lictor616

judging by the venomous shrieks in this thread alone, an unbiased Martian observer would have to conclude that i'm not the one who's filled with hate and emotional vitriol... what with all the people always putting the onus back unto me to call me either ignorant or "a tool" or stupid, or worthless, contemptible etc... I'm also growing quite weary of the term "close minded" ... what does it mean specifically? I mean asking impolite questions, trying to jab some sense out of such taboo's as race relations are not synonymous with any definition of "close mindedness" so far as I'm concerned. And you shouldn't be surprised most people who get the opportunity to travel for any extensive amount of time do discover that the difference between observed reality and what Canadian liberals say are intolerably great. Many Slums near Port Au Prince, and Cité Soleil are quite literally "cesspools"... i'm not saying that to inflame either, or to exaggerate the situation, without sewage plants or garbage disposal, many regions are swimming in human and animal feces and are akin to landfills... or huge trash heaps... again this is not me being "mean and hateful" its an actual statement of fact... I've actually bothered showing you a few ghastly pics... and I swear no one retouched them... a good friend of mine works for the IDRC, and has toured Haiti a few times... and the accounts he brings back are absolutely harrowing. and you don't have to take my word for it... ghead and glance the many compiled reports for yourself... you'll read cheerry heart warming and glowing accounts of 5 year old girls suspected of witchcraft being chained to outside posts like animals to be gang raped by whole villages... Hospitals with stray cats, dogs, pigs and yes hens! rotting corpses that litter the country side and how Haiti no longer prosecutes rape! because the police say its too commonplace! http://google.idrc.ca/search?PHPSESSID=5c3...q=haiti

"Greek" was independently developed... Doric Ancient Greek, Egypt has a completely different language system... in fact it has so little resemblances that I've actually never heard of any scholar even think about Greek as being an offshoot dialect of Egypt... As for Phoenician... Not sure how that counts as an african language... but anyway... it barely predates Greek... wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek And many tribes and small foraging nations in Northern Europe had developed written language Ordovices, the Silures during Iron Age of Northern Europe all had written languages. and before that Jastorf culture, ancient Solutreans, had the rudiments of written language in stone and other material.

utterly false, race is very easily ascertainable even to untrained human eyes... you knwo exactly what race Wesley Snipes is... it is very much tangible... Race, like the spots on a leopard, are clear and unmistakable with a very high probability. Race is imperfect ONLY because it is "too broad" and encompasses large and varied phenotypical groups... just as there are many varieties of TIGERS, doesn't mean that the differences between tigers are intagible... More then ever is race "real"... today we have drugs like BiDil which are RACE-SPECIFIC drugs... We can take a genome test and detect with a HIGH percentage of accuracy, where our ancestor s come from... (Mohamed ali did it... and traced part his ancestors back to Ireland... where he went and visited recently...) Only people who are ignorant of modern biology can say such hopelessly false statements such as "races are figments of the human imagination"... Races aren't even specifically human! Even two closely related races of dogs will detect and know they are different. Intra specie "genocide" occurs very often in the animal world as well... anyways

you must be an amateur traveler if you rely on travelling agencies to tell you what countries are like... I bet you're the type of person who makes her opinion on other countries based on travel ads and all inclusive americanized resorts where brown faces bring you rum and cokes with little umbrellas on them... Real haiti: is more like this::: http://www.jansochor.com/photo-essay/hunge...um-haiti-05.jpg and this (must read) http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...sa%3DG%26um%3D1 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CoGakO2yoxk/SXwR.../s400/haiti.jpg and if your not immune to reality: Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with 80% of the population living under the poverty line and 54% in abject poverty.

I was an exchange student in venezuela for one year through AFS, I lived in Merida and Maracaibo for many months while there... I also saw Bogota for a week in colombia, Brazil (mostly en what is called la Gran Savana) and dabbled in Los Roques, Isla Marguarita, and a 2 week trip to Argentina. My first trip was with my parents (when I was two).. we went to puerto Rico. Also, from meeting so many people during my exchange program... I was received in hamburg, Leuven, stayed in portugal for 4 months (Minho, Porto, Braga, Lisbon etc) , Spain (Alicante, Mallorca, Ibiza, Barcelona, Grado).. France etc... I'm actually rather well traveled for my age. I don't know many canadians who claim to live abroad for a year before 20... My family is even more "travel crazed"... my mother lived and studied in Tianjin university in china for a year.. she speaks 5 languages (and generally deplores many of my opinions on such issues it must be said)... but I digress, back to the topic?

Yes Elizabeth II is the proper monarch of Canada, but as the G.G. (Michaelle Jean) is literally the "Queen's envoy to Canada" which makes her the highest representative of the royal family IN CANADA. she is therefore the highest regal symbol in our land... which in the absence of Elizabeth... makes her a queen in her own right... either way my quote is pretty obvious: i wrote: "the "Queen of Canada" (in a way) " meaning in a way... she is queen... you just decided to talk about this to make it seem (most disingenously) as if I didn't understand who's who and what's what and to take another opportunity to call me a "tool"... model debater you are!

There's a problem still though... white history is not: REPEAT:::: NOT CELEBRATED AS SUCH... actually, one could get himself into BIG trouble for pointing out that History is for all practical purposes a "white thing" because it actually obliterates the theory of racial equality and cultural relativism/multiculturalism, since it shows that white contributions are what history is made of... and that comparatively, whites have done MORE in the world to be remembered. So its a very sketchy subject... Blacks (western/sub-Saharan) (previous to white colonialism) had no written history at all before being brought to the White world as slaves. And the history they have acquired since then is a rather inglorious one. Despite all of the assurances of White liberals that they are "equal," its clear they don't really believe it then.... and you don't believe it... So we are left with this double standard...

the "Queen of Canada" (in a way) Her Excellency The Right Honorable Michaëlle Jean is rather dusky hued and emanates from that most unpleasant of compost heap called Haiti. Your point? Why do we need to point out to Michaelle Jean, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, lol George Washington Carver (the prolific inventor of starch and peanut butter) as Black History then? I mean cmon! Don't you see the disconnect there?

can you show me (second time I asked to the board) how our history is celebrated as such? Do we celebrate the accomplishments of white people AS SUCH in any reasonably overt way? I bet you can't bring up a single instance of us celebrating white history in any way resembling Black History month...

awww! they called you race traitor... yeah and let me guess, wicked nazis followed you home throwing rocks at you but you fought them all off one by one right... why do people use personal experiences to strengthen arguments based on observable reality? Do you thinkn we can check that anecdote? then why say it? except of course, to create an illusion of pervasive anti-minority racism which doesn't exist. oh and to use a comparable wild biological flourish... "Last time i checked, there was only one race, the genus Felinidae (i.e.: felines), yes the tiger, house cat, meercat, lynx, the Felis bieti, the Pardofelis marmorata.... hey! they're all the same... despite minor differences in fur color"... another human social construct...

all the more reason to celebrate it then ... no?

really? I don't think i've ever turned my TV on the have the news anchors tell of "another white history capsule"... And I've never seen "white" hisotry in Canada celebrated as such... ever! Perhaps you could list a couple of suggestive examples... known political figures speaking highly of our white ancestors say or something of the sort... or maybe its a silent "celebration"... or maybe you're just grabbing at straws... but again... I have to clarify: do you agree with the statement that: "if blacks receive a black history month, whites should have one also"? yes or no?

Perhaps that's the case for a minority of schools in traditionnally conservative areas... Alberta say, but for all practical purposes the curriculum has been revised to eliminate any potential for "eurocentrism" in academia. You should really read about the Multiculturalism act and its core policies.. The main idea of multiculturalism is the equal value of all cultures (i.e., cultural relativism). Multiculturalism, a politicized form of cultural relativism, rejects the idea that there are general truths, norms, or rules with respect to both knowledge and morals. Unlike cultural relativism however, multiculturalism excludes one worldview from the realm of equally valid worldviews – the Eurocentric Western perspective based on the contributions of dead white European males or "DWEM's" as they are referred to contempuously by some. Multiculturalists dismiss the significance of Western civilization by claiming that Western traditions of elitism, racism, and sexism are the cause of most of our current problems... so they teach white heritage in mostly a negative light... All white schools are becoming a rarity as well... but again that matters not: since there is no such thing as an all white, eurocentric school in all of canada (despite the fact that whites constitute a majority) In south africa: all black african schools are quite common (yet BLACKS are the majority) ... even Oprah who opened a school for girls there, restricted admissions to BLACKS only... and the staff is all-black also... there really is no equivalence here

decade? rather extreme... I presume that you agree that if there is a black history month... there should be a white history month ... got that right?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090907/hl_nm/...cise_sex_race_1 Of course as every simpleton knows: "dere ain't be no difference tween' races" execpt that "How much health benefit you get from physical exercise might depend on your gender, and your race, new research suggests. The work is based on data from more than 15,000 middle-aged African American and Caucasian men and women who have been participating since the late 1980s in the large Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. According to a report in the Journal of Lipid Research, people who added about an hour of mild exercise per week or half an hour of moderate exercise had increased levels of heart-healthy HDL." (...) "The research team, led by Dr. Keri Monda at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, also found that increased exercise generally produced significant decreases in harmful triglycerides, but only in Caucasians. Similar beneficial effects of exercise on HDL cholesterol and triglycerides have been found in other studies. Monda’s team also discovered, however, that increased activity improved levels of artery-clogging LDL cholesterol in women, but not in men. Also, they found, added exercise brought total cholesterol levels down, but only in Black women. These variations in response, the research team says, “are for the most part” new. What’s behind these differences? The researchers aren’t sure, but they speculate that hormonal differences between men and women and genetic differences between races account for at least some of their findings." oh but to all you liberals out there... don't worry race is an optical illusion... we're really all to the 10th decimal equal ... either way i'm sure these "researchers" are nazi's anyway... right?! surely they are...

thank you for that little ad hominem fit... I don't understand where I fit in in this discussion ... last I check we were talking about Racial Pride, if its acceptable ... and then Black Histroy month.... so far as I know it never got switched back to "lets talk about lictor616 the freak of genetics" perhaps you'd like to re-read my previous question (which was by no means ambiguous and deserved a straightforward response)

here's the link to the story! (ahaahahahh... omg can't wait to hear the leftist "egalitarians" on this one!) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...ric-school.html SNIP)--- "On Tuesday, when hundreds of thousands of Ontario students head back to school, a lot of attention will be focused on one particular school in Toronto’s north end. It only has 85 students, but hopes are high for the Africentric Alternative School, which will open its doors near Keele Street and Sheppard Avenue West on Sept. 8 for the very first time. The administrative staff, the teachers, the parents—even the kids—are excited about the new school. “I’m going to learn how to write the A, B, C, Ds,” says Makeba Ofori-McRae in anticipation. When Makeba enters Grade One she wants to “learn how to write the numbers. Then I’m going to colour.” Her mother, Amma, says she enrolled Makeba in the Africentric school so her daughter would be taught about her black heritage." ahhh! wants her daughter to be a Black Nationalist.... and we get to pay for it... How much of you here would wager that if a group of White people tried with equal fervor to set up all White schools and teach their kids about white heritage, they'd be tarred, feathered, publicly horsewhipped, called every Politically Incorrect slander in the book, and sued by the Human Rights Tribunal and remove custody of the children enrolled in the school? ahhhhh, facepalm* the best thing about this is that enrollment will KEEP increasing, because blacks at the end of the day really don't care much for diversity... they'd much rather be with their own kind... so I wouldn't be surprised if this is the beginning of a trend for non-white minority communities... and we profane Canadian chinless wonders, will, (in an act of supreme self hatred) tolerate it and even SUBSIDIZE it...

i direct you over to this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14909 It shows you how much of a construction EGALITARIANISM IS... Race a social construct (my eye!)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1 "At the Children’s Research Lab at the University of Texas, a database is kept on thousands of families in the Austin area who have volunteered to be available for scholarly research. In 2006 Birgitte Vittrup recruited from the database about a hundred families, all of whom were Caucasian with a child 5 to 7 years old. The goal of Vittrup’s study was to learn if typical children’s videos with multicultural storylines have any beneficial effect on children’s racial attitudes. Her first step was to give the children a Racial Attitude Measure, which asked such questions as: How many White people are nice? (Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None) How many Black people are nice? (Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None) During the test, the descriptive adjective “nice” was replaced with more than 20 other adjectives, like “dishonest,” “pretty,” “curious,” and “snobby.” Vittrup sent a third of the families home with multiculturally themed videos for a week, such as an episode of Sesame Streetin which characters visit an African-American family’s home, and an episode of Little Bill, where the entire neighborhood comes together to clean the local park. In truth, Vittrup didn’t expect that children’s racial attitudes would change very much just from watching these videos. Prior research had shown that multicultural curricula in schools have far less impact than we intend them to—largely because the implicit message “We’re all friends” is too vague for young children to understand that it refers to skin color. Yet Vittrup figured explicit conversations with parents could change that. So a second group of families got the videos, and Vittrup told these parents to use them as the jumping-off point for a discussion about interracial friendship. She provided a checklist of points to make, echoing the shows’ themes. “I really believed it was going to work,” Vittrup recalls. The last third were also given the checklist of topics, but no videos. These parents were to discuss racial equality on their own, every night for five nights. At this point, something interesting happened. Five families in the last group abruptly quit the study. Two directly told Vittrup, “We don’t want to have these conversations with our child. We don’t want to point out skin color.” Vittrup was taken aback—these families volunteered knowing full well it was a study of children’s racial attitudes. Yet once they were aware that the study required talking openly about race, they started dropping out." They wanted their children to grow up colorblind. But Vittrup’s first test of the kids revealed they weren’t colorblind at all. Asked how many white people are mean, these children commonly answered, “Almost none.” Asked how many blacks are mean, many answered, “Some,” or “A lot.” Even kids who attended diverse schools answered the questions this way. Vittrup hoped the families she’d instructed to talk about race would follow through. After watching the videos, the families returned to the Children’s Research Lab for retesting. To Vittrup’s complete surprise, the three groups of children were statistically the same—none, as a group, had budged very much in their racial attitudes. At first glance, the study was a failure. Combing through the parents’ study diaries, Vittrup realized why. Diary after diary revealed that the parents barely mentioned the checklist items. Many just couldn’t talk about race, and they quickly reverted to the vague “Everybody’s equal” phrasing. Of all those Vittrup told to talk openly about interracial friendship, only six families managed to actually do so. And, for all six, their children dramatically improved their racial attitudes in a single week. Talking about race was clearly key. Reflecting later about the study, Vittrup said, “A lot of parents came to me afterwards and admitted they just didn’t know what to say to their kids, and they didn’t want the wrong thing coming out of the mouth of their kids.” "For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child-development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that “pink” means for girls and “blue” is for boys. “White” and “black” are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own." As a result, junior-high and high-school children in diverse schools experience two completely contrasting social cues on a daily basis. The first cue is inspiring—that many students have a friend of another race. The second cue is tragic—that far more kids just like to hang with their own. It’s this second dynamic that becomes more and more visible as overall school diversity goes up. {snip} All told, the odds of a white high-schooler in America having a best friend of another race is only 8 percent. Those odds barely improve for the second-best friend, or the third-best, or the fifth. For blacks, the odds aren’t much better: 85 percent of black kids’ best friends are also black. Cross-race friends also tend to share a single activity, rather than multiple activities; as a result, these friendships are more likely to be lost over time, as children transition from middle school to high school. http://www.nurtureshock.com/ the proof just keeps on stacking...

I still haven't met a self confessed Tory (at my university or anywhere for that matter) that wasn't in complete agreement with: more guns, less 3rd world immigrants, more freedom, less taxes... less enforced diversity and multiculturalism. with opinions on each issue ranging from near indifference to vehement agreement.

Well, you see the clip I showed was very much like a celebration of White history... it wasn't hateful towards other races (in fact it said nothing of other races)... and yet no one here found it acceptable... Black history is the same ... it forces us to look at the achievements of a particular race and pardon my cynicism ... but do you expect me to believe that you do not think that Black History is source of pride for blacks? The movement's orginal purpose was to give to blacks a sense of racial pride and group achievement: the official website : http://www.biography.com/blackhistory/blac...story-month.jsp says: "The Black Power Movement of the 1970s emphasized racial pride and the significance of collective cultural values. This prompted the ASNLH, now called the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, to change Negro History Week to Black History Week. In 1976, they extended the week to a month-long observance." but since you say that the teaching of history is not necessarily "a manifestation of pride"... would you agree (for the sake of equality) to grant us a White History Month? highlighting mainly the racial achievements of white people (as a group)?

race is a cluster of genes.... or to put it bluntly of genetically encoded building blocks which specific charateristic affecting all range of human faculties... from susceptibility to specific disease, acuity of vision etc... Genes are very much responsible and controlling for many ... actually ALL human faculties. obviously it follows therefore that race (described as a cluster of genes and therefore traits ) are determinant of many human faculties (physical, mental and otherwise).

so far most people have voted to have pride for one's race is not reasonable and not justifiable... some of you (most notably the leftists elements) where actually hostile to such a concept. Now I must pose a follow up question: Given the fact that racial pride is seen as deleterious and baneful, how many of you will resist the forced program of black history month.. in the US as well as in Canada? I know that none of you EVER in these boards have voiced your concern on it.. but now that you recognize that racial pride is a no-no, how many of you will oppose the most influential manifestations of it?

"lictor666"... wow. Culture is a construct... (actually race isn't a "social construct" at all, it is independent of any setting, geographical religious, cultural or otherwise.... race is an immutable fact). So is it ok then to be proud of a culture? Since it is "socially constructed"? Also race is no figment of the imagination as you seem to suggest... race is an immediate and real faculty.... no one looks at wesley snipes wondering if he is black or asian... they know instantly... To quote no less a biological evolutionary scientist then Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation. Mayr was quoted stating the fact of human races {Winter 2002. Vol. 131, pg. 89}, in which he suffers no fools from the "race does not exist" camp: "There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature. This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components. Alas, so far we have not yet found any reliable technique to do this. What we can do is acknowledge that any recorded differences between human races are probably composed of cultural as well as genetic elements. Indeed, the cause of many important group differences may turn out to be entirely cultural, without any genetic component at all. Still, if I introduce you to an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman I won't have much trouble convincing you that they belong to different races. In a recent textbook of taxonomy, I defined a "geographic race" or subspecies as "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species." A subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name. What is characteristic of a geographic race is, first, that it is restricted to a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and second, that in spite of certain diagnostic differences, it is part of a larger species. No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be, the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact. Only a person impudent enough to reject Darwinian evolution and biology can deny the fact of race... One cannot simultaneously believe in Darwinian evolution and deny the reality of races and or "sub-races" a by-product of differentiation through human evolution." http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

sample this miniclip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHmHYk_P22w...feature=related I,d like to know your thoughts.