 |
|
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|
|
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Racism vs. Prejudice (Score: 1)
by Byron on Wednesday, October 23 @ 21:59:24 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Alibaba:
You wrote:
"how is this any different than what Europeans did? They invaded countries for the same reasons everyone else throughout history - they wanted money."
You're right. The early European conquests were not based on race but on money and land. Racism, indeed, was created after the early European conquests, and in fact, these conquests were often used to justify the racists' scientific ideology. I was just mentioning this to show that NON-EUROPEAN conquerors were NOT guilty of racism.
Now I would disagree strongly with your statement that prejudice based on "other factors" is different from racism based on race. Let me explain why:
In non-racist empires, the conquerors committed prejudice on the basis of lineage, not racial appearance. In other words, they discriminated against the culture of the people, not the genetic makeup of the people. In fact, if you look at historical conquests, such as the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 or the conquests of the Mongols, you'll see that oftentimes the victors respected the people they conquered, even if they prevented them from gaining access to positions of power. Before the Mongol invasion, for example, the Mongols were illiterate, violent, and had no rule of law. Under Genghis, they began to conquer other nations and cultures, and they saw that other cultures were superior to them in many ways. Genghis, even though he never learned to read, saw the value of literacy, and he made sure that the people under his authority had access to education. He only allowed fellow Mongols to occupy the highest positions in society, but it wasn't because he felt he was genetically superior (or in this case, even culturally superior). He just had his prejudices, and he wanted to keep power in the family. When Genghis or his fellow Mongol men had children with their vanquished, their children were considered full Mongol, and they were accorded full privileges as sons of Mongol military men.
This doesn't happen in a racist society. In a racist society, one is judged not by culture, but by race. In other words, I look at you, and I judge you. It has nothing to do with who your ancestors are; it has to do with what the man feels the people of your genetic lineage act like. A racist society will tell a man that he's not smart enough because he's black. A racist society will tell a man he's not strong enough because he's Asian. If a white person and a minority have kids together, the progeny still often feel the stigma of racism and opposition. This is because racists see race, not culture. They see a half-black child, and assume he's smarter than a full black child, but not as smart as a full white child.
And yes, racism has been enormously successful in the past 150 years. I was walking with this Japanese guy a few years back. This guy was from a rural village in Japan and was in the city for the first or second time. We passed this black woman in the subway who was dancing. The Japanese guy said, "These people can't sit still for even a second, can they? They've got rhythm in their blood." And I asked him how he "knew" that. "TV," he said.
Ever heard the words coming from Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe (who interestingly enough has a culturally European name, but is totally anti-white--another example of race vs. culture)? He sounds like a Black Panther. And how did the Black Panthers learn racism? Look at their rhetoric, and look at the rhetoric of Gobineau and Galton. There are major similarities. |
| Parent |
|
Re: All too familiar (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 13 @ 02:06:58 EST | | The Hutus and the Tutsis were always at each others throats because they were from different tribes.It was not until the Whites colonized them and started pitting one against the other, saying one group was lighter and had straighter hair, so therefore closer to white and therefore superior and appointed them to higher positions,educated them, etc that their conflict escalated.The Whites convinced them to fight each other and not the Whites.After decades of this the tension exploded and the massacre ensued.Yes, there were tribal tensions but the Whites exploited this to keep their power and the Hutus and the Tutsis fought each and did not see the game( the game that whites have always played) As for Mugabe and Zimbabwe-How did Whites get the land in the first and did they think they would always have it? Lastly, I have observed many Asians and it seems to me that they cannot get close enough to White people.As a Black person I have seen Asians try to diss Black people so they can curry favor with Whites.I have seen Asians dissed by Whites. Why are Asians trying so hard to be White?Stop kissing the White Man's ass!!!!!! Nobody respects ass-kissers. Asians on this sight are complaining about White racism(alot of which is true) but I have seen them trying to treat Black people the way Whites attempt!!! to treat Black people;Even the ones just off the boat.???That is pathetic.What's up with the more than 50% of Asians who marry out-presumably with Whites.This whole issue will be mute because you all won't be here anyway. |
| Parent |
|
|
