There are many racists of every background, some of the most racist people I have ever met are African American cult members who think European Jews replaced the Africans who are really lost tribes of Israel. There are likely though, many more racist individuals who are white thanks to this legacy of slavery and imperialism. It has to do with history, not biology.
You're trying to conflate your views with the mainstream as if you mean the same things. Then won't answer any clarifying questions about what you really think. I see through your nonsense.
No they don't, cite me an article or study published in a biology journal which asserts that race has real biological basis for categorization. Sociologists and anthropologists internationally also assert that race is an invalid taxonomical distinction for understanding human populations, and they get this from the science done in biology. You're spouting absolute nonsense, I have read the literature and you're not the first I've met trying to sqweek by with this false assertion unsubstantiated in any way. Noting the scientific consensus on a scientiric matter is relevant and valid to bring up in a debate. Like I said, you could present your own views and argue for why they are correct. Instead, you're playing this silly disengenous game where you won't say a single susbstantive thing, and only fallaciously dismiss my arguments.
They call it ancestry a la Kant's definition so brainwashed communist morons don't call them racist, which is annoying name calling.
I'm not anti-white, I am white. I am anti-slavery and imperialism which is the recent heritage of my culture and ethnic history. This is a basic historical fact, and it has nothing to do with any race being inherently inferior or superior. I don't think race is an appropriate taxonomical distinction, I think when you're discussing race you are talking about cultural mumbo jumbo that reflects a cultural indoctrination and not anything to do with scientific realities. Race should only be talked about because of our history, otherwise it is a piss poor foundation for judgment.
Are you anti mass immigration? I know what you think. It's what every sophomore and layman and commie activist thinks.
Are either of these statements incorrect 1) Kant, Blumenbach, Darwin, etc. defined race by ancestry. 2) The modern biology literature is full of an ancestry defined concept applied to humans.
I think we need limited immigration, and that in certain circumstances for humanitarian reasons we should take more people in through a separate channel for refugees and asylum seekers. I think we need controlled borders with reformed legal processes for gaining entry, but we also need to partner with our allies to the South to address the underlying issues causing this flight based on violence and economic degradation. I am not a Communist, and I am a business professional who has a family and am well beyond school. See how poorly prejudice operates? And see how I actually address your assertions and state what I really think. If only I could get that out of you guys.
You didn't address the point for pages. You still haven't. You're a hypocrite and a sophist. The underlying issue is intelligence differences.
More of which you are scientifically ignorant of. Been reading nonsense like the Bell Curve? I doubt you have read any scienfitic literature on intelligence from the past decade. If you did, you would learn that the consensus on intelligence is that it is primarily about development and the interplay of genes in the shaping of neurophysiological structures in the brain. Your analysis of intelligence as well as genes fails to take into account neuroplasticity and this interaction of gene and environment and the impacts of developmental disparities on IQ test scores. Look I addressed your nonsense, and you have yet to provide a recent biological journal publishing anything about the reality of race. You ran to psychology and an outdated view of heritability and genetics, but none of this substantiates your pseudoscientific argument. Show us that biologists agree with you and not me.
An equivocation argument, there are loads of philosophical literature dealing with the definition of ancestry and race, and whenever the terms are used they don't mean the same thing as was meant by say for instance Darwin. I think in science we have to be super precise with our language and you would also have to analyze what the author of a study means when they are referencing race or ancestry. Do they mean in studying such that there is a real taxonomical distinction between races? No, genetic causation is not implied by its study, this is literally what the literature says. Now how about instead of this fallacious equivocation approach, you provide an article from a biological journal to substantiate your claim. You are making a biological claim, trying to prove your point through fallacious logic without evidence will not suffice. Show me the evidence that justifies your assertion, provide a link.
You can't answer simple, relevant questions without blasting out a text wall of irrelevant gibberish. I'll help you out. Race was historically defined by ancestry. This same concept is still used, but they call it ancestry. Type "ancestry" into PubMed. It's really very simple. Are you suffering from cognitive dissonance? Darwin defined race by ancestry. Shall I spoon feed you a quote?
there is, there is millions of white racists and black racists.... that is a small percent of total whites and backs, but still a pretty big number sadly
You lurch from "is there a taxonomic distinction" to "no, there's zero heritability". What does this even mean? Zero heritability of what? Even if whatever you're talking about has zero heritability (it probably doesn't contrary to PC delusions of equality) that has nothing to do with taxonomy. You make no sense at all. Just a word salad of big sciency words.
It’s from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon listing what were considered the “three great races” back then. Notice how people of the Horn of Africa were also considered a part of the “Caucasian Race”. Scientific racism tried to argue that people with similar physical appearance were of the same “ancestry”. The whole thing was pseudoscientific nonsense.
That's from an encyclopedia not expert literature. Try looking at the expert literature of the time. It's wrong. And yeah Ethiopians are like ~50% Caucasoid. You're not familiar with the literature and you're just parroting lies. This exact question was dealt with and they worked out Australians shared ancestry with East Asians.
Why haven't you explored the area of racism that has saved millions of lives? Were the survival of man dependent on race, as I believe it has been, you might feel happy and not sad. There is a bias built into some people that do not intend to explore the good contained in racism.
Right. Maybe if we were more racist the once great Detroit and London wouldn't be shitholes. We need to be more racist.
Republicans are the best at playing the Race card, because they created it. Which is why they are experts at, pretending, that White Racism has absolutely nothing to do with why Black Conservatives are meaningless and void of Power within the GOP.
IMHO any real exploring will reveal how it is not possible for, good, to be contained within colossal evil. Racism is evil, it's wicked, and it's devoid of humanitarianism. Prejudice is okay, because we all are prejudiced, and even being a "racist" is okay in a denotative sense. But racism, is wrong. Racism is something we should leave at home, with our Prejudices, when we leave our homes at 6am every morning. Why? Because racism is the use of Race and/or skin color, as the deciding factor for accessing Prosperity to citizens within a society whether micro or macro. And there is nothing good about that.