The definition of a word is backed by science? Now I've heard everything. Tell me, what experiments were run to test the definition. What controls were put on the experiment? What was done to eliminate bias?
No, providing a book and an author doesn't prove anything. Science was used to prove eugenics was true, too - and that was far more scientific than anything supporting a definition. We are talking semantics, not mathematics. Your author may well have documented some ideas to support his definition, and those incidents/statistics/etc. might all be true in themselves. That does not entitle him to redefine the word.
*sigh* If you wish to argue semantics that's not a problem. Just let me know.
You didn't say the British colonized this country for slavery (which would also have been nonsense). You said this nation was built on slavery. I repeat that is nonsense, and whatever the original colonial powers did here is irrevelant except as historical background. The United States was built on the concept that representative government was superior to monarchy.
The United States, in practical economic terms, was built upon slavery.
Thanks for the history lesson. Now why don't you try looking at the history of the NATION, rather than the history of SLAVERY, which is only one small part thereof. This is, again, an example of bias. You view the United States as a racist nation, rather than as a nation which had - as virtually all nations have had - a history that includes racial strife.
As if your view is not one of bias. Obviously I'm looking at it from a view of racial strife, that is the point of this discussion.
Baloney. Neither are acccurate. You overinflate the reality of the long history of racism in America to suit your view of this nation. You grossly exaggerate the progress of equality in this country by confining it to the few "effective" years of legislation. What absolute nonsense. So society is exactly where it was in 1964, huh? So Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 had no effect on schools? Hey wait, that's TEN years between a MAJOR civil rights victory and another MAJOR civil rights victory. That is DOUBLE your estimate without even considering the effect of the forty and fifty years we have lived since those decisions. And what about all of the court decisions that were still being made in the 1970's concerning school desegregation some 20 years after Brown? There is FOUR TIMES your estimate. So I would classify your estimates, even as estimates of effective government action to overturn racism, as the third kind of lie.
You speak of how far American society came and then you disprove yourself by stating this: "what about all of the court decisions that were still being made in the 1970's concerning school desegregation some 20 years after Brown?" Yes, what about those? Don't you see the problem right there?!?
Shall I really get into scientific evidence of how certain groups of early homo species destroyed others? Or can we just get into looking at how early civilizations banded together to prey on other races? Shall I discuss rivalries between different groups, tribes, clans, religions, and all of the other kinds of distinctions? ANYTHING that sets one group apart from another, and that includes race, is a cause for strife. It wouldn't matter. I have seen the silly arguments that ancient civilizations didn't compete because of RACE but because of political rivalries, resources, etc. All of that is exactly true of American racism. But again, because it doesn't fit YOUR definition, you can excuse it as "different." I'm not an anthropologist, and the research (which would be quoted in vain anyway) is too time consuming to be worth it.
Nice strawman. You defeated it with impressive gallantry and courage. The truth is that racism is a much more modern phenomenon, but it is accepted that "humans have been racist since the dawn of time."
Everyday society is not racist. You are making a false claim. Blacks are as racist as whites. Black culture is as racist as white culture, in fact far more so today. Black racism is just as real as white racism and is just as wrong.
Wait. Everyday society is not racist, but "Black culture is as racist as white culture?" You need to make up your mind.
All of the above. More often than not the latter due to the former.
I see.
Yes. Black churches TODAY teach that white men are evil. There are even white liberals who insist that only white people can be racist. There are people who defend Reverends Wright and Pfleger and other racists. Don't pretend that black racism is just part of the lunatic fringe. It permeates society. There is NOTHING you can point to today in white culture or in American culture in general that does not have a counterpart in American Black culture - or in any culture in history. Racism isn't a special discrimination, it is just another way of separating people by difference. It is not a worse evil than sexism or religious oppression or political domination. And it is no more a part of our culture than it has been for any other culture EXCEPT that ours is one of the few in history that deliberately tried to put people of many different backgrounds together and make one people out of them, so we get to see the real results, and that includes slavery, Jim Crow, religious oppression and sexism. This is one of the few societies who took those accepted differences of perspective, examined them, found them wanting and rejected them. THAT is also a part of our history which you choose to minimize, but it is what makes us unique as a nation.
I choose to see reality and push for something better as opposed to idealizing fiction.
You've told me twice now what I "know." You have been wrong both times. I don't KNOW these things and in fact I know otherwise. How many blacks are taught that white is wrong? Oh, I'd say about twice the number (per capita) of whites that are taught black is wrong. But of course, I am making that number up. Fabrication works pretty well for the left, I thought I'd give it a try. In reality, I have not done a "scientific" study of how many black people are taught to hate whites. I wonder if those who have done your so-called "scientific" studies have done so? It seems that if we are studying "white male deviances" and other such myths, we ought to be studying the whole picture instead of just the self-serving portions.
I offer the scientific studies for you to see. Go look and criticize them for what they are. No one here is saying that scientists are gods. I can read a scientific report or journal just as easily as you can. On the other hand, you just flat out lied and beforehand refused to offer any evidence by setting up your strawman to which you conveniently knocked down. Convenient for you, but difficult for peer review.
Myths like "white male deviance" perhaps? Scientific studies have shown that black people are intellectually inferior to whites. They have also show that homosexuality is a mental disorder probably caused by mothers being too close to their sons. Scientific studies have a history of proving whatever the sponsors want them to or whatever the individual biases of the observers support. In fact, such studies are seldom "scientific." They are, instead, statistical. They find trends and present them as facts. My son likes to find mathematical relationships in things that do not actually have relationships. It's easy to do. It is far more easy to do when you define the result in advance. I have, for fun, shown several correlations between Lincoln and Bush in another thread, similar to the Lincoln-Kennedy series of coincidences that have been played up for years. There is no real relationship between those Presidents (other than the obvious historical ones) but the game is fun to play. That's all your "scientific" proof is. It's the same, incidentally, with the "scientific" proof that homosexuality is genetic.
Wow. You've seen the difference between correlation and causation. That's Statistics 101 and I'm really happy for you. Most people who have studied social sciences understand that concept as well and that is why peer review exists. The genetics of homosexuality, if they do exist, would have nothing to do with correlation and causation. But nice try at changing the topic.
I understand what Cornel West calls the "Santa Clausification" of King. But he was, in spite of his personal politics (with which I differ) and his moral deficiencies (which make him no less of a great man - we all have faults) a leader who did dream of an end to racial disharmony. I expect if he were alive today he would be a crochety old hell-raiser screaming like Al Sharpton and demanding slave reparations. But I hope that is not true. As it is, he died young and left a legacy that everyone can benefit from. Adams and Jefferson were political rivals who were often out to cut each other's throats, and best friends as well. We get differing opinions and theories of the union from them both, but we can benefit from both. And Jefferson was a slave holder who probably boinked at least one of them (as I believe you may have pointed out). So what? The work he did was not the completion of the dream of a free, classless, equal society, but it was damn sure a pretty big step in the realization of that dream. Even MLK said his dream was deeply rooted in the American Dream - and he wasn't talking about home ownership. The fact is, King's dream has a lot more to do with moving beyond racial differences than your "white male deviance" and mathematical miscalculations do.
Classless & equal societies won't exist under this economic system and King saw that (and spoke to that by the way). But, what is your point here other than taking a shot at me?
I think that if you are characterizing my posts as bitching about how white males have lost their place in society you have more than proven my point.
Anything sensible to say as opposed to the above?
