>>57
That's an interesting opinion, but that really is all that it is. It certainly should not be seen as an valid argument that racial pride is inherently unreasonable.
Except for the most egotistical of people, everyone needs a group to belong to. Everyone has their own failings, everyone needs a source of safety and belonging, and everyone needs something bigger than themselves to believe in. Race certainly has more biological grounding than religion, but many people do very well identifying with a certain religion. While we can talk Marx or Nietzsche and say that that's a bad thing, in practical terms a lot of people would be worse off if they were robbed of a source of identity.
For many people, religion doesn't work for them, and western culture has a great deal of failings when it comes to providing a group identity (partly caused by recurring cycles of religious fundamentalism and secularism that have reduced the secular culture to little more than a matter of music and clothing choices). Race, which is essentially a very extended family, is a source of thousands of years of history and culture, and seems as valid as anything as a group for someone to belong to.
>we know intrinsically is that "Man" existed long before "Black Man" and "White Man" came along
Actually, there's evidence of racial separation before the emergence of "homo sapiens". It shouldn't matter, though. Race does exist, just as humanity exists. For someone to self-identify as "white" or "black" there's a distinct group to belong to. If he only says "human" then that's such an inclusive group as to be a meaningless statement.
>Jews do not have a license to hate Nazis.
How should Jews feel towards Nazis, then? I'm not talking about your silly black-white civil rights/slavery squabbles. I'm saying that one person is a member of a cultural/religious group (that has many of the same traits as a race) and that the other is a member of a political party that has the stated purpose of exterminating the former. Should that Jew said to have a "psychological defect" if he isn't unbiased?