• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?


  • Total voters
    86
of facts vs. opinion?
insisting that "race" must be biologically real in order for racISM to be real?
or that there is such a thing as antiwhite racism?


The first is a fundamental failure of logic generally, so no amount of facts will make any difference.

The second is disproven by the easy and common observation that people are capable of being mistaken; thus there is no requirement that one must have accurate information in order to take action...people routinely act upon false or mistaken information. If you want to get more specific than that, you're welcome to visit the appropriate thread(s) where that issue is actually the topic (done here, it would be a derail).

The third claim has already been demonstrated here, by Luna Tick, who has articulated instances of being on the receiving end of antiwhite racism. Unless you're denying his experience outright, that's already enough demonstration of the fact that there exist one or more persons on earth who subscribe to racism and behave in a racist manner against people assigned as "white."

I'm asking you to show me where and how race doesn't exist. When I ask you that, you respond like a novice, berating me by assuming I don't know the difference between facts and opinions. Since I asking you for proof as to why race doesn't exist, you should have the courtesy to provide proof to back up your claim. Otherwise I'd have to ignore you and search scholarly articles instead, since you seem incapable of proving your claim in this thread.

You probably assumed that I think that if race doesn't exist, that the hypothetical man-made construct we call "racism" cannot exist either. That would be one of your mistakes. Nowhere did I say anti-white racism does not exist. It does.

It is poor form in debate to make a claim and then, when questioned, turn around and say that person is committing a failure of logic, while also not providing even some facts. That tells me that you may not know exactly what you are talking about. You may not be able to provide evidence for your claim, seeing that you have avoided doing so over 4 times. It may be true that you have the capacity to do so, but then it becomes a lack of wisdom in you not providing facts for others to consider your calim. By using this sort of intellectually destructive behavior you spur people from listening to you, or thinking you have any credibilty. No one really wants to consider the claims of a rude person.

It's true that people are capable of making mistakes. Both of us are just two examples of this line of thought. The only thing I care about from you at this very moment is for you to provide some workable data for your claim that race does not exist. Otherwise, if you aren't able to do so, why would you respond to me in the first place in this thread. It's a sign of weakness to confront someone else's argument, and then refuse to provide the necessary scientific data that makes your argument valid. No, instead you appear as a spectacle:someone who makes a dire claim while refusing to provide data. I would treat you thew same as, say, any Birther who said Obama wasn't born in America, yet refused to offer tangible data. I have no need for that.

Nowhere did I say people can't be targetted by anti-white racism, or that it does not exist. That's irrelevant.
 
I'm asking you to show me where and how race doesn't exist.

That has already been asked and answered. As cmakaioz already noted

Wow, 77 vs 3 voters, @ 5/30/2012.

The issue needn't be complicated. Assuming race exists all races can be targetted by the racism of other races.

And in this post of yours, even you acknowledge that the existence of race is just an assumption, not a scientific fact.

Now you want scientific proof. :cuckoo:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=....,cf.osb&fp=2e4edfb6fecd5b31&biw=1402&bih=710
 
That has already been asked and answered. As cmakaioz already noted



And in this post of yours, even you acknowledge that the existence of race is just an assumption, not a scientific fact.

I don't believe Cmakaioz has explained it well enough. If he believes he has in this threads, he's done so in a very obscure way.

Race may exist. It may not. Assuming race does exist then obviously they can be targetted by racism. Even if race doesn't exist, they can still be targetted by this notion we've termed "racism."

Is there any empirical scientific data that race does or doesn't exist? Why do black people have darker skin to protect from UV rays? Why is it that some Asians supposedly are unable to digest milk well? If race does not exist then why does it seem that there are some large groups of people that have a higher average of certain traits than others, like skin color?
 

Well, at least you provided a general link to the scholarly articles I was reading earlier. Thanks.

I was more wanting to hear Cma's concise reasoning why he believe race doesn't exist. It's that simple.
 
I don't believe Cmakaioz has explained it well enough.

Cmakaioz didn't EXPLAIN anything. Instead, links to scientific reports written by scientists were posted and quoted. If you're demanding that Cmakaioz explain the science to you, instead of you just reading it, it raises the question of why you can't just read the reports and understand them.

Race may exist. It may not. Assuming race does exist then obviously they can be targetted by racism. Even if race doesn't exist, they can still be targetted by this notion we've termed "racism."

Like many words in the english language, words can have many different meanings. The word race has a meaning, however it has no scientific validity. That's not a maybe, or maybe not. Race, as a scientific concept, does not exist

Is there any empirical scientific data that race does or doesn't exist? Why do black people have darker skin to protect from UV rays? Why is it that some Asians supposedly are unable to digest milk well? If race does not exist then why does it seem that there are some large groups of people that have a higher average of certain traits than others, like skin color?

1) Yes, it does not exist as a scientific concept
2) Some "black" people have lighter skin than some "white" people
3) Most people develop some degree of lactose intolerance as they age
4) It's called "evolution"......learn it
 
Well, at least you provided a general link to the scholarly articles I was reading earlier. Thanks.

So you already had this info? In that case, it was dishonest of you to pretend you didn't have access to the science when you did.

I was more wanting to hear Cma's concise reasoning why he believe race doesn't exist. It's that simple.

No, it's that stupid to want to hear one individuals explanation when the science has already been posted.

You asked for the science (even though you already had it), and now you've got your response. Asking for more is the cyber-equivalent of throwing a hissy fit because you can't find anything to argue about
 
Well, at least you provided a general link to the scholarly articles I was reading earlier. Thanks.

I was more wanting to hear Cma's concise reasoning why he believe race doesn't exist. It's that simple.

I don't believe "race" isn't biologically or genetically real; I observe the fact.

Go to the appropriate thread, where that has been explained briefly and at length, upwards/downwards/sideways, forward and back, and in fifteen different flavors. It's not the topic HERE.

Would you like someone to hold your hand and give you a lollipop while you're at it, or can you manage to go there on your own?
 
Would you like someone to hold your hand and give you a lollipop while you're at it, or can you manage to go there on your own?

Not "someone"; It has to be YOU

If YOU don't explain the science to him, he's going to keep throwing temper tantrums
 
One need not be in power to harbor or act upon racist ideology. One does have to have political power, however, to participate in racist oppression.

And what exactly amounts to "racial oppression?" If a gang of racist blacks beats a white man to death for no other reason than his being white, is this not racist? More to the point, is this not oppression? After all, the man is dead.

One does not require any more political power than is available on a street corner in the poorest neighborhood in town in order to participate in racial oppression of the most extreme.

Racism is indeed bad, but it's neither universal nor impulsive.

Actually, if human history (let alone human prehistory) says anything, it says that racism--indeed, genocidal racism--is most definitely universal and impulsive in the capacity that it is apparently instinctually driven, so pervasively, and so casually, that it can even be celebrated in such powerful moral directories as the Bible and the Koran without so much as the slightest notice (let alone pronounced moral condemnation) by their most avid fans and proselytizers.

It is widely taught.

This begs the question: "When exactly was it initially taught and why?"

It is certainly true that racist ideologies have been passed down through the ages, being inculcated into the mindsets of each succeeding generation, to varying degrees, by the generation that came before it. However, such etiological analysis inevitably leads to an abysmal eternal regress; and thus, in itself, hardly satisfies our quest for self-understanding nor advances our quest for self-actualization. In fact, it leads us nowhere, and with nothing but yet another pressing question: "Have we always been this way?"

Institutionalized practices, on the other hand, do not require ideological commitment for their impact.

Institutionalized racism is the inevitable (and hardly mysterious) result of successive generations of racist lore, which itself is the product of primeval racist impulses that are so ubiquitous and subconscious that they typically remain unchallenged in the absence of a society so cognitively and culturally advanced that it can conjure and promulgate ideas to the contrary.

And yet here we are, already poised on the edge of where I expected the thread to go: it was framed as a nonsensical opinion poll about a factual matter, and within a short time it has already turned to a growing case of denial of obvious privilege, promotion of implied false equivalency, serial intellectual dishonesty (in preemptively "responding" to claims never made, and projection of stances and views not actually held by posters participating in the thread).

Do not despair. Keep in mind that humanity has made enormous strides over the last few hundred years in regards to its conscious recognition of the racist ideologies it has progenerated across the ages, and their consequent institutions. Such sociological achievement, on a near global scale, is unprecedented in annals of human experience and bodes well for the future of the species.

I've seen this movie a thousand times.

Of course you have, because, like everyone else, you are one of the cast.
 
I happen to agree with him. The majority of folk, if it were put to referendum, would not have voted for the passage of the civil rights act, and the trans-formative effects it has had on American society. It was therefore, naturally, a more powerful minority (lawmakers) overpowering majority opinion.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Why would prohibiting discrimination against minorities in some situations overpower the majority? All it does, at most, is bring them a small step closer to having equal power, and even if each individual minority had totally equal power, which of course they are nowhere close to, they still would be the minority so the majority could still outvote them...
 
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.

It's like you don't even know who the POTUS is and who his attorney general is.
 
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.

Do you realize that what you just said is every bit an expression of the most appalling racism? You might just as well have said that black people are stupid and lazy, and you could not have been any more racist.

The overwhelming majority of white people, especially the white people with whom the overwhelming majority of minorities will have any social interaction, have little or no power of any practical consequence.

Racism against white people can be pretty damn important when you are the victim. Perhaps, this is a lesson you will learn the hard way.

Clue for you, pal: Self-effacing racism is racism just the same.

Anyone with the slightest degree of perception into the human psyche (including non-whites) will see right through your pathetic reaction formation and likely treat you accordingly. You should be careful.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is anti-white racism. Does it happen on a systematic level? No. Does it happen at a social level? Absolutely.
 
Of course there is anti-white racism. Does it happen on a systematic level? No. Does it happen at a social level? Absolutely.

15 yrs ago I would have said you were 100% right....today your just half right. There is systematic anti white racism, not to the level of white on black racism but it is there now....Eric Holder is one example...
 
15 yrs ago I would have said you were 100% right....today your just half right. There is systematic anti white racism, not to the level of white on black racism but it is there now....Eric Holder is one example...

Er, wait, you understand that Fox is only pretend, right?
 
15 yrs ago I would have said you were 100% right....today your just half right. There is systematic anti white racism, not to the level of white on black racism but it is there now....Eric Holder is one example...

Actually, there are countless examples of systemic anti-white racism in the media, as well as in employment and education. The anti-white racism in the media is most readily observable in the news media's reporting of certain crimes, the death of Trayvon Martin being the most recent. The Christian-Newsom murders are another example, as was the Duke Lacrosse Fiasco. Of course, the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies results in thousands of instances where more qualified whites are deliberately passed over for admissions, employment, and promotions in the name of ensuring racial diversity of opportunity. Thus, while it can certainly be argued that minorities are often the victims of institutionalized racism, it cannot be argued that whites are not also such victims.
 
Actually, there are countless examples of systemic anti-white racism in the media, as well as in employment and education. The anti-white racism in the media is most readily observable in the news media's reporting of certain crimes, the death of Trayvon Martin being the most recent. The Christian-Newsom murders are another example, as was the Duke Lacrosse Fiasco. Of course, the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies results in thousands of instances where more qualified whites are deliberately passed over for admissions, employment, and promotions in the name of ensuring racial diversity of opportunity. Thus, while it can certainly be argued that minorities are often the victims of institutionalized racism, it cannot be argued that whites are not also such victims.

Somebody does not know the difference between systemic and systematic. Actually, they don't even know what Affirmative Action is.
 
Somebody does not know the difference between systemic and systematic. Actually, they don't even know what Affirmative Action is.

Perhaps, you would like to explain?
 
Perhaps, you would like to explain?

Systemic and systematic are not the same thing, a dictionary could explain why. Systematic antiwhite racism doesnt exist. Not on any visible scale at least. The media (at least in the US context) is primarily owned by whites so how can there possibly be a systematic antiwhite prejudice in it? As far as your little swipe at Obama and holder. You just see it(the racism) now that a black president and AG are around. Not that they´ve done anything significantly different than the president or AG before them. Actually, most policies of the Bush administration are still firmly in place.
 
Racism is racism. There is no white racism, black racism, it's all racism, all fueled by ignorance and prejudice.

Of course, once the racist gets into power, then racism does take on a whole new uglier face.
 
Systemic and systematic are not the same thing, a dictionary could explain why.


sys·tem·ic   [si-stem-ik]
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a system.
2.
Physiology, Pathology .
a.
pertaining to or affecting the body as a whole.
b.
pertaining to or affecting a particular body system.

Systemic | Define Systemic at Dictionary.com



SYSTEMIC as in when a particular news event is reported with the same peculiar bias by nearly every source of news, as if the entire news media were infected with the same bug.

Get it now?

Systematic antiwhite racism doesnt exist.

I never said it did. However, come to think of it, Affirmative Action policies can be described as an example of systematic anti-white racism in large numbers of cases.

Not on any visible scale at least.

It's visible if you look hard enough, especially at the effects of A.A. policy upon poor whites, where both systemic and systematic racial bias is clearly observable if you care enough to pay attention to it.

The media (at least in the US context) is primarily owned by whites so how can there possibly be a systematic antiwhite prejudice in it?

I do not believe there is systematic anti-white prejudice in the media, and have never asserted that there was. There is, however, systemic anti-white bias in the news media from time to time. It is readily observable in the examples I have already listed. The fact that the media is primarily owned by whites does in no way negate the fact that such bias exists, although it does make one wonder what the hell is going on.

As far as your little swipe at Obama and holder. You just see it(the racism) now that a black president and AG are around. Not that they´ve done anything significantly different than the president or AG before them. Actually, most policies of the Bush administration are still firmly in place.

I do not recall even mentioning Obama or Holder. Have you been drinking?
 
Actually, there are countless examples of systemic anti-white racism in the media, as well as in employment and education. The anti-white racism in the media is most readily observable in the news media's reporting of certain crimes, the death of Trayvon Martin being the most recent. The Christian-Newsom murders are another example, as was the Duke Lacrosse Fiasco. Of course, the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies results in thousands of instances where more qualified whites are deliberately passed over for admissions, employment, and promotions in the name of ensuring racial diversity of opportunity. Thus, while it can certainly be argued that minorities are often the viectims of institutionalized racism, it cannot be argued that whites are not also such victims.
There is such a thing as Race (as both Wake and You state and we all know on some level), but is Un-PC to say so. Its also less technically correct than using "indigenous peoples".

If you send your blood in to the NatGeo Genographic project, they will give you what percent you are of each (11) "indigenous people". (Be it subsaharan africa, Ausralian Aboriginal, etc). Races.

What the always strident and Wrong Cmaikoz is citing is 'Social science'/PC Opinion, Not science.
And since he's been refuted, he's not just wrong, he's Lying.

ie, in the first string on this in the science section on this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...age-iq-largely-genetic-66.html#post1060508598

Yet maikoz repeats the lies he likes. His personal racialist politics.
Be it economics or genetics, this guy is always wrong, and ironically, dismissive of those who Crush him.
In fact once you do Crush him badly enough, he will [have to] put you on 'ignore'.
(unless he thinks he's got you on something, then he'll respond. How straight is that?)

But even withing the context of the 'old' 3 races, there is Plenty of meat on the bone. In fact IN The bones.
.
NOVA | Does Race Exist?
Those two being C Loring Brace, "an Antagonists persepective"
[..........] and
George W. Gill, a Proponents Perspective".
The latter:
Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically Valid and Real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."

... Partly this is because for more than a decade now U.S. national and regional forensic anthropology organizations have deemed it necessary to quantitatively test both traditional and new methods for accuracy in legal cases. I volunteered for this task of testing methods and developing new methods in the late 1980s. What have I found? Where do I now stand in the "great race debate?" Can I see truth on one side or the other—or on both sides—in this argument?
Bones don't lie
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a High Degree of Accuracy in determining geographic Racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon justone of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations. ... My students ask, "How can this be? They can identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in race!"...

"The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."

[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me
Seeing both sides
Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. Yet I do see why many other physical anthropologists are able to ignore or deny the race concept.... Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc....."

On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"

Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?..."
 
Last edited:
Well, in fairness... We're #1!!

American ingenuity and all that.

segregation-drinking-fountain.jpg


018yellowface_head.jpg


sambosfull2.jpg


Go America!!

See that, whites were forced to drink from a different water fountain.
 
See that, whites were forced to drink from a different water fountain.

Yeah, its almost as bad as being called a kraut during the 70s even though Germans were responsible for the mass murder of millions. The horror. I weep for the children and grandchildren of Germans who have to live with the anguish of being called names. You hear that guys? White people were the ones forced to drink out of a different water fountain.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom