Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it's not. Race is a non-biological and completely arbitrary distinction that has no basis. You did previously confess to not having any real aptitude in sciences, right?
They can determine many things and differences among people you consider the same "race." I keep talking about melanin, because your definition of race seems always to devolve to skin color.
I tend to disagree. Race is about physical and psycological traits. All of which ultimately stem from genetics and are thus, biological.
The difference is the societal harm. If I don't date you because of skin color there's little societal harm. If I won't hire you because of skin color there is societal harm.
Perhaps so. But is it right for society to tell an individual who they must hire or work with? What of individual freedom of choice.
I'll argue that gov't jobs, and corps funded by mixed funds, should not allow racial preferences, but for privately owned businesses, I'd argue differently.
Heck, the rule for worker bees is "for any reason or no reason".
Yes, this is the part where you tell me about Title 42 is it? But my point is, if it's "my business" then it should be my choice.
As an aside, discrimination is as natural as life itself. Every time an attractive women passes over me for a better looking, richer guy, I've been discriminated against, LOL!
I tend to believe it's a survival shortcut. We are wired to notice patterns and extrapolate from them to save time in survival situations. So I tend to think some forms of discrimination are remenants of "their tribe vrs. our tribe".
Consider, that after you've seen one or two tigers, you might decide to give them all wide berth. Same for gang bangers, right?
Not all racially aware behavior is rooted in supremacist racism. Sometimes it's just flat out defensive. Other times it's simply preference.
Morally speaking, that's a distinction without a difference. If you choose not to date a person of a certain color, society allows you that liberty. If you choose not to hire someone because of their color, the law prohibits it.
In both cases, however, you're acting upon a personal color prejudice. I would beg to differ that society is only harmed in one case and not the other.
I would argue that preference does not equal prejudice.
I prefer thin women with medium breasts. Does that mean I'm "prejudiced" against gals with large breasts? I think not. There's just a set of proportions my psyche happens to be attracted to, and others less so, and some flat out repulse me.
If race X happens to have jumbo breasts, well then of course I may tend to avoid dating race x on average.
(Forgive me ladies for using breasts. If I'd have said "kinky hair" we'd have to go down the whole "what's unattractive about african traits discussion. Which would only end up with... beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)
As an aside, just judging by your screen name, I get the impression you favor Rev. Wright style radical black politics. Assuming "backfist" is a reference to a backfist punch. Between that and the use of the word "prejudice", I get the feeling you would favor an all out race war. (Just my impression, no doubt I could be off the mark.)
I don't know *why* it is, perhaps it goes back to the days of England vrs. Spain, when the world was divided along those lines... but "hispanic" as used on EEOC forms is an adjective.
You are white, black, asian... etc. and then either Hispanic or not.
So you could be white hispanic, black hispanic, asian hispanic or not hispanic.
Something I found interesting/baffling about this...
I worked for a white spanish person who informed me he didn't like "mexicans". Which he panned off as not liking "that element".
A Portuguese gal I know told me her aunt left LA because of "all the mexicans".
Based in these two people last names (Let's just say "Martinez" and "Rodriquez".) I'd have never expected to her that. As a Euro-whitey, I'd have figured all the hispanic cultures were cohesive with one another. Apparently they divide themselves. It seems to be a division between "Spanish as in Spain" vrs. "Spanish mixed with something else".
There's a difference between a Portuguese person, a Spanish person, and a Mexican person. To call them all "Hispanic" simply because they share some language background and a few cultural similiarities, is to do a disservice to racial/ethnic classifications and to their societies.
To me, when somebody says Hispanic, it means mestizo, somebody who has some degree of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry, but is largely Indio or African (Hugo Chavez comes to mind). The vast majority of Mexico, along with most other Central American nations (the one exception possibly being Panama and maybe Costa Rica) are mestizo majority nations.
Spain and Portugal have historically been White countries, Mexico has never been a White country, it was an Indian empire and then once it was conquered it became a mestizo colony due to the Spanish conquerors mixing (however the mixing occurred, voluntarily or via force, it occurred) with the native indio women.
Likewise, to call an Argentine a Hispanic is erroneous, as Argentina is one of the whitest nations in the world. If you look back in history you'll see why. When Spain conquered Mexico, very few Spanish women went there, and parts of Mexico were very well-suited for plantations, resulting in a situation where the Spanish mixed with the natives and frequently enslaved them to work on the plantations.
When it came to Argentina, many Spanish women accompanied the men who went there, entire families moved together to the new land, which by the way was not particularly suited for massive plantations. The Spanish basically instituted a policy in Argentina of killing natives on sight, so most Indians in Argentina were driven west of the Andes, into Chile, the northern part of Argentina, and what is now Bolivia. Note that the colonization of Uruguay took a similar path to that of Argentina.
I agree with your statement here. But just as a point of discussion, I think the term for folks that have racial preferences but are not trying to oppress or assert supremacy is "racially aware".
I can agree with your post... some people are more "racially aware" than others obviously.
He might cite John Philippe Rushton, a professor from Canada.
Rushton's views are clearly a minority in Science. He has been known to have questionable ethics, questionable associations, and to have made remarks that show a clear bias.
Rushton's views are clearly a minority in Science. He has been known to have questionable ethics, questionable associations, and to have made remarks that show a clear bias.
About six hundred years ago the majority view was that the earth was the center of the universe, anybody who knew "too much" about natural healing was a witch, and the Earth was flat...
Having a lot of people adhering to a certain viewpoint doesn't necessarily make that viewpoint correct.
I tend to disagree. Race is about physical and psycological traits. All of which ultimately stem from genetics and are thus, biological.
Pure fiction. Biologically race is a distinction with no difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
