You’re putting the cart before the horse. I’ve already explained how race is secondary and derivative, and individual/family is primary. This is basic genetics. And I’ve already shown how you care for your own children not because they are your own race, rather you care about their “race” because you care about them qua being your child.
You keep insisting on reversing the logic. I don’t know how to get you to stop doing that, so I’ll just ignore any future posts of yours that commit the same logical error.
Why would you even consider this question? Your first instinct is - at least mine would be - always to save your own child even if he/she got away from you and was more, much more distant than the black child was. There is no shame in that.
You might call to some other adult to try to save the other child. You would probably feel guilt and remorse if that other child was killed despite the fact that it probably couldn’t be helped unless you were the Flash.
That isn’t what racism is about. Racism is about thinking that because you are white, you are superior in every way, to an African American or other black person. It’s about hating African Americans or other black people simply because they are.
Racism goes beyond tunnel vision. There is no true vision.
Here is the white man and here is the black man.
The white man turns in the black man for being a rapist ~ for raping a child, color is not important. The child can be green for that matter.
Is the white man a racist?
Am I a racist for detesting this black man or maybe I’m simply detesting the INDIVIDUAL for his act?
Of course, right from the beginning after beginning to read this, you might call me a racist because I used the black man as an example of being a rapist. But don’t forget, we’re talking about racism here.
We all have our biases. I am quite aware of mine. Anyone, for the moment, without being fully conscious of who they are and what their feelings and thoughts are, might begin to succumb to some form of racism in the moment because of some dynamic. I suppose that might be part of the instinct to survive ~ maybe. But generally, the non-racist judges the INDIVIDUAL based on what he or she has done, not based on the color of their skin.
Other things also are not about racism - just about personal preferences.
I like this painting and you like that one. Does that mean that I hate art, that I don’t value it?
Whose logic is reversed though? To care about your child, is necessarily to care about your race, making you and everybody else that cares for their children, racists.
Because most or all of the “anti-racists” go on and on about how tragic and guilty people ought to be for racism, yet they are racists themselves.
So it’s not about “racism” exactly. It’s about duplicity. It’s about the advantage some people get from making others guilty for racism, but themselves, enjoy the benefits and privileges of “being racist”. Preferring one’s own kind is the first step. It can be good or bad, given the context. Would you turn your child, spouse, parent, or family member in for a crime? How about a serious crime? To what degree of loyalty and “care” do average people demonstrate toward family, and then toward race?
I understand if these questions frighten and scare you, keep you up all night.
No, the “cause” of “racism” is in-group preference. If you care for your child, because the child is necessarily of the same race as both parents, then it follows you necessarily care for your race by default. This is just common sense and intuitive on such a level that nobody questions or acknowledges it. Now the accusation and definitions of “racism” change over time. But that is a derivative, the consequence of, in-group preference.
Therefore, people can be accused of “racism”, based on modern definitions, for preferring their own kin.
Well, just gauging by the responses that you have gotten, not to mention my own knowledge of logic and reasoning, it is obviously not all that “common” sense.
Also false.
Look at it this way:
If one of the children was wearing white and the other was wearing black, and the one you chose was wearing white, does that make you a white supremacist?
Again, assuming that you are not just joking around…
Tell us how you would distinguish forward from backward in such cases as this without appealing to merely your “common sense instinct”? And if you cannot, how do you know that it isn’t you who “has it backward”?
That didn’t answer the question. I asked of the process for distinguishing backward vs forward … concerning any issue, not merely race issues (which seem to be an obsession of yours).
And yes, mating causes race. That was never the question.
The question is whether choosing one’s own child to save is the same as preferring one race over another. What of those who bear children that are not of either race, the new “Gray Race”?
And earlier I mentioned to Void that race-mixing, the exception does not dispute the rule. Race-mixing and miscegenation are recent in history, or at points in history with explanation, such as one nation conquering another, or conquering and occupying a previously foreign territory. Generally, commonly, the “races” congregate with each-other, because organisms naturally trust their own kind, and those that look, act, and smell/taste like each-other.
It is a dubious fact that two people, of distinct races, like a white male and black female, will procreate a racially ambiguous offspring. However, despite that, the “race” maybe questionable although the rules stay the same. You could call it a new race if you wanted.
So you are saying that whichever comes first tells of which caused which? And of course that assumes a causal relation to begin with. If I ate breakfast at Jack-in-the-Box then got hit by a car, can I assume that eating breakfast at JiB caused that accident? If I hadn’t eaten breakfast there, I certainly would not have had that accident.
So trusting your own kind is the cause of racism. To avoid racism, people should distrust their own kind (sounds familiar).
There is nothing “ambiguous” about it. Black men fucking white women creates a new race, the “Gray Race”.
So when the black man chooses to save his own gray child, he must be a racist against blacks and/or whites.
Causes are primary. To seek the causes of a car accident at JITB, you have to determine, judge, and choose whether you-yourself are responsible, or others. Blame is easy. You can blame the driver. You can blame yourself. You can blame God. Blame avoids the issue of cause though. Ultimately, more context is needed. For example, did you look both directions before crossing the street? Maybe you didn’t look both ways, stepped out in front of a vehicle? Was the driver crazy? Did he drive his or her vehicle into the glass windows and seating area of the restaurant? Was it a Muslim seeking to rack up kills? Did he step out of the vehicle with a machete and start whacking strangers, including you?
Deep investigations are required to pinpoint causes of events.
“So trusting your own kind is the cause of racism.” That sums it up well enough. Furthermore, distrust of others or other kinds, also “causes racism”. And yes, if there are ‘gray’ children then they are racially ambiguous. Race is an abstraction, after all. In my opinion, mixed-racial children cannot simply claim the race of either one parent or the other. And it’s simplest to acknowledge they are something new, for better or worse.
You are saying trusting your own kind is the primary cause of racism.
Are you sure you have enough context for your primary cause?
I don’t believe your investigation is very deep.
Technically “your own kind” is ambiguous. So no it does not sum it up.
You are now adding more factors to your original logic:
You are making up rules as you go. Let me introduce something: I assume you have heard of Gregor Mendel - no quick google search allowed. Race is a bit more than an abstraction; you can not really say that the first offspring is a new race either, can you?
I fail to see how any of this is useful to the benefit of humankind.
