Why do some people oppose interracial relationships? (liberal, thought, great)
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.
I don't expect people to think like me, but I do think it is important to actually teach the American people the real effects of interracial relationships, and of diversity. The liberal media does not want to present the case against interracial marriage. They do not want to tell people the truth, because the truth can hurt. They do not want to make a case for why diversity is bad, because they don't want to stir the pot. They want to appeal to as large an audience as possible, and any talk of segregation is almost always from the "racist white redneck" types.
Look at it this way, what is the difference between having 10,000 people die and $1 billion in damages in a single year, but it only happens once. Caused by direct violence and the secession of this country into separate states by ethnic group. Or having 1,000 people die and tens or hundreds of millions in damages every single year from racially specific hate-crimes, lynchings, assaults, rapes, robberies, muggings, murders, discrimination suits, federal bureaus to handle minorities hirings, etc.
I realize that things aren't going to change. I am not a fool. But that doesn't mean that I am wrong. The truth is, socially, it is in no ones best interest to live in a diverse society. On the other hand, economically, it is in any businesses best interests to trade, and to have as large an audience as possible for its products. It is only economics that ties the multiple races on this earth together. It is only economics that causes the flood of immigration into this country, both legally and illegally. It is the economy that controls our national politics. It is the economy that controls our media. It is economics which buys out our politicians through special interests and earmarks.
The only thing that matters in the United States is money. The only color that matters is green. And as long as wealth is placed above morals, social stability, family values, and unity. Then there will never be segregation, since economically, no one benefits. Most economists and international corporations would love there to be a single world country, with a single currency, and a single language. Where they can peddle their wares to billions and billions of people.
Many people will see a one-world government unified with a common currency and freedom to move about the world with no restrictions, as a good thing. And I am sure you are probably one of them. But to me, that is an extremely scary thought. And that is a very communist ideal.
The only thing you are "teaching" well its more like spewing is hate and ignorance.
There are those who do not think interracial dating is a good thing. There are those who hate interracial dating. Well, many people who do date and marry interracially and have children from those choose to make it work, even with some people laughing in their face(or behind their back) or doing worse. It takes a certain kind of strength for an interracial marriage, especially between an Africa-Amercan male and a White female, to make it work
There is a link that I think everyone should look at: http://www.globalgreetingsinc.snapmonkey.net/f/Strengths_of_Interracial_Families.pdf (broken link)
The one thing that worries me is the poster from the South that is so against interracial relationahips because of his statistics. Everyone in the South does not share his bias. Also, I can't figure out why so many posters on CD like to quote Wikipedia. It is written by ordinary people. My son and some of his friends have written articles, submitted them, and had them accepted by Wikipedia. I will not allow my students to use this source.
I think everyone has a right to date and marry whoever they wish. It is not my business, and anyone who sits around and collects facts about interracial relationships has to be a bigot. Also, I am a Southerner and proud of it.
At the risk of sounding like a racist, which I am not. I believe that mixing the races is not a good idea.
In nature, it almost never occurs. Tigers mate with tigers, Polar Bears mate with Polar Bears. It is the natural order of things. Even birds do not cross-breed with other types of birds. You may say that dogs will cross breed, but in actual fact, dogs are all the same. They simply look different because they have been differentiated by selective breeding for certain characteristics. In a natural environment, there would be only wolves and they would not breed with coyotes or foxes.
Many people might disagree that humans are all the same not separate "breeds", but I disagree with this statement. Each "race" has their own characteristics that have evolved over millions and millions of years to adapt to their unique environment. While we are not as dependent on environmental factors as we once were, I agree with the statement that when you mix races you weaken both of them because there are factors involved that we may not have any knowledge or understanding of.
There is nothing wrong with the desire to keep a race pure. Be it white or black or any other color. I believe that we owe it to our racial heritage to not mix races (or cultures either for that matter).
It's just my opinion, anyway.
20yrsinBranson
The problem with your logic is humans are not separated into different species anymore. The last time humans were separated into different species or subspecies was 30,000 years ago when Neanderthals were still around. We as modern humans haven't been separated long enough for their to be big enough differences.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 02-07-2010 at 08:12 PM..
The problem with your logic is humans are not separated into different species anymore. The last time humans were separated into different species or subspecies was 30,000 years ago when Neanderthals were still around. We as modern humans haven't been separated long enough for their to be big enough differences.
So please explain. How long does a species have to be separated before they become a unique species? Do you even know what a species means?
"Species = the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
This definition of species is pretty troubling, since there many different species that are able to "hybridize"(mate).
"The wolf (including the dingo and domestic dog), coyote, and jackal, all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridise freely (barring size or behavioural constraints) and produce fertile offspring."
The Coyote, the Jackal, and the wolf are considered different species, but all part of the same Genus. Yet, they can all mate with each other, I would believe that should make them all subspecies of each other rather than actual unique species. The horse, the Zebra, and the Donkey can all hybridize, but they are also all separate species all part of the same Genus. So does the ability to "mate" make you the same species? Apparently not. So lets discuss species really fast, and genetic distance.
Dogs come from wolves. Dogs and wolves are the same species. From a genetic point-of-view, all dogs are about as genetically identical to each other as humans are identical to each other.
These are some pictures of the same species of animal.
So, how can dogs and wolves look so much different from each other? Is it only appearance that changes from one dog breed to another? Or does behavior also change? But how could that be, aren't they all the same species? So the question is, how genetically "old" are dogs?
Domestic dogs are approximately 10,000 to 30,000 years old. The fossil record doesn't show any real physical differentiation between wolves and dogs until about 10,000-12,000 years ago. So the "differences" between all breeds of dogs are probably less than 12,000 years old.
All non-african Humans are somewhere between 60,000 to 100,000 years different from Africans. These are African Pygmies. The tall white guy in the back is at least 60,000 years genetically different than these pygmies.
We are also just as equally genetically distant to this guy as we are to pygmies(I think I saw this guy walking around Harlem back in the day).
But what does this really mean? Aren't we all humans? Shouldn't we all be treated the same? Aren't we all gods children? Don't we all have a soul?
Well, that is the philosophical question, what is a human? How do we categorize a human being? Is it anyone who is categorized in the "human" species? There is a large amount of debate of whether or not neanderthals and humans were the same species. And science has already said that Cro-magnon man are humans. So if neanderthals are considered humans, does that mean neanderthals had a soul?
There is much ethical debate right now about neanderthals and cloning. They have neanderthal DNA, and they could attempt to clone a neanderthal. Should we allow that to happen? Neanderthals made fire, they buried their dead, they made jewelry, they could talk. Were they human? If they aren't human, then we could raise them like livestock. They could be our slaves. I mean, what does it matter? They aren't really human, right?
Well lets talk about humans and emotion really fast. Humans tend to believe that anything that is "human-like" is human. So, lets talk about the Bonobo.
"Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate primarily through vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known. However, most humans do understand their facial expressions, and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play."
"Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught how to communicate using a keyboard labeled with lexigrams (geometric symbols) and they can respond to spoken sentences. Kanzi's vocabulary consists of more than 500 English words and he has comprehension of around 3,000 spoken English words. Some, such as philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons."
"There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported to have expressed joy. One study analyzed and recorded sounds made by human babies and Bonobos when they were tickled. It found although the Bonobo's laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh followed a similar spectrographic pattern to human babies."
"Frans de Waal, one of the world's most respected and popular primatologists, states that the Bonobo is capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity."
So, are bonobos human? Well, that depends on your definition of human. I don't think there are many people that would classify them as human(except crazies), but many would classify them as "human-like", and hence they deserve the same protections we give all humans. Do you agree?
So please explain. How long does a species have to be separated before they become a unique species? Do you even know what a species means?
"Species = the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
This definition of species is pretty troubling, since there many different species that are able to "hybridize"(mate).
"The wolf (including the dingo and domestic dog), coyote, and jackal, all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridise freely (barring size or behavioural constraints) and produce fertile offspring."
The Coyote, the Jackal, and the wolf are considered different species, but all part of the same Genus. Yet, they can all mate with each other, I would believe that should make them all subspecies of each other rather than actual unique species. The horse, the Zebra, and the Donkey can all hybridize, but they are also all separate species all part of the same Genus. So does the ability to "mate" make you the same species? Apparently not. So lets discuss species really fast, and genetic distance.
Dogs come from wolves. Dogs and wolves are the same species. From a genetic point-of-view, all dogs are about as genetically identical to each other as humans are identical to each other.
These are some pictures of the same species of animal.
So, how can dogs and wolves look so much different from each other? Is it only appearance that changes from one dog breed to another? Or does behavior also change? But how could that be, aren't they all the same species? So the question is, how genetically "old" are dogs?
Domestic dogs are approximately 10,000 to 30,000 years old. The fossil record doesn't show any real physical differentiation between wolves and dogs until about 10,000-12,000 years ago. So the "differences" between all breeds of dogs are probably less than 12,000 years old.
All non-african Humans are somewhere between 60,000 to 100,000 years different from Africans. These are African Pygmies. The tall white guy in the back is at least 60,000 years genetically different than these pygmies.
We are also just as equally genetically distant to this guy as we are to pygmies(I think I saw this guy walking around Harlem back in the day).
But what does this really mean? Aren't we all humans? Shouldn't we all be treated the same? Aren't we all gods children? Don't we all have a soul?
Well, that is the philosophical question, what is a human? How do we categorize a human being? Is it anyone who is categorized in the "human" species? There is a large amount of debate of whether or not neanderthals and humans were the same species. And science has already said that Cro-magnon man are humans. So if neanderthals are considered humans, does that mean neanderthals had a soul?
There is much ethical debate right now about neanderthals and cloning. They have neanderthal DNA, and they could attempt to clone a neanderthal. Should we allow that to happen? Neanderthals made fire, they buried their dead, they made jewelry, they could talk. Were they human? If they aren't human, then we could raise them like livestock. They could be our slaves. I mean, what does it matter? They aren't really human, right?
Well lets talk about humans and emotion really fast. Humans tend to believe that anything that is "human-like" is human. So, lets talk about the Bonobo.
"Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate primarily through vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known. However, most humans do understand their facial expressions, and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play."
"Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught how to communicate using a keyboard labeled with lexigrams (geometric symbols) and they can respond to spoken sentences. Kanzi's vocabulary consists of more than 500 English words and he has comprehension of around 3,000 spoken English words. Some, such as philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons."
"There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported to have expressed joy. One study analyzed and recorded sounds made by human babies and Bonobos when they were tickled. It found although the Bonobo's laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh followed a similar spectrographic pattern to human babies."
"Frans de Waal, one of the world's most respected and popular primatologists, states that the Bonobo is capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity."
So, are bonobos human? Well, that depends on your definition of human. I don't think there are many people that would classify them as human(except crazies), but many would classify them as "human-like", and hence they deserve the same protections we give all humans. Do you agree?
Hmmm, interesting so if I'm reading this right are you trying to say that blacks are a different species instead of people having different physical features? If the world climate, temperture, food sources and environment was all similiar so would the human race, but since it is not our bodies evolved to it's surroundings. To sum up your foolishness, a person due to no fault of their own should be restricted to fall in love and produce offspring ONLY if they have the same genetic makeup?
So please explain. How long does a species have to be separated before they become a unique species? Do you even know what a species means?
Redshadowz - let me be totally and bluntly honest here: Why should we even read this tripe? Why should we even care the slightest about any of the crap you post?
Frankly - few do care ("care" is too nice a word here ) enough to even read your posts because, if nothing else - they are far too long to read - much of what you post is cut and past etc.
strange the conversation about racism is always directed at wasp america. yet the beatings occur on the hood when the white boyfriend shows up. i have seen it happen.
signed
a non white
(see profile)
Hmmm, interesting so if I'm reading this right are you trying to say that blacks are a different species instead of people having different physical features? If the world climate, temperture, food sources and environment was all similiar so would the human race, but since it is not our bodies evolved to it's surroundings. To sum up your foolishness, a person due to no fault of their own should be restricted to fall in love and produce offspring ONLY if they have the same genetic makeup?
I didn't say blacks are a different species. I am merely trying to explain that blacks are DIFFERENT than whites. To believe that we are all identical just because we are all classified by scientists(which are just people) to be the same species, is an attempt to ignore the differences within us.
Many believe it is just our appearances. Like the color of our skin, the color of our hair, the color of our eyes, etc. But there is a lot more to our differences than just appearances. There are also huge hormonal differences, and organ size/function differences. There is a big gap in male testerosterone levels. I am not going to talk about intelligence or brain size/function because it is a terrible sore point... But testosterone levels in young black men are about 20% higher than in white men, and androgen receptors in black men seem to be more responsive to testosterone.
"Blacks have much higher testosterone levels than Whites from age 7-24. After 24, the difference starts shrinking, and by the early 30’s, it is gone."
High testosterone levels can be directly linked to aggressiveness and impulsiveness. As well as much higher sex drives. Which is pretty easy to see in young black males.
So lets talk about "no fault of their own" for a minute. There are many people with huge genetic defects that are "no fault of their own". Things like retardation, sterility, physical defects, midgets, down-syndrome, deafness, excessively small genetalia, etc. Should we allow two midgets or two deaf people to mate?
If you are an atheist and you believe in evolution, then we are all mere animals. And you could just have easily been born a horse or a dog. So should we be able to "control" what our dogs mate with? Or a horse or cow mates with? Why are humans so special and different?
What really makes us human? How do we know a human when we see one? If an alien came to earth tomorrow, that had blue skin and a big nose. Sort of like the Na'vi from the movie Avatar, but with normal height.
And lets pretend that somehow magically they had 23 pairs of Chromosomes like humans and were pretty anatomically human where it counts. So they could mate with humans and have fertile children. Well, would you be ok with that? I know that scenario is basically impossible. But I just wanted to delve into hypotheticals here.
So they walked and talked like a human, they behaved like a human, they thought like a human, they mostly looked like a human. So what if your daughter was in love with this blue skinned, big nosed guy. And she came to you and she made her case that she loved him, and he said he loved your daughter, and they wanted to get married. Would that be perfectly acceptable?
Would their children be humans? Would they be aliens? Do you think it would matter? Would that mixed child have a soul? Would it go to heaven when it died?
I realize I am making ridiculous hypotheticals, because all humans are from this earth, but we are still much more different than most egalitarians wish we were. And by "mixing" we are destroying what makes us different.
There are some people that see the destruction of these differences as a good thing. Once we all become nearly the same, there will be no more racism, because we will all be the same race. But many people see the destruction of what makes us different as a bad thing, because we become less specialized. And some people believe that certain races are inherently inferior, and by mixing, we are creating a system of "dysgenics" on the "superior" population.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-09-2010 at 12:21 AM..
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.
