Are you a racist?

I can’t simplify it further.

To care for your child, is necessarily to care for your own race.

You and Void have it backward.

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”?

Because race is the consequence of mating and not the other way around.

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”?

Forward means that race proceeds from family.

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.

No, not at all.

Nope, wrong again.

Urwrongx1000

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.

:-k

Urwrongx1000

I think that I can probably agree with this. We don’t like our imperfections so we avoid looking at them honestly. We like to see ourselves as above all of that. I can sometimes see it in myself. That is why I wrote the below:

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.

On some level, on a conscious level, many may realize that black skin or dark skin or any color skin really has nothing to do with how a person ought to be treated or perceived. They may realize that we are, in a sense, all created equal, even though on other levels obviously, we have different talents, gifts, et cetera, which make some of us more superior and others more inferior insofar as those talents and gifts are concerned. Perhaps we ought not to even think in terms of superior and inferior. We were all born with different talents and tools.

It could be about both IF the party knows he/she is racist and tries to hide behind virtue.
Perhaps if the duplicity is unconscious, then can it really be duplicity? Just a question.

This can be true. Wanting/needing to appear virtuous might be the intention.
Did you mean to say “being racist” or “not being racist”?

I’ve always had a question of whether or not that can actually be seen as racist? Perhaps it really depends on one’s motives and intentions for preferring one’s own kind? If that made sense. Perhaps it’s just part of human evolution and force of habit? Perhaps it’s peer pressure or fear of being judged or just simply unconscious human indoctrination. #-o But is it actually racist? I think that one would have to know the individual and see where they are coming from to answer that.

Honestly, I hope I would never have to answer that question. Anyway, what does that have to do with racism?

How about the human race? What’s the crime?

But they don’t. But it’s a good thing to ponder them ~ to see how the virus of racism influences and touches us in ways we may not even be aware of.

Everybody is racist, if a person who looks like this:

walks by, you’re automatically going to make certain assumptions about him whether you like it or not, like he’s Asian, and either speaks an Asian language, or who has recent ancestors who do.
If he told you he’s from Algeria, speaks Arabic and practices Islam, you’d be very surprised.
So the real question is, how racist are you?

How many races are their for this buzz word is getting on my nerves? I thought one race, human. Many ethnicities instead of many races, please.

Assessing or noting a race is not racism. Racism is judging, usually pre-judging, “prejudice”. But most basically racism is about ignoring more relevant issues (qualifications) in favor of judging simply by race. But then interestingly, when the issue of race actually IS the most relevant issue at hand, judging by race is no longer racism.

Why, are you offering me an opportunity?

Yes, modern people “judge the individual”, or so they say. However to what degree do individual actions reflect society, and society reflect individuals? In other words, are you or are you not representative of your own kind, your own race, your own family, for example? Modern people want to claim that children are “other than” their parents and lineage. All of a sudden, an “individual” is separated, magically, and no longer represents others?

You can’t have it both ways. Individuals reflect society when they do something good, but don’t when they do something bad? That’s the common thought process.

People want to be acknowledge, accepted, and admired by social groups when they do something good, but bad things ignored. This applies racially too.

Nobody is equal, ever. And that’s a good thing. You and I are not equal.

Most “racism” happens on a subconscious level, and people don’t realize they’re being “racist”, usually to their own benefit.

“Being racist”, preferring your own kind, is not bad nor wrong, and quite natural and instinctive. You seek out your own kind in life. If you were to travel to foreign nations and continents, feeling alone and strange, lost, meeting hostile or dangerous people, you would feel much safer and more comfortable with your own ilk. It’s only in highly privileged, luxurious, first world contexts and countries, with severe indoctrination, that a myriad of rainbow-people live peacefully with each-other. It depends on the environment and whether your ethnic group is the majority or minority of a population.

What’s “racist” to one person is not to another, tolerance thresholds and intelligence matter. “Racism” is a new world ideology and modern technology, used to control populations and dictate social orders. The ones crying out “racism!” are usually the pawns and instruments for the core ideology. People are paying into a system. Racism can be used to suppress minority groups when one population threatens another, or also threatens to take control of resources.

Because “racism” is a crime, in some ways, legally.

There are “crimes against humanity” and “human rights” developing, in modern times, legally, as well.

Oh I see.

Sometimes the boundaries between a race and other races is clear cut, othertimes it’s murky, open to interpretation, there’s a lot of overlap.
It depends on how isolated the race in question has been, and for how long.
We can base our racial classifications on phenotype and morphology, and/or on genetics.
We can be haphazard about it, or methodical, systematic.
Here’s how renowned Italian geneticist Cavalli-Sforza divvied them up:
This diagram is in German, but even if you don’t know German, you should still be able to figure it out.

As you can see, the two primary races are sub-Saharan Africans (a geographic term, AKA Blacks, AKA Negroids) and everyone else, everyone else splitting off from Negroids about 120 000 years ago.
They can be further subdivided until you end up with about 38 subraces.
The next major division occurs about 80 000 years ago, between Caucasians (Europeans, Arabs, Indians…), North East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese…) and Native Americans on the one hand, who subsequently split up a little later, and Australian Aborigines, South East Asians (Thai, Vietnamese, Malaysians…) and Pacific Islanders (Hawaiians, Maori, Samoans) on the other hand, who likewise split up a little later.
And so race, if you consider the work of geneticists like Cavalli Sforza, althou he didn’t use the word race, I think he semantically used the term population group instead, is a lot messier than folk classifications, or the work of many racialists predating genetics, who often recognized just 3-5 races, like Negroids, Caucasians and Mongoloids, and who often believed they split up at the same time, to the same degree.

The word race is somewhat ambiguous, but just about any word is.
The word continent is ambiguous, where does one begin/end, why should they begin/end at all?
Where does one language begin/end, there’s so much overlap.
How many words and pronunciations do two languages have to have in common before they’re regarded as the same language?

The word species is more well defined in conventional science, the word race, as far as I know, is seldom used, seldom used arguably purely for sociopolitical reasons.
We can, however, redefine the word for ourselves, or me for myself and whoever will listen.

If we were to define race as two population groups within a species diverging over 100 000 years ago, than looking at Cavalli Sforza’s data, there would only be two races, Negroids, and everyone else.
Yea, while it may seem counter-intuitive, according to this geneticist, two groups as seemingly disparate as Caucasians and Polynesians share more in common genetically than Caucasians and Negroids or Polynesians and Negroids…but when you think about it, it kind of makes sense, purebred Negroids are very different looking (keep in mind we’re not talking about the mostly hybrid Mulattos of the Americas).

However, we could draw the line elsewhere, say any population group that roughly broke up roughly 50 000 years ago or earlier.
That would give us roughly races, Australian Aborigines, Papuans, South East Asians/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, North East Asians, Caucasians, East Africans and every other Negroid.
To be honest neither one of these two definitions of race I just conjured is entirely satisfying to me, but if we want to be as consistent, as objective as we can be about the word race, we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise our classification scheme becomes more inconsistent, subjective, intuitive and artistic in nature…which’s fine if you want to be that way.

Ah, here we are, I will draw the line at 60 000 years ago.
So a race is any population group that diverged approximately 60 000 years ago or earlier, which’s half as old as the first great divergence, the first one being between Negroids and everyone else, or Africans and post-Africans, or Intrafricans and Exafricans, however you want to put it.
Any divergence that took place after that would be at best a subrace.
So that would give us five races: Negroids, Caucasians, Northern Mongoloids/Native Americans, Southern Mongoloids/Pacific Islanders and Papuans/Australian Aborigines.
So Europeans then would be just a subrace of Caucasians, along with Berbers, Arabs, Iranians, Basques/Sardinians, Indians, Dravidians and Lapps.

Today it’s mostly about politics, word games, and semantics. The liberal-left want to control the dialogue regarding race. As I mentioned a few times already, it is in the best interest of the “racist” to accuse others of racism, blaming others, throwing guilt around, while he or herself enjoys the benefits and rewards of “being a racist”. In terms of the “racial realist”, racism merely means preferring your own kin(d) before others. By definition, preferring your own kind would make you a conservative-rightest in the modern world. Liberal-leftists don’t want segregation, people forming their own socially and culturally exclusive groups, especially built on race. This is why liberal-leftists purposefully injected black children into white schools in the Southern States. Their intentions may or may not have been pure or honest.

The premise of liberal-leftism is Blank Slate Theory, that “all humans are created equal” and “with the right education” then “anybody can become anything”. This sounds good, doesn’t it? It sounds noble. And it sounds like anti-victimization. Nobody has anybody else to blame, except themselves, for failure. However, unfortunately, the average liberal-leftist contradicts his and her own political premise. Liberalism has fallen into the trap of Victimhood, and “who is the biggest victim” of society. Today, in the 2010s, the logic goes that whomever is the biggest victim is also most deserving of social praise, reinforcement, popularity, and political backing. Much of this comes from the hatred of white patriarchy, european identity, and “anti-nazism”. Neo-liberals are “nazi-hunters”, obsessed with fascism, dictatorship, and authoritarianism.

The psychological premise for modern leftism and neo-liberalism is a “daddy-complex” quite simply, a severe lack of childhood discipline, a weak or absent father figure. This neo-liberalism and modern leftism, put together, create this vile and depraved sense of “racism”. If you’re a “racist” then you’re eviiiiiiiiiiil. You’re scum. You’re the rot of society.

This causes severe sociosomatic affects throughout society and culture, because it is inherently a contradiction. How can an individual be “eviiiiiil” for preferring his or her own kind, his or her own children? Are there degrees of “racism”, or is it absolute? The “race realists” claim there are degrees of racism. The average liberal-leftist, the neo-liberal, uses it as an absolute distinction. You are racist, therefore evil, therefore there shall be no dialogue or honesty from the onset. No discussion.

It’s shameful, really, and appeals to the most simple-minded throughout society.

There will be no “cure for racism” or “helping humanity”, like mentioned in the thread, at the very least, until YOU can provide solid definitions and frameworks for what is meant by race and “racism”. Race-realism is a middle-ground. Because racial differences are too obvious to defy common sense. Everybody recognizes black and white skin on the visceral level. The neo-liberal answer is to race-mix and miscegenate until the world is one color. Impractical, and defiant of nature. An artifice, an abstract and unrealistic ideology. Perhaps somewhat feasible in the new world, with severe indoctrination, but not in the old world, where tradition and conservative values reign supreme.

In the old world, Europa, Arabia, China, India, there is no breeding outside your line. If you commit “racial crimes” and aggression, marrying a ‘lower’ race, then you are excluded from the center of society and culture. Marrying ‘up’ in race is somewhat acceptable.

Excuse me…that’s enough “racism” for one day?

Although a bit superficial (there is even more going on underground) and because it was worded correctly, that post is not incorrect.

So, why the question, based on the image of that man? I don’t get it.

Did you post the above on December 8, 1941?
Then, I might kind of understand.