mj.scuba Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Many contributors mention mention racism when posting. What is racism? Is it hatred of other races creeds or colours? or is it pride in ones own race? Discuss. On the forum it's just a word used to shut people up. It doesn't really have much meaning to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The word is bandied around like a bunch of keys at a swingers' party, and a lot of people take an unyielding stance on this forum, rising up like an avenging angel to defend the minorities. Sadly, in reality, I'm sure most people are outrageous hypocrites and the truth is often somewhere in between. But you can't post on here without someone taking offense and calling the racist card; just like real life and the simply outrageously 'politcally correct' world in which we live. Loving the analogy, not that I would know anything about swingers' parties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 That's contrary to modern scientific understanding, generally as with all lifeforms (plants and animals) is to adapt for survival, not to just be different! Indeed but that 'adaptation' doesn't generally take the form of isolating oneself from other ethnic groups, which may have benefits for the survival of your own progeny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The more difficult question is how do you define race? Two or more people trying to beat each other to move from point A to point B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Indeed but that 'adaptation' doesn't generally take the form of isolating oneself from other ethnic groups, which may have benefits for the survival of your own progeny. No, it's totally blind to human concepts such as race, just read any early Darwin to see that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The word is bandied around like a bunch of keys at a swingers' party, and a lot of people take an unyielding stance on this forum, rising up like an avenging angel to defend the minorities. Sadly, in reality, I'm sure most people are outrageous hypocrites and the truth is often somewhere in between. But you can't post on here without someone taking offense and calling the racist card; just like real life and the simply outrageously 'politically correct' world in which we live. The thread is about "racism", the victims of which can be from all creeds and races. No one mentioned "minorities" or defending them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 No, it's totally blind to human concepts such as race, just read any early Darwin to see that... Sorry just words I don't want to detract from the OP. You'll see in my original reference to this that I was responding to Jeffrey Shaw's suggestion that it's not 'unnatural' to gravitate towards people like ourselves or be wary of those who aren't. A suggestion I agree with. However my point was that it's surprising that's the almost default position given the benefits that are often apparent through diversification of the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Really, the notion that there are clearly-distinguishable 'races' is nonsense. The concept of 'racism' more often signifies xenophobia. It's not unnatural for anyone: a. to prefer those similar to oneself; and b. to look askance at those different from oneself. Ok, well let's put it another way-the outcome for the human race is enhanced by diversification of its genes. That may be so, however the fact that we are predisposed to those similar to ourselves would suggest that it had an evolutionary advantage over those who sought out those different to themselves (although I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that). jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 That may be so, however the fact that we are predisposed to those similar to ourselves would suggest that it had an evolutionary advantage over those who sought out those different to themselves (although I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that). jb Yes, that's precisely what I'm thinking, at some stage in our evolution Fred Caveman must have realised that encouraging his sons to hook up with Sid Beardyman's daughters kept having unpleasant consequences for his family (and his sons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Sorry just words I don't want to detract from the OP. You'll see in my original reference to this that I was responding to Jeffrey Shaw's suggestion that it's not 'unnatural' to gravitate towards people like ourselves or be wary of those who aren't. A suggestion I agree with. However my point was that it's surprising that's the almost default position given the benefits that are often apparent through diversification of the gene pool. Not sure, but I think your noticing a pattern which isn't really there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.