Examining Bigotry

[kylebisme]

For the poll, do you consider following statement bigoted:

The Caucasian identity is predicated on genocide and exploitation.

I consider that a flagrantly bigoted claim, and find it personally offensive being 15/16s Caucasian myself. However, having been told that suggesting such things is permissible here, I'm curious; how do other forum members respond to the suggestion? Bigoted or not?

Give it a rest.
Admin allisolm

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know what the Caucasian identity is.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I don't know what the Caucasian identity is.

In general, light skinned people. And it is a bigot statement.


EDIT :
But what makes this young lady then ?

Right a young lady. That's it. Maybe from 12 o'clock at night everybody is blind.
Then there is nothing to complain about. But then we get the obvious touching of each other and people will start to complain about big noses. Big ears. Long hair. Small feet. Weird belly buttons. Grow up children, or you will have no future...

 

[palehorse]

being 15/16s Caucasian myself.

LAWL! :awe:

 

[Moonbeam]

In general, light skinned people. And it is a bigot statement.

So in winter I have one identity but at the beach in summer I become a completely different person? I don't know what Caucasian identity is because I don't identify with my skin or its color.

 

[William Gaatjes]

So in winter I have one identity but at the beach in summer I become a completely different person? I don't know what Caucasian identity is because I don't identify with my skin or its color.

Thank you.
You get the picture.

 

[kylebisme]

But what makes this young lady then ?

http://www.freshnews.in/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/leona-lewis.jpg

Hard to say just looking at her picture, but likely some mix of various ethnic groups. Regardless, ethnic classifications are complicated matters which can't rightly be boiled down to skin tone.

For example sake, my father has enough Cherokee mixed into his appearance that he is often mistaken for Arab or Mexican, which I find comical in the former case as he is bigoted against Arabs. On the other hand, I've never had anyone who has seen me suggest I'm anything but Caucasian.

I don't know what Caucasian identity is because I don't identify with my skin or its color.

At least in my opinion, that is what makes any such "the [ethnic group] identity" claims flagrant examples of bigotry, lumping individuals of many identities together to brand them all as this or that.

 

[MJinZ]

I think it's bigoted.

What about the white people that were exploited and never went out pillaging?

1) Polish
2) Irish

Um... who else?

You get my point.

 

[Number1]

I will never participate in any of your polls or engage in any meaningful conversation with you as it has been an absolute waste of time in the past. I find you personally offensive.

 

[kylebisme]

What about the white people that were exploited and never went out pillaging?

1) Polish
2) Irish

Um... who else?

You get my point.

I do get your point, but what about this then:

The English identity is predicated on exploiting and pillaging.

Bigoted or not? While I'm familiar with many examples of such in English history, I consider that statement flagrantly bigoted too, and again personally offensive being of half English descent myself.

 

[FaaR]

What specifically precipitated this thread of yours, Kyle?

Just random curiosity?

Edit:
Oh, and by the way, I voted yes, although only because we're speaking about ethnicities. If for example your question had replaced caucasians with - just as an example - christian conservatives or somesuch, the issue would have become more muddled. There's a difference when opinions rather than genetics become involved.

 

[kylebisme]

See here.

 

[Number1]

What precipitated this thread of yours, Kyle?

Just random curiosity?

He probably lost the argument in the other thread and started this one to try to portray himself as the good guy.
It has been demonstrated on many occasions here and on other site how clueless Kyle is.

 

[Lemon law]

No, I think kylebisme asks an interesting question, even though I did not participate in the poll. And because, IMHO, his set of only answers contained no correct answers.

We certainly cannot claim that bigotry does not exists because not only does it exist, its a very ugly part of our world. And in MHO, bigotry is just an ugly part of our ingrained human nature, and only through or higher thought processes, that human intellect endows us with, can we discipline ourselves to overcome what is really the instinct to be bigots.

Man is not the first social animal, almost ever since there has been multi cellular life on earth, similar organisms band together for protection, and in so doing divide the world between the good us and the bad them. And see with crystal clarity all of our own faults in the group of them while seeing none of our own vices with in our own group.

And as human kind gains the ultimate goal in civilization, namely the ability to destroy the entire earth with nuclear weapons with the automated touch of a button, bigotry promises to destroy us all.

 

[classy]

If what you are asking is, Are white people by nature prone to commit genocide and exploit other racial groups, then the answer is no. While our history has the acts of slavery and the almost total wipeout of the American Indian, while detestable, those things don't define every individual white person. Those things more or less defined "the times", but not the entire generation of folks then or since. So in essence that statement could be considered bigoted. Whites in this country are not the same as whites in Germany, Russia, etc. While every culture, regardless of race has within it certain behaviors or attitudes, no one is pre-destined to live the life of his or her ancestors. A statement like that is something I would hear someone from the Nation of Islam make.

 

[William Gaatjes]

No, I think kylebisme asks an interesting question, even though I did not participate in the poll. And because, IMHO, his set of only answers contained no correct answers.

We certainly cannot claim that bigotry does not exists because not only does it exist, its a very ugly part of our world. And in MHO, bigotry is just an ugly part of our ingrained human nature, and only through or higher thought processes, that human intellect endows us with, can we discipline ourselves to overcome what is really the instinct to be bigots.

Man is not the first social animal, almost ever since there has been multi cellular life on earth, similar organisms band together for protection, and in so doing divide the world between the good us and the bad them. And see with crystal clarity all of our own faults in the group of them while seeing none of our own vices with in our own group.

And as human kind gains the ultimate goal in civilization, namely the ability to destroy the entire earth with nuclear weapons with the automated touch of a button, bigotry promises to destroy us all.

Very true.

 

[Number1]

Exactly as I tought, he got his ass handed over to him by the mod, the thread was locked but that's not good enough for him, he is back in here arguing the same point.

This thread is a mod call out thread.

Could somebody ban this clueless moron.

 

[MJinZ]

I do get your point, but what about this then:



Bigoted or not? While I'm familiar with many examples of such in English history, I consider that statement flagrantly bigoted too, and again personally offensive being of half English descent myself.

No, because currently English identity, as far as I'm aware of it, is not.

You can possibly and accurately use the past tense and get away with a factual statement.

German would probably work better.

By that point, if you're going by nations, you can say that about the Japanese and Mongolians.

 

[kylebisme]

No, because currently English identity, as far as I'm aware of it, is not.

So, if you considered what some Englishmen are doing in the Middle East to be exploiting and pillaging, you'd then consider "the English identity is predicated on exploiting and pillaging" as not being a bigoted comment?

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon law
No, I think kylebisme asks an interesting question, even though I did not participate in the poll. And because, IMHO, his set of only answers contained no correct answers.

We certainly cannot claim that bigotry does not exists because not only does it exist, its a very ugly part of our world. And in MHO, bigotry is just an ugly part of our ingrained human nature, and only through or higher thought processes, that human intellect endows us with, can we discipline ourselves to overcome what is really the instinct to be bigots.

Man is not the first social animal, almost ever since there has been multi cellular life on earth, similar organisms band together for protection, and in so doing divide the world between the good us and the bad them. And see with crystal clarity all of our own faults in the group of them while seeing none of our own vices with in our own group.

And as human kind gains the ultimate goal in civilization, namely the ability to destroy the entire earth with nuclear weapons with the automated touch of a button, bigotry promises to destroy us all.

Very true.

I don't think so. The concept of good and evil is just that, a concept, a mental construct possible only with the abstract symbolism afforded by language. Take away language and abstract thought is impossible as is the existence of good and evil. With language we create things that have no reality and then we call each other things that do not exist. When emotions are applied to things that do not exist, the mind is made sick. The only animal that can hate itself because it was made with words to feel worthless is the human being. Only we call each other evil, and evil exists only because we believe it. We will destroy the world only because we need to deny that we feel evil, a feeling that is only a feeling and a complete lie. There is no evil.

 

[MJinZ]

So, if you considered what some Englishmen are doing in the Middle East to be exploiting and pillaging, you'd then consider "the English identity is predicated on exploiting and pillaging" as not being a bigoted comment?

I don't know what they're doing in the Middle East, but I assume it's not exploiting and pillaging.

And also, for an identity to be factually equated to such a thing, you would really have to involve the entirety of their people. Like Germans in WW2, Japanese in WW2, Mongolians etc.

For a few troops to be doing whatever doesn't mean the people are actually supportive. Like Americans who do and don't support our contemporary wars.

But yes, to answer your question, it is not bigoted to say that German identity were at one point in history predicated on exploitation and genocide - that is historical fact. There is nothing bigoted about that. Saying the same about the Japanese also applies.

 

[Lemon law]

I therefore propose an interesting thought experiment. And let us set in perhaps the bigotry driven place in the world, namely the nation of Israel, that contains a mix of Israeli
Jews from all over the world, Arabs, and Palestinians all engaging in the human habit of procreation.

As each pregnant woman gets to about 8.5 months and about 15 days before birth, a special agency kidnaps them, takes them to a common Israeli birthing center, with all of them rendered basically blind until a few days after birth. Meanwhile the new born infants are checked for health and assigned an absolute random identity number. And then at total random, are given back to the mother, who regains her sight, and is presented with a newborn baby very unlikely to be the baby she gave birth to. And told by smiling doctors, the delivery went well, here is your son or daughter. Now go home and raise your child. So Jewish parents could receive a Jew, a Palestinian, or an Arab baby, and so could a Palestinian or an Arab.

Would babies raised by Jews grow up thinking Arabs and Palestinians were inferior, would babies raised by Palestinians blame Israeli Jews for their squalor, sadly I fear yes
but in this thought experiment, others may disagree.

 

[kylebisme]

But yes, to answer your question, it is not bigoted to say that German identity were at one point in history predicated on exploitation and genocide - that is historical fact. There is nothing bigoted about that. Saying the same about the Japanese also applies.

So, in say 1943, if someone were to have said:

The German identity is predicated on genocide and exploitation.

Considering the many people of Germain origin who took no part in such crimes, and the many people of various other lineages who did; would you call that statement bigoted or not?

 

[Tristicus]

I'm not a retard, I don't classify everything on race. I see smart and stupid.

 

[alkemyst]

i just say firebomb the poor.