Is there any reason to be proud of your race? What is it?
Is that racist?
Is it racist to have pride in being 'azn'?
Is it racist to have pride in being white?
Is it racist to have pride in being black?
Why does society vigorously attack those who proclaim pride in being white, while supporting those who proclaim pride in being black?
If it is 'ok' or 'acceptable' to have pride in being black, why is it not 'ok' or 'acceptable' to have pride in being white? Is this logical and or consistent?
What is the relevence of this when we've already determined that racial pride is illogical and thus negative? Posts like >>40's lead nowhere but down that "Why can't I say nigger?" road that typically whites love to bust out of nowhere.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-31 21:38
>>41
I apologise. I did not realise I was nitpicking. No offense intended.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-31 22:07
white is not a race. black is not a race.
those are skin pigments. russians and krauts can't just get in a room and say 'lol we're the white race' anymore than the warring african tribes in nigeria can claim to be of the same 'race' as their 'brothers' in south africa- the same goes for their jumbled up descendents in the americas, who don't even know what they are.
really, race only actually exists in any real way in some parts of africa, the middle east, parts of asia and a few fringe areas of europe, and even then it usually has nothing to so with the national identities that people associate themselves with. race does not exist in the west in any real sense, in particular in america. even if your descendents were 100% german, the 'germans' of that time weren't a 'race' anyway.
Name:
Vernadotte2007-01-01 15:54
It's perfectly fine for people to help their own race and to improve their culture, in fact that's what they should do. Pride in your race simply corresponds to the willingness to do that, and if you don't have pride in your race then your people and you will start losing your cultural identity.
Modern USA is a perfect example: Since blacks are allowed to have their pride and white pride is repressed, black culture is dominant, and other people are losing their identity. Lots of white people are obsessed with rap, they dress "ghetto", and talking black is considered cool. If they had been allowed to have their racial pride then they wouldn't have been dominanted by a foreign race.
Name:
Vernadotte2007-01-01 16:03
You're right, there is no such thing as a real "race" anymore, but there are distinct cultural groups, and the broader ones usually have smaller ones that they are composed of.
Russians and neighbors are Slavic: maybe their 'race' as you would say is not the same, but they share highly similar langauages, traditions, and so on, and their descent is much closer than to say, Africans or Celts.
The white race is simply used to describe Europeans, basically people descended from the old tribes that settled in Europe. Do races change over time? Of course they do, you can't distinguish Teutonic from Etruscan 'races' anymore, because people blend races and cultures all the time, just as you said. As a result they don't just lose race altogether. They just form a combined one.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-01 19:12
which proves that notions of racial superiority or the necessity of racial distinction don't matter a bit. all the so called 'pure' races of today are mongrel breeds which have all radically changed within even the last 100 years, and massively in the last 2000 years.
and you're still talking about 'black' & 'white' as if they were races. they're not.
There should be only one thing people should pledge allegiance to, and that is the human race.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-01 19:28
>>44
holy fucking shit, I've never thought of it that way.
Think about asian pride and the creation of wapanese, oh I mean AZN PRYDE. Fuck people, just be yourself, you are not part of race, part of group, part of a nation. You are nothing, yet you are everything.
There is no such thing as a "dominant culture" in the first place because from what I've learned about human society it appears that there are no real "mono-cultures" to speak of. Blacks aren't a "foreign race" in Modern America- that's your eurocenticism shining through as it eventually does with all "wolf in sheep's clothing" white nationalists.
America is a combination of so many different cultures and all that stems from an ACTUAL "foregin race" of Anglos coming in and agressively colonizing. Even when the anglos did colonize their dominant culture still featured elements of the east (Eye of Horus on your dollarz).
I really think that anyone constantly pushing racial pride lacks the ability to properly interpet all of human history in it's entirety. It's childish, in my opinion, to constantly place emphasis on these differences when all cultures despite their different appearences and symbols are basically all the same god damn thing. A bunch of different symbols and color all with the same general HUMAN meaning.
I think >>48 put it best: You are nothing, yet you are everything.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 14:46
like i said earlier, race is simply a myth. if you go back and look at the historical movement of peoples throughout europe, it becomes clear that most of the 'races' that existed in europe are essentially fictional creations themeselves resulting from the huge movements of peoples & cultures which occured on a regular basis; the same is true in africa and to a lesser extent asia, and of course to an enourmous extent in america.
certainly, white as a race does not exist, and neither does black. furthermore, trying to 'protect' culture is one of the most futile and pathetic things there is. you know what happens when you obsessively protect race & culture? the amish community, thats what.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 14:51
>>55
Race isn't a myth, racial differences are well documented in biology. It's just that the diffrences are too slight to justify seperation. This should all be exposed to criticism and free debate and people should be able to do what they want.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-03 14:58
>>54
Cultures are sets of 1000s of ideas and thus too ambiguous for you to make any clear points. Also the Egyptians were arabs.
Stop saying stupid shit. Egyptians were not simply "Arabs" they were a combination of many cultures and races.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-04 7:27
Anubis licked his balls.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-04 12:22
>>56
yes, but race in the sense that we define it today is a myth. for example, there is now a theory that the vast majority of English people are not descendents of the anglo-saxxon invaders, which would, amongst other things, completely change the identities of both most 'English' people and those in America who claim to be of 'Anglo-Saxxon' origin.
Almost none of the 'races' people talk about actually exist in any pure notion, ESPECIALLY as regards European 'races'. It's just total hogwash.
>>57
the ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. they may have a strong Arab influence today after the Arab invasions which gave rise to the 'Muslim Empire', but that was thousands of years after the ancient Egypt we associate with things such as the 'eye of horus'. as in greece, Italy and Germany, the people of Egypt in that time would look very different to those who live in Egypt today- in Egypts case, the Arab influence being enormous now.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-04 14:01
>>58 >>60
Why are you so angry with reality? I never said they were all pure arabs or that their culture was seperated from the world for 1000s of years and was completely unique. I'm sure 10 or 20 mixed race Nubians made their way up the Nile and raised families in Egypt occasionally. I said ancient Egypt was Arab. The Nubians are not black, they are mixed race. Their phenotypes prove they are equally distant from west africans and arabs and that the proportion of arab ancestry increases until you reach southern Egypt at which point people have 99%+ arab ancestry.
1. You said "Egypt was Arabs" and you are wrong. Period.
2. You said it was "10 or 20" mixed raced Nubians and you are wrong. Nubians are an integral part of the pre-culture of Egypt as is much of southern Africa. This has been proven multiple times over and everytime something new comes out you're proven wrong.
Screaming "Afrocentrism" doesn't work when the information has been peer reviewed for use in Encyclopedias and Colleges around the world. Further more, regardless of what phenotypes you're referring to--- if you were to take an anicent Egyptian from then and place him in America-- you would call him black. Stop playing the semantics game. Arabs and all other races come from Africa. The "out of Africa" theory is widely accepted because there are no other logical competing theories out there.
3. You are wrong when you say "Mixed race" because it implies that there are "Pure races", in the first place. Maybe you don't understand what >>60 is saying? Simplified: Biology implies biological difference due to effects from environment and culture not absolute and fundamental "racial differences". Race is an "after the fact" definition for those biological differences not the defining mechanism for those differences.
Finally: Reality is entirely subjective. You *Want* to believe certain things that you have NO empirical evidence for and you want to believe the limited range of facts imply truth when you've been hard pressed to identify the mechanism. <==== This is how we all know you're stupid and don't understand Scientific Method.
Name:
Cynic2007-01-05 2:47
What we refer to as 'racial' pride is really 'cultural' pride.
Asians aren't proud of being Asian because of attributes common to all Asians - those don't exist. Not all Asians are good at math, etc.
They're proud because they love the aspects of their culture which make them stand out, which they consider to be superior to other cultures. They reckon anime is better than the flintstones. Ramen is better than pasta. That type of stuff. Makes sense, right? ;)
I'm proud to be part of my own subculture - the snobby intelligentsia. I love my greater understanding of literature, science and the arts, and my extension into Asian, Indian and European culture. I just don't have a corresponding racial background I can use to identify it :P
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 3:00
>>62
Calm down, it's not like I'm saying the Egyptians were australian aborignes or anything. Are you afraid I am an australian aborigne supremacist? Don't worry, I'm not.
I believe the Egyptians were arab because the university of Egypt agrees to a man that thge ancient egyptian pharoahs, priests and nobles were thin nosed straight haired arabs until the 25th dynasty when the mixed race kushite pharoahs took the throne for 200 years or so.
The Nubians and Kushites were certainly mixed race.
So you believe that de-humanising non-asians because "Ramen is better than pasta." is acceptable? How would you like it if whites began reminding you day in day out that in China's 1000 year history of dense populations and supposed scientific advances they never colonised australia or invented the printined press and had to wait for cold war-torn northern europeans to do it for them?
"Mixed Race" is a loaded word without merit due to the very reasons I posted in >>62. Continued use of the term when we discuss race as far as pre-Egyptian phenotypes goes- means that you just "don't get it".
Belief isn't truth. Just because you believe Egyptians were Arab doesn't mean it's true, futhermore the University of Egypt was founded by a Muslim empire. One constant throughout modern history is that the current people in charge of the education system don't usual tip their hats to the people who actually founded their history. History isn't just facts, it's context and centricism.
It's a simple exercise in logic. Egypt didn't come to Africa, it came from Africa. The symbol used in Egyptian culture can be found in hundreds of pre-existing cultures. Arabs taking sole credit for Egypt is like White people taking sole credit for America.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 3:27
>>66
Compared to northern egyptians or arabs, southern egyptians from the time they began mummification strongly resemble arabs. They would have certainly have had black ancestors, but they must have been too few and distant to cause a forensic scientist to classify them as mixed race.
Of course belief isn't truth, that is why I backed it up with facts as did the University of Cairo. Your attempt to dismiss the facts solely on the basis that the University of Cairo consists mainly of arab is racist and absurd.
Symbols are cultural. It is already well documented that Egypt had trade links along the nile.
What is your motivation for all this? You accused me of "screaming afrocentrist" earlier. Do you get called an afrocentrist a lot?
Not alot, no, but it does come up quite a bit in this discussion. Not that it particular matters or disproves any of my statements but...I have no motavation but for understanding that there should be a bit of skeptism used when considering mankind's current interpetation of history or "the facts".
I remain skeptical and unconvinced because there's really no such thing as an "arab phenotype". There are phenotypes that are asscioated with arab peoples- but how this applies our modern conception of race doesn't determine what race we would percieve ancient Egyptians to be.
You want to say they had "Arab genes" when they only had Arab Phenotypes. But that's meaningless, you see. (And subjective, like the whole concept of race) Broad noses or big lips or whatever reference points you are using doesn't mean that a person is specifically African. Just because a group of people have blue eyes doesn't mean they are "The blue eyes group" and blues eyes are solely specific to those people. A mechanism would have to indentified for that to be true, for the blue eyes (or dark skin) to constitute an entirely different "race".
Nevertheless, there is no proof that Egypt was outright dominated by what you call Arabs until the Muslim invasions. Futhermore, Egyptians don't refer to themseleves as "Arabs", really. It's a nebulous term. I'm sure the same can be said for Anicent Egyptians and Africans as well.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 15:52
>>68
I've already provided proof. You've just ignored it.
the Arabs as a culture/race are not recorded until LONG AFTER ANCIENT EGYPT. Egypt has a huge Arab influence TODAY because the muslim empire which arose in the centuries after muhammed INVADED EGYPT and as such it is now an Arab state.
ancient Egypt WAS NOT ARAB- it simply wasn't, because they were a completely different people at that time. You are simply confusing parts of history. of course modern day Egypt has massive genetic links to Arabia; that doesn't mean that it was the same some 5000 years ago. stop making completely arse statements- ancient egypt was not arab. it just wasn't. any physical resemblence between ancient egyptians and modern arabs only implies the precise opposite of what you claim- the arab 'race'/culture is something which evolved out of egypt.
if we were to follow your logic, in a 1000 years time people could go around claiming that then english were really just americans. don't be dense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 21:03
In the past, nigger was sometimes used as a synonym for "defect." For example, the May 1886 issue of Scientific American, page 308 said, "The consequence of neglect might be that what the workmen call ‘a nigger’ would get into the armature, and burn it so as to destroy its service."
Similarly, when performing shoddy but functional work, one is said to "nigger rig it," especially when duct tape is used in place of proper equipment. It seems that this usage is taken directly from the derogatory use of the word to refer to a black person. "Nigger it up" has been used to refer to excessively gaudy, non-functional decorations to automobiles to attract attention.
The term nigger was used in lumber mills until the mid-point of the 20th century. It refers to a device that turns a log while it is being stripped of its bark. This may be an off-hand reference to the prejudicial use of the word, as until the machine was invented, this was considered a job too dangerous for anyone other than a black man.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 21:56
>>70
The word arab is frequently used to describe people who originate from the middle east. Clearly this was the intended use. Stop trying to mix up genes and culture. I believe that's what racists do at the drop of a pin.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 21:57
>>70
More specifically people with the genetic markers in people from the middle east which are less frequent elsewhere. The genes that give them jet black hair, straight noses and tanned skin.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 22:45
>>73
I thought jews were from the middle east, and turkey, is that asia minor, does that count as middle east? They are not arabs in any case. Assyrians? Pontians? Scythes? Pheonicians? All arabs?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:15
>>71
Use the more modern term, "afro-engineered", you racist pig.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:21
I use nigra
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 23:35
>>74
Arabs and Jews are both semitic. Perhaps "semitic" would be a better word, but "arab" is more popular.
Judaism is semiticism, idiot. Hate to break this to you but the only Jews who have concrete genetic markers are Ashkanazai Jews and they are far from the Jewish Majority. With this in mind, Jew is not a race.
Wrong. You provided nothing. Links or Excerpts from scientific journals would be nice; no one here is just going to take your word for it. Saying the words "Universty of Cairo" aren't going to cut it. Sorry, but you fail.
Wow, instead of refuting his claims you respond by calling him a racist and follow it up by once again exposing the fact that you don't understand the nature of phenotypes. They are irrelevant. You aren't proving anything by saying "Straight noses and Jet black hair, tanned skin". The Ameri-Indian, the Eskimo, Mongoloid, and yes even some black fit into this phenotype. This doesn't prove that Ancient Egyptians were arab. "Arabs" didn't exist until AFTER Egypt, so there is no way that Ancient Egyptians were Arab, you fucken moron.
This is getting old, guys.
Shit or get off the pot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 7:57
>>63
"What we refer to as 'racial' pride is really 'cultural' pride."
If that were true, then there is absolutely no reason to say that it is improper for a white person to be proud of his 'culture' ("WHITE PRIDE"), while simultaneously saying it is proper for a black person to be proud of his 'culture' ("BLACK PRIDE").