This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

What is racism?

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I think I know what you mean and you are right, but where you decide to live and how much you want others to pay for it is a lifestyle choice. Agree ?
Click to expand...

How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.
 
Tisme said:
How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.
Click to expand...

By minority skin colour you mean whites I presume ?

 
Tisme said:
How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they, you guys , have the biggest baddest sticks and God told you (and your ancestors) that using it every where is doing God's work. Taking on the burden of civilising the barbarians and savagges, if you will.

But that's only the past 500 years. Before that, well OK, the Olive skinned Greeks and Romans... but on the other side of the world the Yellow peril were doing similar deeds too.

So yes, it's not fair that the world's ill are all blamed on the White folks... others have done it, the yellow guys or the brown indian guys might soon want to try to... but til then... White Christian people - what's wrong with you

Wait a minute... aren't we blaming all the world's ill on the Muslims? Terrorism and stuff? The White people just go over there to keep the peace
 
Tisme said:
How come the minority skin colour in this world is blamed for vast majority non white skinned people's predicaments? The ratio get really out of kilter when you knock out the olive skinned races.
Click to expand...

Probably because historically that minority has held the majority of power, and used it to suppress the minority.

I think racism is linked to tribalism, it's something that we are all guilty of to some extent, and need to come to grips with and move past it.
 
pixel said:
This picture says it all:

View attachment 65186
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty silly to say you are proud of your race, I mean it's not an achievement, you were just born that way.

I can understand why people who have grown up being descriminated against might take a defensive position and say they are proud to be their race, but really that's just a defensive position where they are making it clear they are not ashamed of their race so your taunts won't affect them.

In most cases, A white guy saying he is proud of being white would seem silly to me, surely he would have other personal attributes he could be proud of, why would the colour of his skin inspire pride?
 
Value Collector said:
Probably because historically that minority has held the majority of power, and used it to suppress the minority.
Click to expand...

True, but it (Whites/Romans) have gained that power by superiority in science and technology which we have then used to benefit not only ourselves but other races as well, even if they don't like to admit it, eventually. Thre was obviously a lot of subjugation beforehand.

Racism appears to me to have stemmed from this technology gap. People with the technology tend to think those without it are inferior. People without the technology tend to resent those that do have it and don't trust them.

Both sides need to meet in the middle somewhere.
 

Yeah, but when you think about it the scientific achievements had nothing to do with race, there is nothing about the scientific method that prevents other races from making advances, the accumulation of power in Western Europe and then later in the USA, stemmed from the climate of these regions and their ability to support large populations, with a enough food production that a certain percentage of the population could develop specialisation trades.

When land can be easily farmed you need a smaller group dedicated to food production, this allows other people to dedicate time to arts and science, and it creates a positive feed back loop of progress, also due to the war mongering nature of Western Europe in the past, a large portion of this excess production was dedicated to weaponising scienctific advances and constructing mobile armies and navies from which they could conquer other lands.
 

I'm not arguing with that, you seem to think I was saying that white races ARE superior.

I'm saying that if Africans had developed technology instead of Europeans, they (the Africans) would now be the racists and the Europeans would be the downtrodden.
 

personally I would have just said "that's cricket"
 

But they didn't and whitey did (after the Muslims gave them all the knowledge of the universe and the Chinese had moved on from industry, 2 millenia before, to more important things like planting rice).

The Xanthochroi race must have something going for it to do what it does so well. I'm thinking it's the deep winters with nothing to do but exercise the brain and get fat. It must be because fair skinned Australians don't seem to do much except ....well they don't seem to do much.
 
White hetrosexual male (preferrably married) - the biggest racist in the world right now...
 
Value Collector said:
I think racism is linked to tribalism, it's something that we are all guilty of to some extent, and need to come to grips with and move past it.
Click to expand...

Racism IS the ultimate form of tribalism. It's been a key survival mechanism for Millions of years of evolution.
Look at alpha males in many herds/ family clans. Dominant males fight interlopers for the right to mate; if the interloper wins, he services the hinds. Quite often, the new male will even kill the most recent litter in order to sire his own brood as fast as he can.

Early humans were no different, especially in tribal situations where the environment would sustain only a limited number of families or tribes. Remember Solomon and his harem of Hundreds? A clear leftover from the animal kingdom. As the tribes grew larger, the alpha male could no longer service every female in his tribe. But he could use myths and "divine truths" instead. Make enough loot from raids into neighbours' territory, then surround yourself with a bunch of shamans that swear that you are the chosen one and every member of the tribe that acknowledges you as Alpha Male will bask in the same grace of being Chosen.
Of course, every tribe was "Chosen" and superior to all other neighbouring tribes. The priests and shamans vouched for that; they even started to write it down on stone tablets, which they used to point at the literal truth of their god's unquestionable word. Any doubters were clobbered with the tablets - which gave rise to the practice of "stoning" that survived in some primitive tribes until this very day.
 
Tisme said:
personally I would have just said "that's cricket"
Click to expand...

Yes. That would be succinct (see, I know the concept. Application is something else ). But as with all engineers and their formulae and equations, it does not capture the entire argument.

Namely, Cricket only include the British Empire. That would leave out the other White Christian empires who were equally busy at work taking on the burden. So there's the French, the Dutch, Spaniards, Portugese... taking it to the coloured folks and also taking on each other now and again.

So Cricket, my dear McFly, is only about one third correct.

In short, you're wrong.
 

Well put there crusader (as in, crusading against religious nuts and also anti-religious nuts; not as some might consider the job of soldiers. Ey, can't be too careful and upset Q to Australia's 00s).
 

Yes, but conquest aren't always achieved through superior technology or more enlightened/learned people and culture. You just need to be superior at weapons of war, use it well and take people's country and all their stuff

Rome didn't gain supremacy through superior tech or higher learning against Carthage. From the intro that I read of Polybius' Rise of the Roman Empire... Roman naval ships, well there weren't much of a navy to speak of, and Roman culture and science were generations behind Carthaginians and the Greeks. But they managed to lose a few major battles, re-engineered the ships and improve their naval strategies and tactic. Took over Carthage; got Hannibal up their behinds for some years until they managed to razed Carthage to the ground and salt it just in case.

Once that's done, they took over the entire Mediterranean and absorbed all its cultures, learning and scientific advances. The grains from Egypt and other goods over the empire then build its marble cities.

Same with Genghis and his descendants - the Khans eventually get absorbed by the culture it conquered. All the technical know-how the Mongolian has was strong horse, good riders, strong bow and arrow and a silk armour undercover that stops enemies arrows a bit. That and giving enemies the Plague.

Same case with Manchurian and China's Ming.

Maybe there's some good news in our modern time then. The West got bunker loads of arms and nukes... if the world don't end after all these wars and the next big one, there will actually be a thousand year peace.
 
It's not so much the technological (or cultural) superiority that makes a tribe/ race/ nation racist, but the presumption of superiority over all other similar tribes/ races/ nations.
In ancient times, it was "Our god has chosen us, so we have the right to take your land and women."
With Rome, it was the unshakable belief in SPQR that led to "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam." Unluckily for the Carthagenians, the presumption of Rome's military superiority proved true.

When the tribes grew even larger and conquered peoples were forged into nations, Nationalism raised its head. But there is not the slightest fundamental difference between "We are the chosen people", "Britannia rules the waves", "God is an American", and "Deutschland uber alles"? Each is, in its basic presumption, the expression of a superiority complex that implies every other group must be inferior. And if it blocks OUR access to riches - "milk and honey", precious metals, spices, etc - the inferior alien deserves to be conquered, killed, or enslaved.

Has humanity made progress from those primal instincts? For a short while, it may have appeared that way: Post-War political leaders realised that Nationalism, aided by military overkill capacity, must lead to global annihilation. For a while, tolerance of alternative ideas may even have sparked a glimmer of hope on a global scale. Even the Pope acknowledged that Protestants, Anglicans, even women and gays! were God's children and worthy of recognition (well, almost! as long as they know their place and don't aspire to become priests or cardinals...)

However, the increasing population density is bringing us back to the early tribal environment of limited space, limited resources at street level or suburb level. Result: Bands form around a small number of alpha males who instill a sense of cohesion and belonging in their members. And turf wars start again on street level, inside suburbs, or along footy club boundaries.
Differentiation into groups and fighting - be it ritualistic or to the last drop of blood - seems to be ingrained in the human DNA. Today's men and women represent the survivors of Millions of years of natural selection. The ideals and admonitions of a tiny group of "enlightened" idealists won't change ingrained thought patterns of 7 Billion.

We may call ourselves Homo Sapiens, but deep below, subconsciously, we're still members of the animal world.
 


The Poms and Scots started the industrial revolution back in abt 1700, which necessitated a raw material and commodity inflow, thus the trading companies and empire building. It took the rest of Europe at least another 100 years to get with the program which ultimately resulted in the first industrial war in 1914.

The difference with the British Empire and the rest was that they gave the countries they conquered the rule of (common) law, good government and parliament (even Japan after WW2), rather than despotic and canonical rule of law. They also have a well chronicled history to justify the progression of and give precedence to their political and legal systems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Are you Face blind or can you remember absolutely everyone?
Replies
8
Views
691
finicky
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Success stories
Replies
8
Views
997
basilio
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
February 2025
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...