"The History of White People": What it means to be white

[Monny JcIntosh]

No, I’m not and you seem to be misrepresenting my position: which is that maps are social constructs (whether scientific) and that’s all. But, “Africa” is a linguistic sign, a map (of Africa) is not. However, a coordinate system-seems to me at this point-arbitrary—in other words, pick your center…this should be apparent when you consider the earths relationship to the rest of the universe. And when you do, then tell me where north, south, east, or west is?

A coordinate system may well be arbitrary, but whether a given direction on the earth's surface is north is not. I don't know whether I'm misrepresenting you in thinking you're denying that, but it's all Nay Sayer's been saying, so I can't make out what else you could be disagreeing with him about.

[Nay Sayer]

Wanna make a bet? Walk into a history department today and use the term “dark ages.”

So what does that prove?

If contemporary historians have dropped the term from their lexicon, it still doesn't change the *fact* that it is a term Europeans have used to describe their own recent history.

1 + 1 = 2

[Nay Sayer]

But it IS arbitrary that we, as a culture, have decided that these features are the ones to base our cardinal directions on.

Perfectly reasonable.

[Bill Blake]

a given direction on the earth's surface is north is not.

North to what? The other side of the Milky Way?

[Monny JcIntosh]

North to what? The other side of the Milky Way?

The question doesn't make sense. North is the direction you're facing in when you are (a) on the earth's surface and (b) facing towards the (magnetic or rotational) north pole.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Though I suppose you could drop (a) and allow that you're facing north just as long as you're facing the north pole.

[Nay Sayer]

Racism is a manifestation of power imbalance
...

Now you're talking all the way out of your ass. There has always existed some type of power imbalance between the "haves" and the "have nots" since @ least the beginning of recorded history.

However, the racism that has been institutionalized by Western "Civilization" is of a much more recent vintage. Largely due to the fact that Western Civlization is an edifice built to adore ignorance.

Racism has nothing to do with power and influence and everything to do with IGNORANCE...

[Moksha]

Racism has nothing to do with power

There was a long thread on here 6 or 7 years ago that you would have loved. Anybody remember that thread about racism and power? The original argument was that only whites could be racist because they have the power.

[Nay Sayer]

The original argument was that only whites could be racist because they have the power.

Which is a ridiculous and racist argument to make.

In order for racism to exist, there would first need to be race.

Race does not exist so therefore the racist ideology is bankrupt.

Anyone who would advocate a bankrupt ideology does so out of IGNORANCE. Power and influence only act as an enabler for the ignorant.

[Moksha]

Which is a ridiculous and racist argument to make.

In order for racism to exist, there would first need to be race.

Race does not exist so therefore the racist ideology is bankrupt.

Anyone who would advocate a bankrupt ideology does so out of IGNORANCE. Power and influence only act as an enabler for the ignorant.

So, you contend that "race" does not exist but that "racism" does exist?

[Nay Sayer]

So, you contend that "race" does not exist but that "racism" does exist?

I contend that race is a bankrupt ideology and any other ideology based on race is also bankrupt.

[the crackhouse]

Which is a ridiculous and racist argument to make.

In order for racism to exist, there would first need to be race.

Race does not exist so therefore the racist ideology is bankrupt.

Anyone who would advocate a bankrupt ideology does so out of IGNORANCE. Power and influence only act as an enabler for the ignorant.

That's where I'm not ok with you.
You seem to ignore (haha, funny one ini't?) that power is rarely hold by ignorants.
Even in communism and its flatenning of human power and ownership, there were intellectual leaders to form the idea, then some other clever people created the system.

Racism is not something that just popped out of ignorance. Racism is taught, as some form of knowledge.

Any racist is lead by an idea, not ignorance. We could say that understanding what racism is made of can get rid of some ignorance, but the primal state of ignorance is innocence.

What do you feel about that NaySayer? If you admit that racism is a pure creation of mankind (and so is race), your logic is just eating itself.

Jus' sayin cause I don't get your point fully here.

Idance

[Nay Sayer]

That's where I'm not ok with you.
You seem to ignore (haha, funny one ini't?) that power is rarely hold by ignorants.
Even in communism and its flatenning of human power and ownership, there were intellectual leaders to form the idea, then some other clever people created the system.

Being "educated" and being ignorant are not mutually exclusive.

Racism is not something that just popped out of ignorance. Racism is taught, as some form of knowledge.

Knowledge that goes contrary to established fact is not knowledge but ignorance.


We know the Earth is not flat. Anyone who continues to preach the flat Earth theory, in the light of knowledge of the fact, does so in complete ignorance.

Any racist is lead by an idea, not ignorance. We could say that understanding what racism is made of can get rid of some ignorance, but the primal state of ignorance is innocence.

Theory of Race = bankrupt ideology = ignorance

What do you feel about that NaySayer? If you admit that racism is a pure creation of mankind (and so is race), your logic is just eating itself.

Jus' sayin cause I don't get your point fully here.

Idance

What is there not to understand? It's quite simple.

Race doesn't exist, therefore racism is a house built on sand - it cannot stand. Racist ideology lacks sound reason and defies logic. It does not make sense.

[djmarbll]

Originally Posted by djmarbll
we accept

See? You sure about that Marbll?

I think we generally accept Georgia and Africa as geographical terms. And thanks for spelling my name right, lol.

[djmarbll]

Kenya. Remember, I operate in both, papers and all.

...

Oh, ok. I was just going by your DHP location, lol.

I haven't taken my African sociology course on years, but have blacks always been in charge in Kenya, or only since Jomo Kenyatta in the '60s?

[djmarbll]

But was there cultural continuum between 70.000 and 400 years ago? The political argumentation I read into the constant teaching reference of the African origin of mankind is that in that enormous time period the essential experience of all people was linear and common, and that the ensuing common identity or memory was betrayed by white occidental civilisations during the past 2000 years.

What about the racism of pre-Western civilisations? Or did that not exist?

...

I think there was certain pride among certain ethnic groups that caused animosity toward other ethnic groups (Kemetians and Habiru for example), but racism as we know it in America didn't exist in the same form in pre-Western civilizations, as far as I've studied.

[Nay Sayer]

I think there was certain pride among certain ethnic groups that caused animosity toward other ethnic groups (Kemetians and Habiru for example), but racism as we know it in America didn't exist in the same form in pre-Western civilizations, as far as I've studied.

Yeah, the Egyptians pretty much HATED Asiatics - but I don't know if that hatred can be attributed to "race."

[djmarbll]

People part ways for 65.000 years and become totally different cultural and mutually alien entities, but you're sure that the origin thing is culturally manifest enough in all of us for white people to be tasked that they are f*cking with some form of divinity?




Opportunist theorizin! You switch on a just-in-time blame theory to suit your exact, isolated victimisation model and conveniently ignore the possibility of any parallel or previous occurences to give your issue adequate perspective.




You think that indenture, slavery, persecution and power-oriented killing was arbitrarily "less bad" before the white man's enlightenment age? Based on what?


I put it to you that if people attain power, they will automatically, NATURALLY, wield that power over those without power regardless of race. White racism isn't something genetically inherent as much as it is the result of cultural evolution initiated by geographic and climatic circumstance, resource distribution and adaption capability. Racism is a product of CHANCE.

...

I think in America, racism became collateral damage based on using a certain group of people as free labor. The commerce created by slavery seems to be the underlying intention of using Africans, but to deal with morality of kidnapping a whole ethnicity for the use of free labor, race was used to dehumanize those from Africa as it relates to religion (the curse of Ham's offspring considered outside the graces of God), science (Negroid considered the 3rd world race of people by Blumenbach who were considered naturally dumber and should be used a labor class), and eventually in general society. So I don't see racism as a product of chance, but as a product of commerce.

[djmarbll]

I contend that race is a bankrupt ideology and any other ideology based on race is also bankrupt.

But national movements and laws have been passed specifically based on race. Race may not be classified as scientific or a true concept, but the results of racism have been real.

[Nay Sayer]

But national movements and laws have been passed specifically based on race. Race may not be classified as scientific or a true concept, but the results of racism have been real.

No question.

There are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time and money in "race". Just like there are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time and money in religion.

Still, they're both nothing more than smoke and mirrors..

[djmarbll]

No question.

There are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time and money in "race". Just like there are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time and money in religion.

Still, they're both nothing more than smoke and mirrors..

I see your point. Nazism was based off of false eugenics, yet the devastation it caused was explicitly horrendous. I think thats been the danger all along though. The initial concept can be a social construct, ideology, or propaganda, but the results of that type of thinking can be incredibly devastating.

[jimmymack-2000]

At what point does a social construct become a priori knowledge? For example, I'm quite sure the term "Africa" (spelled thusly or phonetical approximations, but in Latin script) is a colonial European construct. Even if there was earlier pre-colonial knowledge of the totality and unity of the landmass bounded by the bodies of water we know as the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, and South Atlantic Ocean, it likely wasn't known as "Africa".

However, today virtually everyone regardless of society or social location understands what Africa is, and takes it as a fact that it's that landmass bounded by the Mediterranean, Indian and South Atlantic.

[Bill Blake]

The question doesn't make sense. North is the direction you're facing in when you are (a) on the earth's surface and (b) facing towards the (magnetic or rotational) north pole.

It does when context becomes an issue, doesn't it though?

Anyways, we could consider the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North

"The visible rotation of the night sky around the visible celestial pole provides a vivid metaphor of that direction corresponding to up. Thus the choice of the north as corresponding to up in the northern hemisphere, or of south in that role in the southern, is, prior to world-wide communication, anything but an arbitrary one. On the contrary, it is of interest that Chinese and Islamic culture even considered south as the proper top end for maps."

[Nay Sayer]

On the contrary, it is of interest that Chinese and Islamic culture even considered south as the proper top end for maps."

Yes, the Ancients considered South as the proper top end of their maps. However, South was still South and North was still North.

The only difference was their perspective or world view.

The needle on that compass still points in the same direction regardless of the orientation of the map in question.

[Bill Blake]

Yes, the Ancients considered South as the proper top end of their maps. However, South was still South and North was still North.

The only difference was their perspective or world view.

The needle on that compass still points in the same direction regardless of the orientation of the map in question.

Cardinal directions are based on a Cartesian coordinate system; a system that implies a center: “+” this plus sign, this cross (oops, let’s not get Jesus into this just yet) is an example of the framework for such a model. The question becomes is there a “center?”—One or any such center that is not arbitrary? It’s not the north or south, per se, that makes the convention known as such, or easily, it’s the concept of the center at “the heart” of the system that makes its arbitrary nature apparent.

A compass, and only one that’s not broken (non-serious, Jonny?) is a tool that you are assuming implies a center. Now first you chose longitude and latitude for your argument, then you switched to the compass. But these systems do not have the same implications: longitude and latitude put the center at the equator, a compass puts it at the north pole. You yourself have provided two systems with different centers. So which is it?