Dr. Lou Natic said:
The difference between the bonobo and the trout is greater. But it's essentially the same thing.
Think of it as a V. The black man and white man are close to the bottom tip of the V, the trout and bonobo are at the top ends. But each deviate at the same angle and each are on different sides.
The difference between a bonobo and a trout is also greater than the difference between a blond-haired, blue-eyed person and a dark-haired, brown-eyed person.
Seems to me it's a matter of degrees when we start trying to apply differences of species within humanity.
I wasn't saying the differences themselves are arbitrary, as in not very different, the fact there are differences(significant differences) is arbitrary.
I disagree. The fact that there are differences reflects circumstances, processes, and results. Nature is not extraneous; diversity is not arbitrary.
Just because you as a human have specialised to be a certain way and a flea has specialised to be a different way doesn't make you better than the flea.
"Better" certainly is arbitrary.
But there is a difference between acknowledging life and surrendering to it.
The anti-racism argument focusses on how races are similar.
Usually these similarities could be extended outside of the human species.
Focusing on the similarities is a practical necessity of acknowledging the
fact that human beings come together in societies.
African americans are bitter because they themselves have been convinced that the best person they could be is a white person, and it's hard for them.
I think it's a little different, if that principle is valid at all. It's not so problematic that the "best person they could be is a white person", but rather that the "best person they can be should hate them for who they are", or that the "best person they can be should be so dishonest".
A friend of mine, classic "peanut butter" sees this whenever he's in the states. His family treats him as black while expecting him to believe "white". It's a weird conflict for many inasmuch as the best he's supposed to aspire to holds him as a second-class citizen among society.
The best people blacks can be are people, period. Many of them know this. That's why "the best person they could be is white" annoys them so much. Escape one false classification to play in another, and never, ever be yourself.
Should I hate white people? After all, as an American "banana", I was once told by a white school principal that the key to breaking the racism of my fellow students was to act more like them and make a greater effort to fit in.
They try to get a white education and aim to fill in white occupational niches. When they struggle and fail they can't help but feel inferior.
Too bad "an education" has to be "a white education".
If I was in a bushmen tribe in africa I'd feel pretty lousy for not being able to track the oryx as well as those around me.
That's a rather odd comparison, poorly founded.
Look at gays, for instance. Over a decade, now, of prominent social discourse comparing gays to horrible things: Child molesters, animal rapists, corpse-lovers, and in that they compare gay partners to children, animals, and corpses.
If the "traditional" education wasn't so viciously erroneous, would it hurt so much to believe?
So how 'bout that dark skin? Match up American history with nonwhite skin and you'll find that what hurts blacks about education and occupational niches is not that it's all "white", but that it's largely dishonest, vicious, and hurtful.
People should be in the environment that crafted the animal they are, living the lifestyle that crafted the animal they are.
We are humans. That ought to be enough. Treating skin color like the difference between a striped, furry quadruped a largely-furless biped seems rather an exaggeration of the differences.
White supremecy exists because white people see other races struggling to succeed at being white.
(
chortle!)
So white supremacists exist because of society? After all, if the societal standard is aimed at being "white", and the black person is trying to succeed at being "white", it would seem that white supremacists are uncomfortable with the social standards that empower their supremacist arguments.
Is there such thing as a "self-hating supremacist"?
Insulting racists isn't going to change anything, especially when your argument is essentially "black people can too be white, look at bryant gumble".
What insults racists isn't necessarily anyone else's concern any more than what insults anybody else.
The equivocation postulated by folks who argue as you do, Lou, is absurd and insulting in itself.
What isn't insulting about being held to a second-class standard? What isn't insulting about being held to a second-class standard and then criticized for having a second-class standard? What isn't insulting about someone's personal comfort in a subjective belief being asserted as grounds to deny you basic civil and human rights?
How would you propose people go about showing respect for such hatred?
Tell us, how society respect those who aim to destroy it?
You're leaving out the majority and making them feel like shit for not being like bryant gumble.
I invite you to start making sense at any time, now.
This is the argument of those who come off as the least racist. The powerfully anti-racist people like you tiassa.
And they're setting it up for people who aren't striving to not be racist with every molecule in their body to notice that blacks generally aren't as good at being white as white people are.
That seems rather absurd. Perhaps you don't remember the 1990s, when liberals were accused of subverting society by radio hosts because they objected to perceptions of racism inherent in standardized testing.
So how is it that the powerfully anti-racist people who are trying to make it so that one's education is not necessarily a "white" education responsible for, say, your conscience? Seriously, "ebonics" was a major liberal fuck-up, but how did ebonics contribute to blacks being white, or anybody's perceptions of the success thereof?
Is it that liberals haven't accounted enough for your ignorance? Or would we be "elitist" if we did?
Perhaps if we lived in a society that strove to empower people to be people instead of "white", such questions wouldn't present themselves.
Whats inaccurate is the idea that a white person is what everyone should want to be.
Ebonics, standardized testing, ESL in public schools--tell me, Lou, how is it that--
• Empowering nonwhite dialect
• Eliminating ethnically-restricted language from standardized tests
• Empowering non-English speakers
--these things contribute to the idea that a white person is what everyone should want to be?
They shouldn't have it in their head that "white is right" for everyone.
You and your kind are partly responsible for this mindset.
If "white is right" is the problem, what is the solution? Oh, right--homogenous societies.
So remind me again, Lou: how is it that those who wish to celebrate the positive aspects of diversity are responsible for insisting on a monochrome solution?
We need to acknowledge the differences between the earth's ancestral lines of homosapien.
Enumerate them. Please. I'd love to see that list.
Even a perfect example of the labrador will fail to rank in a beagle contest.
My cat has blue eyes. Does that make her a witch?
In the meantime, differentiation of species is not arbitrary, no matter how you try to assert it.
