Don’t worry.
Natural selection is unavoidable and does not consist solely of a violent death.
Irrelevant.
Translation: the continent of Africa had resources. The inhabitants of Africa could not retain these resources from their competitors.
End result: resources taken, inhabitants exploited.
The strong dominating the weak. Natural selection.
Godwins Law. That’s what it was called, right?
This modern mantra is ridiculous.
Using a sufficient number of markers, you can indeed cluster the different major races according to their genetic information.
I agree with apaosha. Racism as such is an entirely healthy outlook. Especially in todays world, it gives you a kind of anchor to protect yourself from the mass-culture of accepting every last thing and can help your retain your individual idenitity.
The biological fact of race difference is objective, but the philosophical values about race comparisons are not objective. To say that someone is a racist could only mean that yes, they have a race and that race is objectively true. But the moment that simple fact traverses the distance between scientific fact and philosophical fact, you begin assuming that there is something that different races should do, and that some do it better than others- whether that be making a good lasagna, being the physically biggest, or having rights to own the planet [insert Nazi Nationalists].
One must know the difference between a fact and a value here. Racism, without a proper understanding, will perpetuate itself until people are educated to understand that evolution is not only true, but nonteleological. There is no “value” in the universe that is objectively true. Nationalism, which is racism at its highest degree, must accept a self defeating relativist paradox when they assert that their race is “better” than another, and that that opinion is just that…an opinion. Staying true to the scientific method would eliminate many of the conditions which develop such prejudices and biases. Ultimately philosophical racism (nazi mysticism, for example), is an origination from ruling class theology- that some races have a special jurisdiction and power of sovereignty over others, as ordained by God. The “chosen” race and what have you. Racism permeates society because of this influence of psuedo-science and metaphysics, and the irony is…nationalism is not “bad”, because bad is not scientific. It is simply the default position that the principles of nationalism are not scientifically verifiable…so one would not endorse nationalism by virtue of that alone.
There are scoundrels though. Those who claim to be materialist, but endorse nationalism…Mussolini I believe is an example. Hitler would qualify but it is possible that he was very religious- a metaphysician.
We must distinguish between statements of fact and statements of value when discussing the pragmatics of race. What races should and should not do, and how important it is to be good or bad at doing certain things, are philosophical questions. What races are is not.
sadly this is true. humanity is the tipping point before the great handkerchief comes and wipes us away
so why does it follow that the weak are inferior because there exists a being with more strength which has every mind to exploit whoever it can.
consider this
a microscopic organism may be at the bottom of the food chain; by your standars completely inferior to all other beings.
this microscopic being is eaten by a larger one, and so on and so fourth until we see things like fish and mammals.
so the people of africa who ate these fish were clearly superior to the fish, but then the more superior white man came and enslaved them, affirming their superiority… and all was well…
until the microscopic organism entered the body of a white man and caused his demise; the organism turned out to be the ebola virus.
and then the most superior being is brought down by the most inferior, and cosumed by them; inevitably becoming them; the true currency of the world.
so what does it mean when one beast overpowers another? not much because we’re all part of the same circle; it’s a round robbin
Lion King 101
lion king 101
the weak get eaten
game over
-Imp
then the “stronger” die and get eaten by the “weaker”.
Right.
The one who makes the other one die is the winner.
That is the cold hard truth.
[shivers]
so the ebola virus wins?
but shoot there are things that eat the ebola virus too… so who wins in the circle?
i guess its like rock paper siccors eh? you may break my siccors with your rock but somehow there is a piece of paper that can smuther you… somehow…
To the OP,
Not everybody is a ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a social ideology that asserts status over groups of people based on ‘objective merit’. Racism is fundamentally flawed in its glaring contradiction–a racist cannot ‘objectively’ prove its ‘objective’ assertions. The reason for this is because a person who rejects the racist ideology inherently rejects the shared ‘objective’ grounds on which the claims are based. The response of the racist is then going to be to prove that race exists objectively, but they cannot since the terminology and logic was extremely shakable to begin with…
It’s going to end up being realized that the case is just one person saying, “I’m better than you are because of (arbitrary) insert random ‘objective’ reasons!”
To the strong vs weak arguments,
Fuck yeah! Kill! Kill! KILL! 
If he has what it takes, yeah.
I’m afraid that’s how it goes man.
but to arthropods, which are immune to the ebola virus, might become like toppings on their favorite food?
anything that is alive will inevitably be eaten by something else…
so noone is the ultimate bad ass, and we are all bad asses in our own way.
and there is ALWAYS a bigger badass
I disagree. I think treating someone different because of ethnicity is racism, and the belief that one ethnicity is superior to another is not necessarily racism. For example, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that white people are generally superior to black people in certain areas. However, I treat everyone as equal, or at least I try to. I do not pick and choose my friends based on the colour of their skin.
So who do you think is more racist? Me? Or the ‘non-racist’ employer who chooses not to hire a black man?
the " non-racist employer "
I know that I have many pejudices: it’s not based on ethnicity/the colour of one’s skin, but more to do with the moral and ethic code that I choose to associate in…
agreed
Racism in body.
Racism in mind.
We can’t help what we think but we can help what we do. This is why I think deflecting the issue or not thinking about it is probably a bad thing. Like in America, first you can’t say the n* word anymore. Then you stop saying Afro-American. How long before you can’t say black anymore?
Cool! 
fine but hopefully its positive moral , ethical code . a good attitude towards Humanity
If a person seeks others on a moral/ethical level to exist with: it’s hardly going to be any less than you have presumed, isn’t it? 
…if it wasn’t, one wouldn’t have to go to the trouble of ‘seeking’.