by my definition, the short blond Spanish and tall blond Corkonians would indeed be considered races, if it could be shown that their hair colour and/or height was a localised genetic adaption resulting in statistically common traits.

Its funny - the inescapable conclusion is that not only do disparate races exist, but they exist in such plentitude that the concept of racism is farcical.

Would the people of North and South Wales be of different races?

Again, if you can show genetic traits which are statistically common within each region, differing to those of their neighbours, then yes. However, I would be inclined to believe that you will not find such traits.

But there is no scientific basis for this idea of "race."

Yes there is. At the simplest reasoning, there is a scientific basis for explaining the skin-colour, which is a regionalised genetic trait. Note the words regionalised and genetic? That implies race, and no-one is going to tell me that skin-colour isnt genetic.

What is significant is that when we look more closely, we find that there are no clearly-defined "borders" between these three classical groups. There are races at the "intersections" which show that there is an impossible line to draw - when does black become white? However, this only shows that the broadest racial descriptions are incomplete, but this doesnt mean that such groups cannot be identified - just that these groups will not form 100% of the population.

I could just as easily be considered part of the "black haired race" or the "tall people race".

Of course you could...if you could show that these were regionalised genetic adaptions. In reality, they arent, which is why we dont have those races.

A dark skinned American is called "black" even if they have one white parent and one black parent. What race would they be classified as? Genetically he/she can't be classified as a race. There is no box they can be put into. By your definition of race are they belong to the North American, slightly dark skinned, race of people.

OK - you're still not listening, are you.

Race exists. This does not mean that everyone can be easily classified into a given set of races. No-one claimed that racial definitions were complete enough to classify everyone on the planet. No-one has ever claimed that.

No-one has ever claimed that the popular definition of race is correct - that the racist attitudes we encounter all too often are consistenly based on actual racial distinctions in the first place. They dont.

All we have claimed is that race exists.

Even if you ignore the social/economic reasons why this is the case (100 years ago you didn’t see many black 100m runners), it is irrelevant to the definition of a persons race.

Well, see, this is why I originally chose an example of swimming. Because it is scientifically proveable why blacks do not do well at swimming, and why it most categorically is a racially defineable trait, and not a socio-economic one.

The simple fact is that the physique of blacks is slightly but significantly different to whites. One of these areas is in bone density and distribution. Quite simply put, blacks do not make as good swimmers as whites because they are not structurally as suitable.

This has been modelled, explained, and accepted by the scientific community. You can choose to disregard it all you like, but it is a simple fact, which matches available evidence.

Now, this doesnt say that there cannot be a successful black swimmer. What is says is that statistically, there cannot and will not be as many successful black swimmers as whites.

A white runner from England and a black runner from Nigeria probably have more genetic traits in common that the black runner would have with a slow small black man from South Africa.

For the last time - IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT COMMONALITY.

Imagine that we had only one gene, which could have one of two values, dependant on temperature.

As man spread over the world, we would end up with groups in the North and South of the world having their gene with value A, and those closer to the equator having value B. At the intersections/borders, you would have a mix of both.

How many races do you have? I would say three. While those in the North and those in the South share a common genetic trait, they are regionally seperate.

Thus, even if the direct-descendant native of Britain and his counterpart in Nigeria share identical genes, they are still racially seperate, because you cannot define a single continuous racial territory linking them.

To sum up once again (sigh) … there is no scientific or biological basis for the idea of “Race” … it is merely a (very flawed) system of classification people invented to put people in groups depending on a certain traits that are most noticeable to us as humans (mainly skin colour).

Incorrect.

The "conventional" concepts of race are incorrect and incomplete in their definitions limits (white, black and asian or yellow), but this in no way means that race does not exist.

You can sigh all you like, but at the end of the day science is very much convinced in the existence of race.

What science disagrees with is the social horse manure which we get fed by some "enlightened" people as to what racial distinctiveness means or is about. You know - people who think that the existence of race means that racial purity must be maintained for some reason, or that differing races are not compatible. Rubbish like that.

jc

Zombrex

Okay, what is going on here is we have completely different ideas on what we each mean by the term "race"

You define "race" as any group of people who have genetical traits different than their neighbours. By this definition there are probably about ten thousand different "races" in the world, and probably about 10 or 20 different races in Ireland alone.

This is not what I mean when I say race, and I don't think it is what the wider population mean when they say race (especially when it comes to racism).

When I talk about race, I mean the idea that large groups of people (we are talking millions of people here, over large land masses) can be grouped together and call, for example, Caucasoid, or White.

As you would probably agree, it is not scientific to group people together like that. There is such a wide difference in genetic traits within these "races" that the picking the genetic traits to classify a race would be impossible.

bertiebowl

For me Racism is intolerance of others, principally based on perceived "differences" noted by the racist person themselves.

After the Nice referendum campaign and from what I've read here from some (a minority) of posters, I'm gonna join Amnesty International and campaign against racism.

My first target will be our so-called Minister for "Justice" who wants to throw out as many people as he can.

Regresive Democretin McDowell wants to start by ejecting some poor Kosovan family - not on says I - we have plenty of room in Ireland to help others in the world.

Meh

Originally posted by bertiebowl
My first target will be our so-called Minister for "Justice" who wants to throw out as many people as he can.

Regresive Democretin McDowell wants to start by ejecting some poor Kosovan family - not on says I - we have plenty of room in Ireland to help others in the world.

But McDowell isn't throwing people out based on skin colour. He's not deporting just Nigerians while allowing Eastern Europeans to stay. He's deporting everyone whose asylum application has failed. Hence, his policy isn't racist. In any case, allowing failed asylum seekers to stay in the country makes a mockery of the asylum system. It encourages economic migrants to falsely claim refugee status, and thus leads to real refugees being stigmatized as "fakers". Deportations are essential to the integrity of the asylum system.

I haven't heard of the case about the Kosovan family -- do you have a link to a news story?

Mr White

"Poles bomb Warsaw!";"Spielberg attacked by jew-eating octopus!";"They hate our freedom";"Bob the Unlucky Octopus is a reliable source of information":true of false?The last is definitely false judging by his mendacious post above.

The Wichita "massacre",if you read the god-damn case notes,was a retributive crime.In other words,an unlawful retaliation.

A specious argument,as anyone can see from the facts of the case.These were pre-meditated racist murders of unsuspecting strangers,which rightly led to guilty verdicts. Since their defence said nothing about 'retaliation' or 'retribution'(each brother blamed the other) your rationalization makes no sense.

Violent interracial crimes in America are committed almost exclusively by blacks,contrary to PC dogma which depicts them as victims in a 'racist' white society.The Wichita murders were not a 'freak occurence' as you claim,while the passive behaviour of the white victims shows how conditioned they were to their own demise.This is what one-sided diversity 'celebration' leads to.

When an entire region gets screwed over,many don't want to move from one sh1tstorm to another,they want security and a stable surrounding.

The fallacy here is that two countries-Nigeria and Romania-account for more than half of all asylum applications in Ireland.Yet neither is in a 'sh1tstorm',as you so gracelessly put it:both are democracies and Nigeria is an oil-exporter.In fact,so flimsy are their refugee credentials that the government is planning to exclude their nationals from consideration as asylum seekers.We have no moral obligation to frauds.

Oh zip-a-dee-doo-dah,90% of them frauds huh?Guess you've talked to a lot of asylum officers then...

A few,and they confirm official statistics.(How many have you talked to?)

thought not.More than 70% of asylum seekers have a legitimate claim,less than 5% of those are given a fair hearing,and most are deported

Wrong again,zippy.Less than 4% of applicants in 2001 qualified for asylum under Geneva Convention rules;58 sought judicial reviews of decisions,out of over 12,000 applications; while a grand total of 365 failed applicants were deported during the year,a fraction of those who should have been deported.You're clearly pulling figures from the air.

perhaps a tenth of the UN are officially dictatorships

Again,this is quite misleading.'Officially',China and N.Korea are people's democracies,but everyone knows they're communist dictatorships.Likewise,most of Sub-Saharan Africa is democratic in form only,and out of 60 muslim member states only 1,Turkey,is a democracy. As I said:"The UN is a sham,given that a majority of its members are dictator-ships".

Any more lies?

DiscoStu

the word facts used to link to a fox news story :rolleyes:

gandalf

Mr. White answer my question WHAT IRISH CULTURE Are you trying to preserve???

Define what is an pure Irish Person??

Or can't you actually answer this ?

Is Paul McGrath Irish in your eyes?

Is Phil Lynott Irish in your eyes?

Come on then stop avoiding these questions!!

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

The fallacy here is that two countries-Nigeria and Romania-account for more than half of all asylum applications in Ireland.Yet neither is in a 'sh1tstorm',as you so gracelessly put it:both are democracies and Nigeria is an oil-exporter.

Er, Mr. "White" are you REALly saying that there are no problems with living in Nigeria?

What about that woman sentenced to being stoned to death under the Islamic Sharia law for adultery? (She says she was raped).

What about the massive poverty, as a result of year's of dictatorship?

The fact that the average income per year in Nigeria is a whopping $300??

HA HA HA - you REALly make me laugh!

Meh

Originally posted by Mr White
A specious argument,as anyone can see from the facts of the case.These were pre-meditated racist murders of unsuspecting strangers,which rightly led to guilty verdicts. Since their defence said nothing about 'retaliation' or 'retribution'(each brother blamed the other) your rationalization makes no sense.

Nowhere in that story does it say that the murders were racially motivated. Seems that you're the one not making sense. Unless you can provide another link saying that they were actually black supremacists?

http://www.amren.com/sheehan.htm

http://www.amren.com/braun.htm
Forgotten Black Voices
American slaves had surprisingly positive things to say about slavery.

http://www.amren.com/braun2.htm
The vast majority of South African blacks do not want black rule.

(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society; (2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not for white liberals insisting otherwise; (3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule is in no one's interest, especially not blacks; (4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black rule.

I think that's all I need to say about that particular source.

the passive behaviour of the white victims shows how conditioned they were to their own demise.

So they just sat there to be murdered because trying to rescue themselves would have been "politically incorrect"? Do you realize how ludicrous this is? Have you lost all contact with reality?

bonkey

Originally posted by Mr White
"Poles bomb Warsaw!";"Spielberg attacked by jew-eating octopus!";"They hate our freedom";"Bob the Unlucky Octopus is a reliable source of information":true of false?The last is definitely false judging by his mendacious post above.

Actually, by his track record, I would generally consider Occy a pretty reliable source.

You, on the other hand, are using sites such as the blatantly racist Amren to try and support an argument you wish us to accept as fact?

Yet neither is in a 'sh1tstorm',as you so gracelessly put it:both are democracies and Nigeria is an oil-exporter.

I'm pretty sure that were Ken Saro-Wiwa alive today, he would love to know that the country which persecuted and killed him was, in fact, a nice place what with the oil and democracy an all.

As for the Irish times link you posted - that brings you to the results of a search which does not include the words "Nigeria" or "Romania" anywhere. Given that the articles themselves are unavailable, as they are subscription-based content, I cant read them.

Care to supply any "open" source for your information?

Less than 4% of applicants in 2001 qualified for asylum under Geneva Convention rules;58 sought judicial reviews of decisions,out of over 12,000 applications; while a grand total of 365 failed applicants were deported during the year,a fraction of those who should have been deported.

I dont think you'll find a single person here who will argue that the current system is acceptable or being managed correctly.

However, this has nothing to do with your "solution" which is to "keep Ireland white". This is a seperate issue. Its not about advocating that we have stricter control to only admit the genuine cases....you're advocating that we keep the "incompatible" cultures out....which is blatantly racist.

Stop fogging the issue, and address the point.

Oh - and I notice how you're still blindly ignoring Gandalf's challenge. Go on - answer his question from your enlightened point of view. Please. Explain whether Paul McGrath and Phil Lynnot can be / should be considered Irish. If the cannot, explain what the problem is. If they can, then explain the need to "keep Ireland white".

Go on. I dare ya

Any more lies?

OK. I've had it with warning you about civility.

You have 24 hours to either apologise, or prove that Occy was willingly trying to deceive people - that knew what he was posting was false and was out to mislead us.

I dont care if his information is or is not incorrect. Being wrong is completely different to lying. One implies you are not in possession of the correct facts. The other implies that you are in the possession of said correct facts, and deliberately choose not to use them.

Failing either of these actions - proof or apology (I dont care which) - you will be immediately and irrevocably banned from politics.

jc

Biffa Bacon

In fairness bonkey Occy said worse to him

Biffa Bacon

By the by I'm opposed to a multicultural Ireland. Not that I don't want any immigrants here, I just don't want very many. We should only allow them in if they are genuine asylum seekers or if they're economically necessary.

The Gopher

Originally posted by Mr White
".

Violent interracial crimes in [ are committed almost exclusively by blacks,contrary to PC dogma which depicts them as victims in a 'racist' white society.

A million whites are victims of black criminals every year,and 120,000 blacks are victims of white criminals.Logically if a group is a minority then they will have a larger percentage of victims of the majority race than ciminals in that race will have on the minority.Take this for example.
Back in the 70s,when there were probably only a few hundred black people in Dublin,there is one young black guy who commits crime on a daily basis.Seeing as there are fewer black people to rob probably all the victims of his crimes will be white.The fact is that white american criminals attack black americans at the same rate blacks attack whites-the fact theyre a minority makes it look otherwise.
It is true that clsoe on 50% of the states 2 million prisoners are black.The reason is that crack offenders are subject to mandatory terms in some states.Since crack is a traditionally black drug more blacks go to prison for it despite the fact large amounts of whites are caught with drugs such as heroin and powder cocaine.Blacks comprise 13% of the population but only 12% of drug abusers,yet they account for over 50% of drug possesion jailings.

gandalf

Oh and Mr. White answer my questions as well or I will ban you.

You started this thread off saying you wanted to protect Ireland for the Pure Irish so I think the questions I have posted are very relevant.

Gandalf.

Mr White

Gandalf:the thread is called 'What is racism?',not 'What is Irish culture?'.You want to change the subject? Tough.Two threads have been closed after I posted on them because I supposedly veered off topic.You must apply your own rules,otherwise you're likely to be called a...hypocrite.

Bonkey:Was Wichita racist?If the roles were reversed,and blacks were the victims,I doubt if you or the controlled media would be splitting hairs about motive.There'd be a feeding frenzy,with talk of a black backlash.

Your ultimatum:Suckpoop Bob has no evidence to support his mendacious claim.I will defend myself if and when I choose.

Paul Sheehan:writes for the Sydney Morning Herald,not Amren,which I nonetheless recommend.

Zombrex

Mr White has come to the startling conclusion that, in the past, a black person has committed a racist crime

I know, I was as shocked as the rest of you ...

Thank you Mr white, for drawing this forgotten history to our attention

I now, naturally assume that black people are, well, evil, and desire no respect at all ... I will now tear up this "black loving" propaganda that is, well all modern history books, that show nearly every black leader in American history was shot and killed, because after all black people have been shooting and killing whites as well so that makes it okay.

I would also like to thank the modern Nazis, for pointing that there were, yes hard to believe, bad Jewish people. Naturally they are lying about the whole holocaust .. the 6 million Jew are to be found in the Isle of White, running a hair dressers. Oh yes, and Hitler, though he hated Jews, and wanted them wiped from this earth, would never actually order that they would be killed .. cause he was really a nice person and wouldn't do that ... to .. er ... a race of people he wanted wiped from the earth.

Oh and yes, I would also like to thank the creationist for drawing my attention to the fact at we do not know every single possible thing about evolution, so naturally it is completely wrong and God created the world in 6 days (measured on earth of course, not a day on any of the other billion planets in the universe ... I assume)


Mr White, do you have any point to posts saying black people commit crimes, or are you just trying to wow this board with you in-depth knowledge of black history?

DiscoStu

Originally posted by The Gopher

It is true that clsoe on 50% of the states 2 million prisoners are black.The reason is that crack offenders are subject to mandatory terms in some states.Since crack is a traditionally black drug more blacks go to prison for it despite the fact large amounts of whites are caught with drugs such as heroin and powder cocaine.Blacks comprise 13% of the population but only 12% of drug abusers,yet they account for over 50% of drug possesion jailings.

whos been watching the west wing

Originally posted by Mr White

Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession.We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.

Mr. White one of your opening points was that we are allowing our culture to be eroded by what i can only assume you mean areblacks going by your name. gandalf is perfectly justified in asking what culture when phil lynnot, an irish "cultural icon" is black.

Turnip

My opposition to immigration is based mostly on economic grounds. We do not need to import labour when we have labour here that can fill gaps in the workforce. Not PC but I'm absolutely against people coming here who might have medieval attitudes to women and homosexuals (and kites?) and the values that people of all political shades here share and I would not like to associate with them anymore than I'd like to associate with Irish people with similar views.

But my question is this: When did the Irish become part of the White Race? We have always been adjudged (by the anglo saxons) to be inferior. In the last century, James Anthony Froude described the Irish as being "more like squalid apes than human beings." The evidence to back his claim was there. The Irish in 19th century New York (along with other racially 'inferior' types like Italians and Jews) were responsible for incredible amounts of crime and vice and debauchery. (I'm looking forward to Scorcese's Gangs Of New York Film about this.) So were Froude's theories of scientific racism correct? Are the Irish a congenitally stupid, thuggish, lazy race who should be extinct? Or was he merely referring to Mr.White's forebears?

Sometimes I think we have more in common with other post colonial nations who've been treated as brutally in their histories as we have, than we do with the so called civilised nations who make up the White Race.

DadaKopf

As far as I'm aware, genetically, there is so little difference between all varieties of human beings on this planet as to make arguments over race completely pointless. Most (and I mean most, not all) of the biological differences that differentiate each 'race' are largely cosmetic. Each racial grouping's ability to survive, work, contribute to society are therefore equal.

This means that the issue of 'race' as it has been represented for hundreds of years by peoples since ancient times is cultural (and perhaps psychological). That's why this argument isn't about 'race' it's about ethnicity (or more broadly, culture). This is why it's possible to make a case against, say, Nigerian immigrants because they come from a corrupt culture and are ripping people off. But the ethnicity/culture argument also makes it possible to make a case against Irish people who are racist or xenophobic. What this approach does is gives us something to work with. It doesn't, however, stop prejudice but it leaves the issue open-ended enough to never allow social Darwinism to re-emerge.

But we have to ask whether prejudice (and by association racism and subjugation) can ever be eradicated? The simple answer is no; people have an unswerving instinct to exclude 'the other' (whatever it is they don't understand or perceive as threatening) in the interest of security.

Considering, then, that racism is cultural and unjustifiable on biological grounds, we have to examine the assumptions dominant in society that embody racist tendencies and perpetuate subjugation and minimise them. It's just that the application of the 'othering' instinct has become a lot more hidden. Prejudice being justified in different ways.

Few people would say, for example (at least with a straight face), that Hispanics are genetically inferior to whites and are therefore more disposed/suited toward menial labour; it's more that business policy (coupled with government policy) uses their weak economic position to exploit them and prejudicial/racist values (and people) continue to support a system that is more than happy to keep them there to maximise profit; finally, the market itself reinforces the popular perception of the Hispanics' uselessness (but at least they can become Americans - the US is great that way). (This is in no way unique to America, or the 20th century or capitalism or anything.)

Modern-style racism based on Darwinist theories is just a modern dressing to a different problem. It’s not the validity of evolutionary theory itself that’s being argued but the assumptions that put it there, and keep it there, in the first place.

Meh

Originally posted by Mr White
Gandalf:the thread is called 'What is racism?',not 'What is Irish culture?'.

You were the one who brought up Irish culture, in the post which started this thread. Nice selective memory there... So answer the question anyway: do you accept Phil Lynott and Paul McGrath as Irish or not?

Bonkey:Was Wichita racist?If the roles were reversed,and blacks were the victims,I doubt if you or the controlled media would be splitting hairs about motive.There'd be a feeding frenzy,with talk of a black backlash.

It's impossible to prove a negative, so why don't you go ahead and produce some evidence that Wichita was racially motivated? Speculation about how people would have reacted if it had been whites killing blacks instead doesn't count. Neither do links to pro-slavery/pro-apartheid sites.

gandalf

Originally posted by Mr White

[snipped]

[*]Irish people must champion the racial interests of non-whites.We must sacrifice our own future on the alter of 'diversity' and cooperate in our own dispossession.We are to encourage,even subsidize,the displacement of Irish culture by alien people and cultures.To refuse to do so is racism.
[/list=1] You won't see any of these meanings in a dictionary or the rules of this forum,but you know if you express agreement with my views you'll be censored and maybe even banned.So be careful.

This is from the opening statement of your so called arguement Mr. White it central to this thread and I am not a hypocrite asking you the questions. Now answer them or get ready to be silenced.

Gandalf

bonkey

Originally posted by Mr.White
Was Wichita racist?If the roles were reversed,and blacks were the victims,I doubt if you or the controlled media would be splitting hairs about motive.There'd be a feeding frenzy,with talk of a black backlash.

Well, your doubt would be well misplaced then. I am not blind or stupid enough to believe that any crime comitted where the perpetrator and victim are racially different is a racially motivated crime.

Just as a person can murder someone of their own race for a given reason, so can the same crime be comitted interracially without it being racist.

For it to be racist, there would have to be evidence of racial intent, and I would not accept something as racist without this evidence....regardless of who comitted the crime.

Your ultimatum:Suckpoop Bob has no evidence to support his mendacious claim.I will defend myself if and when I choose.

No. My ultimatum is simple. You inferred he is a liar. Whatever about any other insults, I will not accept this one on this forum from anyone. Either prove or retract your claim, or suffer the consequences. You can choose not to defend yourself...as is your choice, but dont think for a second that this means I cannot or will not take action.

jc

bonkey

Having decided not prove or rescind the "liar" insinuations in the given time-frame, Mr.White is now banned permanently from the politics board.

This discussion can continue without its originator should people decide they wish to continue the discussion.

Let me be very clear on one thing....whatever about other reasons which may or may not ultimately have led to a banning, I will not tolerate anyone levelling claims about lying at someone else. There is a world of a difference between being ill-informed, mis-informed, and lying.

I will be sending Mr White a copy of this post via PM.

jc

pro_gnostic_8

I think that the recent preoccupation in this thread with the subtleties of difference in physical attributes between races blurs the more significant consideration of cultural asymmetry. An indigenous Irish person may share 99.9999% genetic coding with a Congolese but both are separated by light-years in culture and outlook.

That there is a certain reluctance by some of us to enthuse about the influx of large numbers of non-EU nationals should not infer a racist mentality but is rather a concern that the values and mores of our own tradition might be under threat of usurpation. Is it not unreasonable to request that our own culture is not eclipsed in the course of "celebrating" multiculturalism? Diversity is all very well but it cannot be welcomed at the expense of the disenfranchisement of Irish culture and a decline in jobs, housing and living-standards for native Irish people.

Originally posted by gandalf
Ok Mr. White what exactly are you trying to protect here.

I want you to define what you mean by Irish Culture, what exactly are you trying to perserve. Go on then try and persued this liberal leftie why I should agree with your vision.

Define for me what a pure Irish person is ?

Define for me what Irish Culture is ?

Go on I challange you

Gandalf.

In the absence of Mr White, could I offer a reply to the above? As I said in anearlier post Culture is primarily an expression of a set of moralities, philosophies and outlook.............a community-specific consciousness formulated through the history of a race. Adding an Irish dimension results in an appreciation for the Irish language, Irish democratic and social system, and kinsmanship.

gandalf

pro_gnostic_8 thank you for your reply. However I was asking Mr.White for his particular understanding of what he meant by culture. Unfortuantely he didn't respond.

Gandalf.

DadaKopf

Pro-gnostic_8: isn't that kind of what I said in my above post?

We're not talking about racism (the genetic argument is meaningless), we're talking about ethnicity/cultures/subcultures and people's emotional/psychological reactions to those, apart from the obvious, and valid, economic concerns.

Mr White no longer has a place in the disussion.

Meh

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
the values and mores of our own tradition might be under threat of usurpation. Is it not unreasonable to request that our own culture is not eclipsed in the course of "celebrating" multiculturalism?

As I said in my first post in this thread, you must have a very low opinion of Irish culture. If it can't survive a few tens of thousands of economic migrants (about 1-2% of the population), then it must be be a pretty sorry excuse for a culture.

Diversity is all very well but it cannot be welcomed at the expense of the disenfranchisement of Irish culture and a decline in jobs, housing and living-standards for native Irish people.

I agree entirely. There's no excuse to treat people differently simply on the basis of their ethnicity. Immigrants should be encouraged to integrate into Irish society for their own benefit (for example, the English tests for new citizens that they have in the UK).

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I would like to begin by stating first of all, I have been reading the progress of this thread, and am personally glad that bonkey has taken the action that he has done- although not for the same reasons. There are undeniable racist messages in Mr White's arguments- as a libretarian no one advocates free speech more than myself, but there are limits to what a responsible adult should seek to assert on a message board accessed by minors in my humble opinion.

I do feel that the arguments are worth picking apart however, lest anyone be taken in by their specious and subversive nature. The fact that I take some pleasure in deconstructing such deviously crafted statements is almost of no consequence, I believe this thinking is to be adversarially confronted whenever and wherever it is discovered. Thus, I feel obliged to defend my position and respond.

In fairness bonkey Occy said worse to him

I realize that my remarks come across as belligerent and perhaps even obnoxious in places. I've been posting on this board a long time, but in all that time I've rarely felt as strongly about a post as when I read Mr. White's statements. I apologize if this has caused offence to those reading this and colored the legitimacy of jc & gandalf's decisions. I am generally not as coarse in my statements- I however felt personally slighted by many of the suggestions made and responded acrimoniously, a fact I feel many wouldn't blame me for. Still, my apologies.

Originally posted by Mr White
A specious argument,as anyone can see from the facts of the case.These were pre-meditated racist murders of unsuspecting strangers,which rightly led to guilty verdicts. Since their defence said nothing about 'retaliation' or 'retribution'(each brother blamed the other) your rationalization makes no sense.

Just as a matter of record, the deposing attorney in the matter of State vs. Carr & Carr was one Robert "Zippy" Ziphorkis, currently deputy DA for Marin County CA, rising star in the 7th federal district circuit and an old personal friend. The facts of any case for the record, are not contained in a sensasionalist chatshow transcribed onto a website. Rather they are recorded by the state involved and archived accordingly with the judge's reccomendations. Having a somewhat inside knowledge of the facts of this case and taking a personal interest (Nick Baicouainu an old school-friend lives 40 miles away from Wichita), I thought I'd make the facts clear to the rest of the people here. I'm saddened that you think me a liar, and disappointed you didn't take the effort to check AMCAS at your local legal library, woulda taken 5 mins to verify the facts, which were as follows:

With the exception of the last killing, all of these were retributive crimes, exacted revenge for a perceived commercial takeover by a local authority of a section of low-cost housing. All this information is in the public domain, yet sensationalist programmes with racial allegations unfortunately sell more papers and improve the ratings more. FOX has a very poor record for me here, their crackpot team of "legal experts" would have the likes of Marshall, Trevthick and Stevenson turning in their graves and send shudders up Scalia & Rhenquist's spines.

Violent interracial crimes in America are committed almost exclusively by blacks,contrary to PC dogma which depicts them as victims in a 'racist' white society.

Amren is to put it bluntly, as racist as you are. Such a morally bankrupt body should have no substance attached to its claims. The assertion that *racial* violence is almost exclusively a black province is laughable. Talk to any county sheriff or police chief and the statement will be exposed for the lie it is. The victimization argument similarly cuts little ice with me. A truly TINY fraction of violent crime is racially motivated, most violent crime has deep social roots completely divorced from any race-related divisions.

The Wichita murders were not a 'freak occurence' as you claim,while the passive behaviour of the white victims shows how conditioned they were to their own demise.This is what one-sided diversity 'celebration' leads to. The fallacy here is that two countries-Nigeria and Romania-account for more than half of all asylum applications in Ireland.Yet neither is in a 'sh1tstorm',as you so gracelessly put it:both are democracies and Nigeria is an oil-exporter.

These were freak crimes, it's been repeatedly stated by the prosecution, defence AND the judge. Only sensationalist media reporting has ever made the public believe otherwise. A responsible observer who believes in accountability wouldn't attach any credence to such an observation.

Secondly, those fleeing Abacha & his successor regimes deserve every dispensation in my opinion. The violent tribal divides of Nigeria against the backdrop of prosperous expatriate companies like Royal Dutch Shell is good enough for any asylum standard short of a facist one. Those fleeing Romania's discriminative gypsy policies also deserve dispensation, they're fleeing racial persecution. Given that you're a racist, that'll cut little ice I'm sure, but I'm happy governments aren't as blinkered.

The fact that Nigeria's an oil-rich nation means nothing either btw. Saudi Arabia is the richest oil-nation on the planet, national riches don't filter down to the poorest though, the concept of wealth distribution has yet to penetrate the thinking of several resource-rich nations. Given that these people are often discriminated against and bullied into submission, I feel we owe them a chance. Then again I'm American, and our nation was founded on giving the oppressed a chance. One would hope that's why so many Irishmen laid down their lives for their nation's freedom, for the principles of liberty and equality irrespective of race or religion.

Wrong again,zippy.Less than 4% of applicants in 2001 qualified for asylum under Geneva Convention rules;58 sought judicial reviews of decisions,out of over 12,000 applications; while a grand total of 365 failed applicants were deported during the year,a fraction of those who should have been deported.

Possibly in Ireland, though if that's the case I'm suprised they're so far behind the *European* average that I quoted. The EU's special commision dealing with asylum deemed that 70% of applicants had a legtimate claim for asylum with proof to back their claims. If Ireland falls outside this average for western europe then that's as may be, and perhaps the Irish government can do more. That's a matter for them though, not you or I.

You're clearly pulling figures from the air. Again,this is quite misleading.'Officially',China and N.Korea are people's democracies,but everyone knows they're communist dictatorships.Likewise,most of Sub-Saharan Africa is democratic in form only,and out of 60 muslim member states only 1,Turkey,is a democracy. As I said:"The UN is a sham,given that a majority of its members are dictator-ships".

Any more lies?

My figures there were taken from Amnesty's 1999 study into government liberties. I sincerely doubt, having read the report, that an NGO like amnesty would be unable to make the relatively simple logical leap from people's democracy to one-party state only 10 years after Tiannemen. 10% is still 10 percent too many, yet the UN provides a forum for engaging these dictatorships and undemocratic states. Syria's positive vote on the recent UNSC resolution is an indication of the shifting global trend, of nations like Libya and Syria eager for acceptance into a more liberal, streamlined view of world politics. This can only bode well for the idea of democracy in their countries and for their neighbors as well. Given that even the world's last remaining superpower chose to exercise the diplomatic option THROUGH the united nations when unitlateralism was the more expedient route speaks volumes for its importance. If it's a sham, it's a pretty f*cking good one :P

TacT

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Dunc you pos! Imma slap you silly when I'm over next

TacT

I love it when you talk dirty