Biology hierarchy set by CNN, racial separation upheld

Story:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney...s-is-america-womens-edition-ekr-org-vstan.cnn

Some youtube star, a white woman, essentially does a Weird Al Yankovic on Childish Gambino's "This is America" video.

The bias: The black man's story is sacred and not to be compared with any other biological identity. It takes precedence over the plight of white women.

The message: Black men have a genetic biology distinctly separate from others, which entitles them to a completely separate world of experiences and allowances. In this case, a non-member of the black race (in this case, she happens to be the the most 'non-member' one can get according to political correctness) does a parody on the video and tells the story of her genetics. The fact that she is a woman pales in comparison to the fact that she is white. Race first here, sex comes a distant second.

Another message here, with the outrage, is that the black experience, and by extension blacks, are not compatible with the white woman experience, and by extension whites. What a wonderful social concept, correct? What a wonderful message CNN is giving us.

Question for everyone here with this article. Does this article from CNN show commonality between blacks and whites, or does it draw a sharp distinction?

Another question: Does StormFront show commonality between whites and blacks, or does it draw a sharp distinction?

No. You've built a straw man. Black men have a cultural experience distinctly separate from others. You're the only one here purporting a biological, rather than social, basis for racial experiences.

spud_meister said:

No. You've built a straw man. Black men have a cultural experience distinctly separate from others. You're the only one here purporting a biological, rather than social, basis for racial experiences.

Click to expand...

Race is biological, cultural racial experiences are based on the perceived difference in biology. We simply associate a certain culture/experience with biology, Rachel Dolezal is a prime example. She tried to "appropriate" a culture, but lacked the genetic qualifications. Her "white" culture is immiscible with "black" culture, and society chastised her for it.

Likewise, Arbour's genetically defined "white female" culture is also immiscible with others who are not of her race or sex. Not only that, but her genetically defined culture is considered less significant (deserving of less pity) than that of black culture, and she was chastised.

Rickeroo said:

Race is biological, cultural racial experiences are based on the perceived difference in biology. We simply associate a certain culture/experience with biology, Rachel Dolezal is a prime example. She tried to "appropriate" a culture, but lacked the genetic qualifications. Her "white" culture is immiscible with "black" culture, and society chastised her for it.

Likewise, Arbour's genetically defined "white female" culture is also immiscible with others who are not of her race or sex. Not only that, but her genetically defined culture is considered less significant (deserving of less pity) than that of black culture, and she was chastised.

Click to expand...

Race is not biological, a person of Hausa descent and a person of Zulu descent are treated as the same race in the US despite being genetically distinct. Race is defined by perception of a limited range of culturally interpreted phenotypic features. Rachel Dolezal lacked the cultural experience to identify with black culture. Arbour was imposing a white cultural viewpoint on an expression of black culture, which is problematic due to historical conflict between the dominant white culture and minority black culture in the US.

Again, nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with culture framed against the history of racial discrimination in the US.

spud_meister said:

Race is not biological, a person of Hausa descent and a person of Zulu descent are treated as the same race in the US despite being genetically distinct. Race is defined by perception of a limited range of culturally interpreted phenotypic features. Rachel Dolezal lacked the cultural experience to identify with black culture. Arbour was imposing a white cultural viewpoint on an expression of black culture, which is problematic due to historical conflict between the dominant white culture and minority black culture in the US.

Again, nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with culture framed against the history of racial discrimination in the US.

Click to expand...

I think he problem was mostly that she tried to copy what is an original and unique work, like a week after it came out, using what was originally a male viewpoint, and nothing to add or make her stand out. Collectively, you could hear every black person 60 or over going 'black folks can't have nothin to themselves'.

Rickeroo said:

Race is biological, cultural racial experiences are based on the perceived difference in biology. We simply associate a certain culture/experience with biology, Rachel Dolezal is a prime example. She tried to "appropriate" a culture, but lacked the genetic qualifications. Her "white" culture is immiscible with "black" culture, and society chastised her for it.

Likewise, Arbour's genetically defined "white female" culture is also immiscible with others who are not of her race or sex. Not only that, but her genetically defined culture is considered less significant (deserving of less pity) than that of black culture, and she was chastised.

Click to expand...

I think you are making a good point; 'black' acvtivists often emphasize that false concept 'race'. The supposition that there are distinct 'races' belongs to the 19th century. Since then it has continually been shot full of holes culminating in the discovery of DNA. The idea that people with a certain skin tone are members of a 'race' is profoundly unscientific. The American black/white mess is, imo, almost entirely cultural.

spud_meister said:

Race is not biological, a person of Hausa descent and a person of Zulu descent are treated as the same race in the US despite being genetically distinct. Race is defined by perception of a limited range of culturally interpreted phenotypic features. Rachel Dolezal lacked the cultural experience to identify with black culture. Arbour was imposing a white cultural viewpoint on an expression of black culture, which is problematic due to historical conflict between the dominant white culture and minority black culture in the US.

Again, nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with culture framed against the history of racial discrimination in the US.

Click to expand...

One can go further. Within both Hausa and Zulu populations there will be great genetic variations. A multitude of gene pools whose members may share some biological characteristics, though all of theses pools overlap with others of course. RACE is bunkum and the idea that individuals should be placed in one belongs to one should now find its rightful place in the trashcan.

Everyone should be racially aware. I suggest reading My Awakening: A Path To Racial Understanding by former Louisiana House Representative David Duke. In fact, it should be required reading in every school.

Sam_Troy said:

Everyone should be racially aware. I suggest reading My Awakening: A Path To Racial Understanding by former Louisiana House Representative David Duke. In fact, it should be required reading in every school.

Click to expand...

I disagree with understanding one's own race or as to how that relates to other races. When race is inflated or even taken into account, it takes esteem away from an individual in favor of the collective. I am against collectivism, therefore I am against racial recognition as an integral part of society.

Sweden said:

One can go further. Within both Hausa and Zulu populations there will be great genetic variations. A multitude of gene pools whose members may share some biological characteristics, though all of theses pools overlap with others of course. RACE is bunkum and the idea that individuals should be placed in one belongs to one should now find its rightful place in the trashcan.

Click to expand...

You appear to be advocating for race neutrality, where race (or the perception of it) is as innocuous socially as left or right handedness. On this I agree.

Rickeroo said:

I disagree with understanding one's own race or as to how that relates to other races. When race is inflated or even taken into account, it takes esteem away from an individual in favor of the collective. I am against collectivism, therefore I am against racial recognition as an integral part of society.

Click to expand...

You should always be racially aware. It could be a matter of life or death!

spud_meister said:

Race is not biological, a person of Hausa descent and a person of Zulu descent are treated as the same race in the US despite being genetically distinct. Race is defined by perception of a limited range of culturally interpreted phenotypic features. Rachel Dolezal lacked the cultural experience to identify with black culture. Arbour was imposing a white cultural viewpoint on an expression of black culture, which is problematic due to historical conflict between the dominant white culture and minority black culture in the US.

Again, nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with culture framed against the history of racial discrimination in the US.

Click to expand...

Race card anyone, it’s coming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rickeroo said:

You appear to be advocating for race neutrality, where race (or the perception of it) is as innocuous socially as left or right handedness. On this I agree.

Click to expand...

Not really. Left or right handedness actually exists, while 'race' does not. 'Race' is an artificial construct with no scientific support whatsoever. People with different skin tones are not members of separate 'races' so neutrality is not required.

Sweden said:

Not really. Left or right handedness actually exists, while 'race' does not. 'Race' is an artificial construct with no scientific support whatsoever. People with different skin tones are not members of separate 'races' so neutrality is not required.

Click to expand...

I can understand what you are saying. Essentially, while the epicanthic fold typically associated with Asians is genetic, the fact that we assign that specific genetic difference to a "race" is a social construct.

However, the social assignment of certain genetic characteristics to particular races is quite ingrained. Racists and non-racists refer to particular races constantly. Not a day goes by where racial differences are not screamed from the press in one way or another, which I like to point out with CNN.

I take it then that you would be in favor of eliminating race from the census, and banishing the mentioning of what people call "race" in the press?

One is born into whatever race or races their parents gave them through the act if sex.
We have to taught to Hate.

Rickeroo said:

I can understand what you are saying. Essentially, while the epicanthic fold typically associated with Asians is genetic, the fact that we assign that specific genetic difference to a "race" is a social construct.

However, the social assignment of certain genetic characteristics to particular races is quite ingrained. Racists and non-racists refer to particular races constantly. Not a day goes by where racial differences are not screamed from the press in one way or another, which I like to point out with CNN.

I take it then that you would be in favor of eliminating race from the census, and banishing the mentioning of what people call "race" in the press?

Click to expand...

The word 'race' seems to be common in the US. In the UK it is almost always replaced be 'ethnicity' which is a small step in the right direction. I am not generally in favour of banning or bannishing; What is needed is better genetic education, particularly for pols and officials. It would be nice if hacks learned a little biology but they are mostly hopeless cases.

Asians come from everywhere from Jordan to Japan. They (nearly all) share one genetic trait: black hair. But that does make them a race.

Casper said:

One is born into whatever race or races their parents gave them through the act if sex.
We have to taught to Hate.

Click to expand...

No. No one is a member of a 'race'. Every human genome is unique , a one off. It may probably , but NOT certainly, share some characteristics with its native gene pool but that's it.