Can we get some clarification here?

If one is going to be pedantic:

Racialism - the belief that one race is superior to another.
Racism - the belief that races exist (as a meaningful concept).

Nowadays, the latter is popularly used in the sense of the former, because most people can't imagine that the concept of race has no scientific validity. However, amongst ethnologists, the concept of race (as genetically distinct breeding pools) is falling out of favour.

Incidentally, it shows how linguistic change can be dangerous. Because most people have no word for "the belief that races exist" any longer, they can't contemplate the idea that racism (in the original sense of the word) is not an established fact.

You learn something every day. What frightens me here is that when Jade Goody said on Big Brother "I'm not a racialist"...and I thought "Ha ha, stupid Jade"...you're actually telling me she was RIGHT?

More than any other post on this thread, you have shaken my beliefs...

James may have missed your point. I didn't, and you never addressed it. When you ask me to imagine a Doctor, I immediately think of an Indian gentleman in a white coat (and if pressed, with a thick Indian accent that I can barely understand )

How does this fit into your "White Privilege" theory?

I'm not sure I agree with "equal if not greater", but you are correct that it was a factor. I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as large a factor as slavery, but whatever. Europeans fought amongst themselves just as much, if not more than Africans. The major wars and tribal stuff is relatively recent.
But you're also forgetting Colonialism, which was perpetuated by Whites, in Africa, which went on for much, much longer than the slave trade.

In addition, as long as we're talking about the development of African Nations, there are MANY other factors that lead up to slavery and colonialism.
One that has got me to thinking recently is migration.

One of the strengths of the Europeans was that their area of the world was pretty much east-west, so it was a heck of a lot easier for them to move around and acclimate and adapt to the new area. The climates are pretty much the same and the extremes are relatively close. Throw in the fact that they had domesticatable animals and you've got a pretty mobile community.

Now let's look at Africa. Their area is pretty much north-south, so any major migration moves the community into an entirely new climate. Seeds and plants that they brought with them don't grow in these areas, so farming peoples didn't migrate.
Then we come to the animals. There's nothing really domesticateable in Africa.
If there were, the world would be a WHOLE 'nother place.
Rhinos instead of war horses. Hunting lions.
Their forces would have been unstoppable.

So we got stable communities that don't change much because they don't have to, which impeded progress, versus a much more transient, warlike group of communities who, by the very nature of their migration (which, again was made easier by the area they lived in), have to progress, have to innovate. Now throw them together.

There's MUCH much more to it than this, but those are the salient points I've been reading about. For more, check out Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" or.. heck, pretty much anything by him. It's pretty mindblowing.

Couple of things.

It's not MY "White Privilege" theory, it's just one that I subscribe to. I wish that I was insightful enough to have come to the realization myself.

Second, what I said was that most people, when asked to think of a doctor, if they're being honest, will think of a white man. I also said that I wish that I had a link to the study, because it WAS done. And yes, there is such a thing as male privilege and christian privilege (which, as a matter of fact, the White privilege thing was spawned from), and your point about the fact that it could have been a woman is absolutely valid.
To twist it, most people think of a doctor as a man, as well, as you said.

This is all part and parcel of the concept of privilege. The assumption and assurance that someone that is like you, looks like you, understands you, has had similar or at least relateable experiences as you, will be available in everyday life, whatever you do.

It exists and it's true and trying to understand this through the eyes, ears and experiences of someone that ISN'T represented, that DOESN'T have these assurances is of vital importance if we are to move towards equality.

So...I could have in my profile...and perhaps even a group ====>>

Enjoys copulation that is both coerced and contrived with a high level of maleficence.

Prefers coition with individuals whose pelage is akin to that of mammals.

Friendly environment for oppressors of chattel and other humbly obedient persons. Be sure to note quantity and/or relative quality of those whose ownership title you may be in the possession of.

Takes pleasure in the corruption and eventual defilement of pubescent persons within the confines of dramatized and fabricated situational recreation.


So, I've "matured" them up - kinda like an "Extreme Makeover" for the pornographic profile. Sensitive eyes can now look upon these definitions without the glaring offensive words, though the intent remains. Is it about words or ideas?

Ok, how many of those words will now be banned...


Meggy

This at least goes back to the purpose of the thread. This racial arguement tangent thats going to get the thread locked is becuase people were arguing what makes a racial hate group.

A group that uses a main white supremacist slogan as its name - is a hate group.
a simple google search of "14 words" will give you plenty of sites to confirm this.

Do a similar search of "Black Panthers" and youll notice not only is the group no longer active. But it was part of the social struggle of the 60's. Aditionally it was a Movement formed to resist racial repression, which was very real at that time.

Insisting on comparing White supremacists and Neo-Nazis to the militant portion of the struggle for civil rights in a segregated America, is really baseless.

Its apples and oarnges.

Evidently this debate at least shows me - That not only should Linden labs do a better job of defining PG/ public indecency.

But Also it needs a more clear definition of what racial-based groups are permitted.

I think this topic has derailed from it's original purpose...

I agree. It's derailed.

I kind of see the derailment as proof that there needs to be a much more clear Community Standards.

Since, obviously, people cling to heavy partisan biases on many issues that pertain directly to the issues of intollerance, etc.

Whith the polarization and slanted "facts" on the internet. That makes sense.

I'm ignorant. Thank you. Here's the definition. Next time why don't _YOU_ actually go and look things up before trying to insult someone. This will be the _last_ reply I make to any of your posts. The one with the asterix is the one pertaining to what I was saying, a group of people united or classified togeter on the basis of common history. Perhaps, next time, before you go yelling at someone, _you_ might want to check your facts.

I also notice you cut out my definitions on purpose. Way to try and win your own arguments.

race n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
*2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

He·brew n.
1. A member or descendant of a Semitic people claiming descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; an Israelite; a Jew.
2.
a. The Semitic language of the ancient Hebrews.
b. Any of the various later forms of this language, especially the language of the Israelis.
3. Hebrews (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Heb. See Table at Bible.

I prefered using the _racial_ rather than the _religion_ as Jewish can be considered the faith, and, as not all people who practice that faith are of Hebrew descent, I went for the most clear and direct focus. Apparently I was mistaken as you didn't know the difference. And yes, a member of the Hebrew race that _hasn't been living in the middle east for generations_ can look just as white as any 'white people'.

I guess any time I have _ANYTHING_ to say, I'll have to cut and paste the entire definition or encyclopedia entry.

Oh, and by the way, the point I was trying to make with the 'anglo-saxon' thing is to cut holes in the whole crap about all the 'white races' being the same exact race. They arn't, and that being shot down by someone claiming they _are_ is a great way to disprove it.

Just because two _RACES_ have the same color _SKIN_ does not mean they are the same. The Aborigines of Australia have 'black' skin, but they are distinctly different in physical and genetic characteristics than African and Hatian 'black people'. The physical and genetic characteristics of non-mixed Italians and Irishmen are different.

Argue all you want, you're not going to change the definitions of the words. Pretending they mean something they don't is not the way to live or communicate clearly. Sad you chose anger and hatred over friendly discorse. Goodbye.


Yiffy is right, this subject has become majorly derailed. I've said the same thing. Can we get back to the subject at hand? If anyone _else_ wants more information on Race and Racism and doesn't want to look it up, IM me, I guess, and I can try pointing you at websites that might contain your answers.

I'm sorry if you were insulted. I wasn't trying to insult. I said you were ignorant because I believe you are. Ignorant of racial issues, as far as I can see. Ignorant meaning that you are unaware of them. It was not meant as an insult, just a description.



Thank you for the semantics.



Regardless of how they LOOK, they are not white. Your description above says Semitic, which is not Caucasian.
Nowhere in the description above does it say that they ARE Caucasian.
Regardless of that, your original point STILL doesn't stand up. If you were to put a "Hebrew", a Scotsman and an Italian together and tell them that they're all white, I'm pretty damn sure that they wouldn't mind. In fact, I'm sure that they'd be a little confused as to why you were pointing out the obvious.
As for the '... as you didn't know the difference.", I believe... wait, let me check... yep, I did, in fact, speak to both the race AND the religion.


You've already admitted that you lied and put out misinformation. How are we supposed to take anything you say seriously when you've already lied to us.


And your proof of this is a complete and utter lie? A mistruth? The complete opposite of the truth? I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous.

I think I've spoken to your use of Hatian in these instances.

Now you're high horsing? You're denouncing me for trying to change the definition of words (which I'm not. That is solely your purview) after writing an essay about the spread of anglo-saxons which was complete bullshit? YOU have the nerve to talk to me about communicating clearly when you openly lie about either your knowledge or your motivations? I believe you have been the one attacking and being un"friendly", not I.


GOOD LORD! You want people to ask you about this? You, who lie through your teeth about it for some misguided and ignorant motivation? Seriously?
BWAH HA HAAAAAAA! You crack me up, you pompous ass. See, THAT is an insult. Get the difference?

I disagree. Or at least it depends how "militant" the militant portion gets. Al Quaeda is just a militant Muslim organisation after all.

Unfortunately some people will defend ANY action taken by a minority. It's like the way that people remember Nelson Mandela was "unjustly imprisoned", and conveniently forget the fact that the organisation he used to head (the ANC) were responsible for terrorist attacks. (We can argue about whether or not he knew about them all day)

Was his cause just? Absolutely. Were his methods justified? No.

WHAT?

Just curious. Do you consider the Founding Fathers of your country terrorists? How about those that fought during the Civil War?

Sorry... you just made me throw up in my mouth a little.

I think the public attention qoutient just stepped up check this link out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Life#Question_of_how_much_is_too_adult_in_a_.27game.27._.28Second_Life.29

I think the person murdered probaby felt rather subjegated before being snuffed out. What's power if not a man holding a gun to your head?

Heh.

Don't confuse war with terrorism. In war, even Civil War, both sides wear a uniform and so the targets are easily identified. Planting bombs in offices and kidnapping people for ransom IS terrorism.

No I don't consider the founding fathers as terrorists (not MY country by the way). They declared WAR. The ANC never did that.

Sorry if the truth tasted so bad it made you throw up.

Or Mature, pg and g.

Wow... ok... I don't think I can talk to you about this.
I'm... I'm in shock at just how... wow... That's simply and utterly amazing. I can't...

Jesus.

By the way, the TRUTH would never make me throw up. Racist bile like the stuff you've been throwing arounf, however? THAT makes me gag.

I give up. You've obviously deluded yourself into thinking that you're not a racist so much that you feel no problem with denouncing one of the greatest men in recent history as a terrorist. Unbelieveable.

I give up. Please do me one favour. Don't EVER speak to me. Ever. Not in-world, not here on the forums.

Just as a note, the people in YOUR country (emphasis yours) did PLENTY of stuff BEFORE the war was declared that, in this day and age, you would consider terrorism... but apparantly only if a non-White did it.

Forget it. There's nothing I can say to you to open your eyes to the real truth.

Is this flame fest still going?
No wonder the Lindens either can't or wont give clarification.
Race shouldn't even matter in a virtual world.

Agree, racism doesn't/shouldn't matter in a world where you can fly anywhere in two days and the "races" are mixing or will abundantly in the not-distant future. However, terrorism does matter. It is a fundamental assault on civilization and has to be put down ruthlessly, regardless of who did what to whom back in the day. Get beyond racism, that is so 20th Century. Think terrorism; that is 21st Century.

Or, do you think you really want to live in a world where terrorism is "validated" for any reason, including whether anybody did it in the past? If so, think again. Do you really want to live in a world where the Earth Liberation Front is validated in bombing you because you drive an SUV? After all, ELF is "sincere," and has the environment in mind for what it does. And so does every other nut group harboring someone prepared to kill indiscrimnately.

"Terrorism" is a term that should not be used loosely. But most of all, it is not something that should be trivialized or dismissed, or fogged-up because it gets mixed up with increasingly outdated ideological disputes.

This forum isn't for general discussion; there are many Resident Sites where this discussion is appropriate — Resident Answers is for Resident-to-Resident help. I'll close this thread...

Forum GuidelinesCommunity Standards