Caucasians

[Remiel]

...observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid...

Face it, you go wrong in your very first post, with this little " definition " ; skin colour being a notable exception, 90% of genetic variation occures within populations, not between populations.

[Posit]

.....most of us have a pretty good idea what is meant by an asian, or a black person, or a caucasian.

Most of us "smarter" people also know that when the police call for a look out of an Asian male with blond hair wearing a plaid jacket and spandex tights that all they are doing is describing physical details about the person. It has nothing to do with race anymore than blonds are a race or spandex-clad shorts makes someone gay.

As I said earlier, it is a superficial separation of people used by lesser intelligent people trying to assert their racist feelings of inferiority.

Now genetically speaking, a couple of years ago scientists discovered that we share 99% of our DNA with fruit flies and earth worms, as well. I have no doubt who some of your grandparents were based on your DNA.........

Edited July 20, 2007 by Posit

[jefferiah]

.....most of us have a pretty good idea what is meant by an asian, or a black person, or a caucasian.

Most of us "smarter" people also know that when the police call for a look out of an Asian male with blond hair wearing a plaid jacket and spandex tights that all they are doing is describing physical details about the person. It has nothing to do with race anymore than blonds are a race or spandex-clad shorts makes someone gay.

As I said earlier, it is a superficial separation of people used by lesser intelligent people trying to assert their racist feelings of inferiority.

Now genetically speaking, a couple of years ago scientists discovered that we share 99% of our DNA with fruit flies and earth worms, as well. I have no doubt who some of your grandparents were based on your DNA.........

posit, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that people have said that despite these physical differences, they do not believe one race is better than the other. if you think that seperating people by race automatically means that there is some sort of superficial idea of superiority going on then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP.

[jefferiah]

The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour.

Had 'white' people initially treated people of colour as thier equal , which they are, 'white' people would not have oppressed people of colour and the NECESSITY for these groups to be in place, would likely never have arose. Simple cause and effect.

BTW jefferiah, your ancestors were black!

Kuzadd this is an interesting post because I think it begins to reflect more and more what you dont understand about what I am trying to say, and this is a good thing because it will help me see where I need to explain it differently. Read carefully what I am saying here.

First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. Yes caucasians and asians are people, but for all practical purposes the idea of race is beneficial. The green and red apple are both apples, but if you ask me to hand you that apple, and I say which one the green or the red-----well dont you see where I am going with this. No one is implying the superiority of one apple over another.

Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype.

I assume by that last comment that you think I would be offended if my ancestors were black, which once again shows you are not understanding most of what I am saying. My ancestors may have been black, I really have no idea whether they were or not. How do you know I am not black? What difference would it make if I was---a rational argument is a rational argument? I would still say I see nothing wrong with Scott wanting to marry a white woman.

By the way I would like to point out to you, that even though I mentioned the NAACP, it was you and your crowd who condemned them. Do you understand why?

[Rue]

I mean why are we so worried about securing/protecting values and sentiments of Caucasians. All the whites ever did to other cultures was to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out the cultures....yes? Isn't it time for bye bye, good riddance to inevitable.

That, perhaps more than anything I could ever say, demonstrates the hate, self-hate, and envy that is pitted against caucasians in the west. It's why I don't want my daughter to inherit a world with no place to retreat to.

The point is intolerance comes in all colours, shapes and sizes. If you think you can hide from it by hiding from it in a ghetto of your own kind, that with due respect is trite. See the difference between you and me is I would not retreat, I woulld meet it head on and state as I do now; RB what you said is a negative generalization and the moment you used the world ALL you simply engaged in the kind of exercise we call racism-i.e., making a negative generalization and assigning it to an entire group indiscriminately simply because of the fact they all share the same skin colour. Not ALL whites tried to convert, mate, destroy and wipe out other cultures-for that matter-non white groups as history has shown have been just as guilty of the same thing you accuse whites of. RB your racist opinion fuels people like Scott into thinking he can only deal with minorities by "retreating".

Scott I have daughters. I have taught them not to retreat, but when faced with such comments, not to be afraid to address them using reasoning not fists. I know that sounds trite to you, but it is why they are what they are today and I am proud of them. I would never have taught them to retreat. Retreating to me is what people do when they do not feel proud of who they are.

See to me RB's comments are not a threat, just a challenge that makes me a better human for being able to deal with them if I dont' hide from them or have to use violence against them and stand my ground and say - you don't want me to slur you simply because of your skin colour - don't you do it -either way its equally as wrong.

I am in fact Scott arguing a classic form of Reform Judaism, not touchy feely hug stuff. I genuinely believe, you do yourself a great spiritual diservice retreating and not sharing your culture with RB to show him for every evil white boy he thinks he sees there are just as many good ones.

I say that because that is precisely what Martin Luther King said, and he is my role model on such matters and I make no apology for such a bias, i.e., the belief we can be better people if we reach out not retreat from those we think are a threat to us and challenge them to look for things in common not look for things they think can justify their intolerance.

Scott we all have to learn to stand our ground. Cherish your culture and your privacy, but dont' retreat. Share it precisely so that the RB's of the world don't continue to say what they do. If you retreat who will be there to challenge his slurs?

You see the irony Scott. While you retreat, blithering cultural liberals such as me are left holding the bag and while I do not mind setting RB straight, I do not presume to be able to talk about the good things about your particular culture as well as you can.

Oh by the way RB, Jews are Caucasians, and if you look at our history, yes in the ancient days we did a lot of fighting with Phillistines and such and today we have major problems in the Middle East, but no, we didn't go around converting people and trust me Jews were not exactly the kind of people to go around the world raping and pillaging. In fact Jews when they did go around the world were like Columbus and Marco Polo (yes both Jews). If you want to generalize, we tended to be merchants not warriors.

Likewise there are many peoples within the white category and not all were Vikings or say the British or French or Americans. The last time I looked when Ukrainians or the Irish came to Canada they pretty much worked and had no time for raping or converting anyone although I do admit my Irish friends have taught me the virtues of a good story and a pint and U-2 is my fabourite band. Trite? No. Behind that "triteness" is respect. My being trite is genuine fondness for people different then me who I took the time

to find thinhs in common with.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Rue

[jefferiah]

Sure, Rue, but what about Kimmy wanting to have Kimmyettes. Is she hiding from intolerance or trying to preserve something? Also your use of in-breeding seems to be a bit of a barb, though I dont know for sure. If it is a barb it would be more relevant if all caucasians lived in one village in the hills.

If you feel this way then you must also argue as vehemently against a black man who says he would like to marry a black girl.

[Bonam]

When the population of a group is over 1 billion, marrying within that group is not "in-breeding". In fact, even a few hundred people is a sufficiently large population to almost entirely avoid the effects of in-breeding.

[jefferiah]

Another interesting thing is that the only person here who has actually said anything to belittle another race is Posit, and none of these One Race people are saying anything about that.

Now I was not offended over what Posit said, because I generally dont take offense to these kinds of things, but I would suggest to the watchdogs who look for something to be offended over that they must also vehemently argue with Posit for what he said.

[kuzadd]

The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour.

Had 'white' people initially treated people of colour as thier equal , which they are, 'white' people would not have oppressed people of colour and the NECESSITY for these groups to be in place, would likely never have arose. Simple cause and effect.

BTW jefferiah, your ancestors were black!

Kuzadd this is an interesting post because I think it begins to reflect more and more what you dont understand about what I am trying to say, and this is a good thing because it will help me see where I need to explain it differently. Read carefully what I am saying here.

First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. Yes caucasians and asians are people, but for all practical purposes the idea of race is beneficial. The green and red apple are both apples, but if you ask me to hand you that apple, and I say which one the green or the red-----well dont you see where I am going with this. No one is implying the superiority of one apple over another.

Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype.

I assume by that last comment that you think I would be offended if my ancestors were black, which once again shows you are not understanding most of what I am saying. My ancestors may have been black, I really have no idea whether they were or not. How do you know I am not black? What difference would it make if I was---a rational argument is a rational argument? I would still say I see nothing wrong with Scott wanting to marry a white woman.

By the way I would like to point out to you, that even though I mentioned the NAACP, it was you and your crowd who condemned them. Do you understand why?

jefferiah: you make way to many assumptions.

"First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. "

actually, you ASSUME,I am, If I wanted to say that about yoyu I would have. Since I didn't don't assume you know what I think.

"Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype.

more twisted baloney ( see I just say it)

what I said was

here's what I wrote verbatim:

"The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour."

I am quite clear, these associations for coloured people, became necessary, because "white" people have demonstrated a racist streak, stemming from a belief in white superiority.

This is a simple FACT OF HISTORY, DO YOU DENY THIS?

Shall we go over the whole black slavery issue, blacks as second class citizens, kukluxklan etc., These are undeniable instances of white people demonstrating an alleged superiority because of the colour of ones skin.

So while I am not promulgating the theory of "all whites are racist pigs", as you so foolishly and irrationally espouse, the simple fact is the historical facts are there, to back up the contention I have made.

again ""The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour."

If you wish to have a rational discourse, keep to the facts and history and your sensationalist claptrap out of it.

Your comments wrt scottsa, are pointless, he can marry whomever he wants, and I would hope, the criteria for that is love, committment, shared values, common goals and not skin colour.

[jefferiah]

The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour.

Had 'white' people initially treated people of colour as thier equal , which they are, 'white' people would not have oppressed people of colour and the NECESSITY for these groups to be in place, would likely never have arose. Simple cause and effect.

BTW jefferiah, your ancestors were black!

Kuzadd this is an interesting post because I think it begins to reflect more and more what you dont understand about what I am trying to say, and this is a good thing because it will help me see where I need to explain it differently. Read carefully what I am saying here.

First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. Yes caucasians and asians are people, but for all practical purposes the idea of race is beneficial. The green and red apple are both apples, but if you ask me to hand you that apple, and I say which one the green or the red-----well dont you see where I am going with this. No one is implying the superiority of one apple over another.

Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype.

I assume by that last comment that you think I would be offended if my ancestors were black, which once again shows you are not understanding most of what I am saying. My ancestors may have been black, I really have no idea whether they were or not. How do you know I am not black? What difference would it make if I was---a rational argument is a rational argument? I would still say I see nothing wrong with Scott wanting to marry a white woman.

By the way I would like to point out to you, that even though I mentioned the NAACP, it was you and your crowd who condemned them. Do you understand why?

jefferiah: you make way to many assumptions.

"First off, you keep making the assumption that I am a white supremacist. "

actually, you ASSUME,I am, If I wanted to say that about yoyu I would have. Since I didn't don't assume you know what I think.

"Your post may reflect a racist idea that you are harbouring. You say these groups are necessary because "white" people are typically supremacists. Therefore it is ok for other races to make groups but not for whites because "WHITES ARE ALL RACIST PIGS", right? That is a stereotype.

more twisted baloney ( see I just say it)

what I said was

here's what I wrote verbatim:

"The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour."

I am quite clear, these associations for coloured people, became necessary, because "white" people have demonstrated a racist streak, stemming from a belief in white superiority.

This is a simple FACT OF HISTORY, DO YOU DENY THIS?

Shall we go over the whole black slavery issue, blacks as second class citizens, kukluxklan etc., These are undeniable instances of white people demonstrating an alleged superiority because of the colour of ones skin.

So while I am not promulgating the theory of "all whites are racist pigs", as you so foolishly and irrationally espouse, the simple fact is the historical facts are there, to back up the contention I have made.

again ""The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour."

If you wish to have a rational discourse, keep to the facts and history and your sensationalist claptrap out of it.

Your comments wrt scottsa, are pointless, he can marry whomever he wants, and I would hope, the criteria for that is love, committment, shared values, common goals and not skin colour.

If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-which doesnt work. You said that because you thought it would bother me, and you also made the same assumption about Scott. You said people like Scott only want there to be races so it will ease his guilt when the Thems are getting killed. It does not matter if you claim you are using him as an archetype it still amounts to the same thing. You see Scott as a representative of "those" people who think "that" way. Don't play games. You cant lump white people in with all white people because of history. That again is racist. So like you have a double standard here. You must clear it up Kuzadd. Either it is ok for people to have racial groups like NAACP, or it isnt. If it is ok, then you cannot condemn Scott for simply mentioning the idea. Or else it is only ok for other races, because white people are all racist and cant be trusted. So make up your mind. Which is it?

[M.Dancer]

Preserving a race is irrelevent. What if God chooses to roll the dice (they say he doesn't) and the crap shoot spits out double sixes in the gene game and all of a sudden enough 'white' breeders start popping out slitty eyed (pardon m boisclar) white folk?

.....race isn't important enough to either cherish or preserve. So what if my grandmothers's genes 300 years from now reside in a dusty skinned doe eyed beauty? All that matters is she is a doctor.......

.....which brings me to my last statement in this assinine thread....race is window dressing.....culture is what is important. The kind of culture that allows us to stannd on 2000 years of history, the kind of culture that gives us doctors and saints...........

[kuzadd]

If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-which doesnt work. You said that because you thought it would bother me, and you also made the same assumption about Scott. You said people like Scott only want there to be races so it will ease his guilt when the Thems are getting killed. It does not matter if you claim you are using him as an archetype it still amounts to the same thing. You see Scott as a representative of "those" people who think "that" way. Don't play games. You cant lump white people in with all white people because of history. That again is racist. So like you have a double standard here. You must clear it up Kuzadd. Either it is ok for people to have racial groups like NAACP, or it isnt. If it is ok, then you cannot condemn Scott for simply mentioning the idea. Or else it is only ok for other races, because white people are all racist and cant be trusted. So make up your mind. Which is it?

Thank you for glossing over my entire post. and continuing to demonstrate pure unadulterated nonsense.

"You cant lump white people in with all white people because of history"

if you would have bothered to read what was in my previous post, the above nonsense, would not have even been typed.

I stand by what I said previously and you ignored, to continue on in this foolish vein.

So while I am not promulgating the theory of "all whites are racist pigs", as you so foolishly and irrationally espouse, the simple fact is the historical facts are there, to back up the contention I have made.

again ""The association for coloured people is only NECESSARY because "white" people, have demonstrated, as here, a typical racism,a white supremecy, which they have used to oppress people of colour."

"If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-which doesnt work."

why would that put you off???

It doesn't put me off in the least.

if that is how it is, oh well!

Edited July 20, 2007 by kuzadd

[jefferiah]

Preserving a race is irrelevent. What if God chooses to roll the dice (they say he doesn't) and the crap shoot spits out double sixes in the gene game and all of a sudden enough 'white' breeders start popping out slitty eyed (pardon m boisclar) white folk?

.....race isn't important enough to either cherish or preserve. So what if my grandmothers's genes 300 years from now reside in a dusty skinned doe eyed beauty? All that matters is she is a doctor.......

.....which brings me to my last statement in this assinine thread....race is window dressing.....culture is what is important. The kind of culture that allows us to stannd on 2000 years of history, the kind of culture that gives us doctors and saints...........

While that may be true M Dancer, I see nothing wrong with people trying as long as they are not planning to destroy other races. Window dressing is part of life. The difference is whether you impose values about another persons window dressing. You are allowed to decorate your house as you please, right. All superficialities. But so what, within reason these things can be enjoyed. Now if someone tries to preserve an old house it may be that God will send a tornado and it will be destroyed. Either way, no one knows, so what is wrong with putting in an effort. And if it fails then they will move on. Simple as that.

[jefferiah]

why would that put you off???

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir.

Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

[kuzadd]

Preserving a race is irrelevent. What if God chooses to roll the dice (they say he doesn't) and the crap shoot spits out double sixes in the gene game and all of a sudden enough 'white' breeders start popping out slitty eyed (pardon m boisclar) white folk?

.....race isn't important enough to either cherish or preserve. So what if my grandmothers's genes 300 years from now reside in a dusty skinned doe eyed beauty? All that matters is she is a doctor.......

.....which brings me to my last statement in this assinine thread....race is window dressing.....culture is what is important. The kind of culture that allows us to stannd on 2000 years of history, the kind of culture that gives us doctors and saints...........

M Dancer, I agree with you on the culture, it is important, but it , also is constantly in flux.

Just like human genetics.

[Posit]

posit, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that people have said that despite these physical differences, they do not believe one race is better than the other. if you think that seperating people by race automatically means that there is some sort of superficial idea of superiority going on then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. There are physical differences in all kinds of people. There are hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, age, physical ability, strength, mouth shape, boob shape, even buttocks. If you want to separate people, why not just focus on women with big butts and tell they they are inferior because of their posterior?

There is no such thing as "race" scientifically or otherwise. To create a separation based on skin colour is perverse and racist.

"....then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP."

I believe no such thing. In order to restore equality against generations of prejudice and oppression it is sometimes necessary to tip the scales in the opposite direction. Hard lines must be drawn in many cases to counter the kind of institutional racism you promote and to prevent vocal opposition by minority. (Take away an argument from a racist and he doesn't know what to say. A Truth)

However, there is a difference that I do recognize. Intelligence. And from my knowledge and experience, those who promote and subscribe to this type of racism are on the low end of the intelligence scale.

Here's Canada's resident racist making a fool of himself. See how intelligent Paul Fromm is....

Paul Fromm speaking.....

[kuzadd]

why would that put you off???

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir.

Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

jefferiah

"If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-"

those are your exact words.

as long as there is racism and division, there will be 'groups', so unless people have a huge attitude change, there will be, groups of the oppressed banding together to empower themselves.

as stated simple cause and effect.

[jefferiah]

why would that put you off???

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir.

Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

It would not insult me in the least, for as far as you know I could be black. You seem to have trouble understanding very basic arguments and take the meaning implied as something else. What I meant was that it seemed as if you were saying that because you assumed it would upset me. Do you understand, Kuzadd?

[jefferiah]

why would that put you off???

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir.

Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

jefferiah

"If you did not assume I was white supremacist kuzadd you would not have tried to put me off with a comment about how my ancestors were black-"

those are your exact words.

as long as there is racism and division, there will be 'groups', so unless people have a huge attitude change, there will be, groups of the oppressed banding together to empower themselves.

as stated simple cause and effect.

lol Kuzadd. Those are my exact words and they prove my point and not yours. Read the words "you would not have tried to put me off".

Does that say that I was put off....or that I think you were trying? Well. Which is it?

[jefferiah]

posit, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that people have said that despite these physical differences, they do not believe one race is better than the other. if you think that seperating people by race automatically means that there is some sort of superficial idea of superiority going on then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. There are physical differences in all kinds of people. There are hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, age, physical ability, strength, mouth shape, boob shape, even buttocks. If you want to separate people, why not just focus on women with big butts and tell they they are inferior because of their posterior?

There is no such thing as "race" scientifically or otherwise. To create a separation based on skin colour is perverse and racist.

"....then you must also automatically assume the same for the NAACP."

I believe no such thing. In order to restore equality against generations of prejudice and oppression it is sometimes necessary to tip the scales in the opposite direction. Hard lines must be drawn in many cases to counter the kind of institutional racism you promote and to prevent vocal opposition by minority. (Take away an argument from a racist and he doesn't know what to say. A Truth)

However, there is a difference that I do recognize. Intelligence. And from my knowledge and experience, those who promote and subscribe to this type of racism are on the low end of the intelligence scale.

Here's Canada's resident racist making a fool of himself. See how intelligent Paul Fromm is....

Paul Fromm speaking.....

Ah so basically it is ok for one race which doesnt exist to define itself as a group but not for another.

[kuzadd]

why would that put you off???

i never said it put me off. but that was your intention, sir.

Either all races can have groups, or they can't Kuzadd. Decide. NAACP or no.

It would not insult me in the least, for as far as you know I could be black. You seem to have trouble understanding very basic arguments and take the meaning implied as something else. What I meant was that it seemed as if you were saying that because you assumed it would upset me. Do you understand, Kuzadd?

actually jefferiah, I could say the same of you, unfortunately for you, I do understand, basic arguments, and I see, that you are trying, not very cleverly to twist the arguement into another direction.

You have glossed over numerous points I have made, virtually denied history, put words in my mouth, I never espoused.

This is not discussing anything.

In closing, there is but one race, the human race.

Any differences are but superficial.

You can take a blood transfusion from a person of colour, love and marry, that person, because we are all one race.

That is all there is to this.

Your arguement wrt NAACP is bogus, because it denies a long history of the oppression of people of colour by 'white' racist individuals, which necessitated the formation of such groups as a means to empower themselves in the face of oppression.

Therefore no oppression, no necessity for said groups.

and that takes care of what is essentially a foolish arguement.

[jefferiah]

(Take away an argument from a racist and he doesn't know what to say. A Truth)

I would be careful of your own words, Posit. Thus far you are the only one who has made a rant against another race.

[cybercoma]

And still, no one has shown any substance to the idea that "white" people need to be protected or are under "attack" in any way shape of form.

[Posit]

Blacks are not a race. They are a group of people with similar cultural interests that have been targeted by racists, oppressed by government and society and have banded together to counter the effects of racism against them.

The disabled in Canada have a similar lobby and have been successful at changing laws and attitudes that have presented barriers to their free movement in public buildings, in employer's premises and in equal opportunity.

Perhaps you should start a racist thread about the gimps too and suggest that their disability makes it ok for you to discriminate against them for your own benefit.

[cybercoma]

Looking at Scott's profile, he doesn't appear to be very white at all. I'm sure he gets detained longer at airports and examined more thoroughly at the US border for looking like he's Muslim. And if we were to follow Scott's beliefs... anyone that looks Muslim must be a jihadist.