Race vs. Culture

[Nap]

Not cooking chicken properly is the danger, not eating raw chicken. The point is that you consider human meat to be inferior because it might carry disease. Yet if you eat chicken then that is a risk already taken. You do not have an objective objection to eating human meat on that basis, just a cultural subjective one.

Can you cook out the potential that human meat carries disease as you can with chicken? I'm not one to care about subjective cultural limitations especially when it comes to food. If it tastes good and won't make me sick then I will eat the meat of any animal whether it be horses, dogs, cats, and yes it wouldn't bother me in the least to eat a human if there were no consequences for doing so or in a situation that my survival depended on it.

 

[bluesmoke]

First of all liberals will tell you there is no such thing as race.

Race is not an inherent physical or biological quality. Biologically, and in socio-cultural anthropology, there is no such thing as race. Anthropologists have largely disagreed, from the time of first grouping of humans based on shared physical qualities into different “races” (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid), that there is any such differentiation. In other words, the only race in human kind is the human race as the one species, homo sapiens. We use the term “race” as a more common way of identifying people based on mostly color. What race is Obama? He is as much the 44th white president as he is the first black president.

Many people consider Hispanics, for example Mexicans, as a race when they are simply an ethnicity, because they are “brown”. So, there is such a biological thing as race, being the human race, but no biological differentiation of human race. However, there is a common categorization of race that is used for census purposes, including ethnicity as separate from race, and primarily for identification for purposes for a plethora of studies of how different people are treated from each other.

 

[bluesmoke]

I often hear the argument of "You're criticizing their beliefs/traditions/ways of doing thing, therefore you are racist." But culture and race are entirely two different things, are they not? Races should be considered equal, whether you believe in a God that created us all or evolution that gave each race advantages and disadvantages. Cultures can be superior or inferior depending on our common definitions of what is good or bad. For example, cannibalism would be considered cultural, since it has existed across numerous different societies and continents, regardless of race. Most of us would rightly label it as an inferior mode of existence but it wouldn't be racist to believe that. But to claim that Pygmies are subhuman because they are Pygmies would be racism, plain and simple. Is this conflation common in anyone else's experience?

That cannibalism is “bad” does not make the culture of same “inferior”. For you to say so is bias and arguably racist. Maybe that culture does not abide any death penalty nor criminalize so many normal activities, such as drug use, and imprison so many people as does the US. One can easily argue that the US criminal system is “bad”, but that does not make our culture “inferior”.

The example upon which you base your post is faulty.

 

[soylentgreen]

Can you cook out the potential that human meat carries disease as you can with chicken? I'm not one to care about subjective cultural limitations especially when it comes to food. If it tastes good and won't make me sick then I will eat the meat of any animal whether it be horses, dogs, cats, and yes it wouldn't bother me in the least to eat a human if there were no consequences for doing so or in a situation that my survival depended on it.

Of course you can, no disease can survive cooking the food properly. How do you think you manage to eat chicken without catching the diseases they have?
Then good, we are agreed that meat is but meat. There is no objective inferiority here.

 

[Nap]

Of course you can, no disease can survive cooking the food properly. How do you think you manage to eat chicken without catching the diseases they have?
Then good, we are agreed that meat is but meat. There is no objective inferiority here.

As I said, I was always under the widely held assumption that there are negative consequences to eating the flesh of similar species, if that is untrue then yes there would be no objective inferiority. This however is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[NoMereRanger]

That cannibalism is “bad” does not make the culture of same “inferior”. For you to say so is bias and arguably racist. Maybe that culture does not abide any death penalty nor criminalize so many normal activities, such as drug use, and imprison so many people as does the US. One can easily argue that the US criminal system is “bad”, but that does not make our culture “inferior”.

The example upon which you base your post is faulty.

Except that we've determined that cannibalism has nothing to do with race, so even if I was "wrong" to criticize it, it would have nothing to do with race.

But yes, I can argue that, because my current culture is one of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful on the planet, and there are literally no cannibalistic cultures that have even come close to this level of success.

 

[HighRakebackPok]

I often hear the argument of "You're criticizing their beliefs/traditions/ways of doing thing, therefore you are racist." But culture and race are entirely two different things, are they not? Races should be considered equal, whether you believe in a God that created us all or evolution that gave each race advantages and disadvantages. Cultures can be superior or inferior depending on our common definitions of what is good or bad. For example, cannibalism would be considered cultural, since it has existed across numerous different societies and continents, regardless of race. Most of us would rightly label it as an inferior mode of existence but it wouldn't be racist to believe that. But to claim that Pygmies are subhuman because they are Pygmies would be racism, plain and simple. Is this conflation common in anyone else's experience?

The truth is that differences divides people.
And there is big diffs among races and cultures and thus diversity will lead to conflict and its a joke when people say diversity is great.
Yeh its great if you are not white and get to come to a white country but for whites not an upgrade.

 

[southwest88]

The great mandala

The truth is that differences divides people.
And there is big diffs among races and cultures and thus diversity will lead to conflict and its a joke when people say diversity is great.
Yeh its great if you are not white and get to come to a white country but for whites not an upgrade.

Yah, as if it were carved in stone somewhere that Caucasian culture/nations were always on top of the World social order, are now, & always will be, World without end. That's not true, of course. Germany & Italy, just as two examples, were very late to becoming nations in the modern sense of the word - see Spain, for instance. The World has seen empires come & go - Phoenician, the Sea Peoples, Carthage, the Etruscans, the Greek Empire, Roman Republic & Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, Persians, Islam, Ottoman, the British Empire, China ancient & Modern, the Imperial Japan, & that's just a partial list. That's not even counting the Native Peoples' empires in the Americas, in Africa, in S. Asia, the archipelagos of SE Asia.

No one is guaranteed a place @ the table. Europe industrialized first, & that piled up a lot of advantages for European nations & their citizens. Since then, history has rolled on, & two world wars have come & gone. Whether Europe can maintain its lead is one question, whether Western Civilization can retain its will to power (for lack of a better term - maybe its self-assuredness?) - is another. A lot of history seems to be contingent.

 

[NoMereRanger]

The truth is that differences divides people.
And there is big diffs among races and cultures and thus diversity will lead to conflict and its a joke when people say diversity is great.
Yeh its great if you are not white and get to come to a white country but for whites not an upgrade.

Anything can lead to conflict. However diversity is what gives rise to cultures and countries. No single individual builds anything worthwhile on his own, it requires a variety of strengths from a variety of sources. Whether it's a small town or an empire, we gain advantages by trading and contributing what we have.

And boiling all of history down to "White/Not White" doesn't take into account the innumerable nuances and factors that have made up human existence. History is far too complex and far reaching to be seen in simply black and white(so to speak).

 

[Nickyjo]

First of all liberals will tell you there is no such thing as race.

We will? Why did we pass those laws outlawing race discrimination?

 

[bluesmoke]

Except that we've determined that cannibalism has nothing to do with race, so even if I was "wrong" to criticize it, it would have nothing to do with race.

But yes, I can argue that, because my current culture is one of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful on the planet, and there are literally no cannibalistic cultures that have even come close to this level of success.

“Except that we've determined that cannibalism has nothing to do with race, so even if I was "wrong" to criticize it, it would have nothing to do with race.”
Yes. You just settled the argument of racist as not being racist. However, you still wrongly conflate “bad” with “inferior.

“But yes, I can argue that, because my current culture is one of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful on the planet, and there are literally no cannibalistic cultures that have even come close to this level of success.”

“One of”? But not “the”? So, if another culture is “larger”, “wealthier” and more “powerful” then that culture is more successful? Really? That’s YOUR criteria? Roman culture was “successful” for hundreds of years more than American and many other cultures. Chinese culture the same. The way it looks now, China is coming around again. Certainly “larger” and “wealthier”. “Most powerful” will take, probably, much longer.

 

[NoMereRanger]

“Except that we've determined that cannibalism has nothing to do with race, so even if I was "wrong" to criticize it, it would have nothing to do with race.”
Yes. You just settled the argument of racist as not being racist. However, you still wrongly conflate “bad” with “inferior.

“But yes, I can argue that, because my current culture is one of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful on the planet, and there are literally no cannibalistic cultures that have even come close to this level of success.”

“One of”? But not “the”? So, if another culture is “larger”, “wealthier” and more “powerful” then that culture is more successful? Really? That’s YOUR criteria? Roman culture was “successful” for hundreds of years more than American and many other cultures. Chinese culture the same. The way it looks now, China is coming around again. Certainly “larger” and “wealthier”. “Most powerful” will take, probably, much longer.

I said that criticizing a culture is not the same as criticizing a race. I can use "bad" and "inferior" interchangeably here since I am talking about what makes a society or culture most successful. Why, which cannibalistic societies have flourished into the modern day?

And, uh, yeah...that's exactly what "successful" means in the context of society LOL The aim of a society is to have a secure, powerful presence that allows for the livelihood of a large population. Exactly, Roman culture was extremely successful because it relied on multiple qualities that are conducive to that end. Strong family units, a system of laws and government, a well-funded military maned by well-trained soldiers, etc....kinda like Western civilization today! Sure, China is coming around cuz they dropped a lot of their communist bullsh*t and adapted a more free market, capitalistic model, which, incidentally, is another quality that is found in all "successful" societies.

 

[bluesmoke]

I said that criticizing a culture is not the same as criticizing a race. I can use "bad" and "inferior" interchangeably here since I am talking about what makes a society or culture most successful. Why, which cannibalistic societies have flourished into the modern day?

And, uh, yeah...that's exactly what "successful" means in the context of society LOL The aim of a society is to have a secure, powerful presence that allows for the livelihood of a large population. Exactly, Roman culture was extremely successful because it relied on multiple qualities that are conducive to that end. Strong family units, a system of laws and government, a well-funded military maned by well-trained soldiers, etc....kinda like Western civilization today! Sure, China is coming around cuz they dropped a lot of their communist bullsh*t and adapted a more free market, capitalistic model, which, incidentally, is another quality that is found in all "successful" societies.

“I said that criticizing a culture is not the same as criticizing a race.”

I know what you said. I also know what many people say. They criticize the two as one, conflating race with culture. As with “black”, or “African-American” or “Black-American” culture. Or confusing ethnicity with race and also conflating that with culture as with “Hispanic-American” or “Latino-American” culture. I have read many posts that criticize black culture that is not anchored by the two-parent family, which is a back-door way of criticizing the black “race”. Socio-cultural anthropology focuses on culture, not race. “Race” is practically ignored.

“I can use "bad" and "inferior" interchangeably here since I am talking about what makes a society or culture most successful.”

When discussing culture you can’t use “bad” and “inferior” interchangeably anymore than you can use “society” and “culture” interchangeably, which you wrongly state as being what you are talking about because you stated “culture”, not “society”, as being the point of discussion in your OP. They are two different things. There is no “bad” or “inferior” culture that can be measurably demonstrated as such. In one culture, it may be considered “bad” to look people directly in the eyes when first greeting. But, does that make the greeter “bad” or their or the other's culture “inferior”? Remember, your criteria for a most successful culture was to be “larger”, “wealthier” and more “powerful”. Well, China is larger, even the US accounting companies estimate China will be wealthier by 2030, but I think it will take longer to be more “powerful”. By your definition, they will be the most successful culture by 2030(2 out of 3 of your defining characteristics of success). The US will be #3 by before 2050, with India #2. But, that’s by YOUR measure.

“Why, which cannibalistic societies have flourished into the modern day?”

First of all, I’m not arguing this point. It has no bearing on what I’m saying. First before that, cannibalism is cultural, not of the greater societal context. You, as shown before and repeated here, don’t know the difference.


“And, uh, yeah...that's exactly what "successful" means in the context of society LOL The aim of a society is to have a secure, powerful presence that allows for the livelihood of a large population. Exactly, Roman culture was extremely successful because it relied on multiple qualities that are conducive to that end. Strong family units, a system of laws and government, a well-funded military maned by well-trained soldiers, etc....kinda like Western civilization today! Sure, China is coming around cuz they dropped a lot of their communist bullsh*t and adapted a more free market, capitalistic model, which, incidentally, is another quality that is found in all "successful" societies.”

You’ve changed the subject of your own OP entirely from “culture” to “society”. You’ve hijacked your own OP. You can’t even stick with your own story. Stay on topic. You know, your topic.

 

[NoMereRanger]

“I said that criticizing a culture is not the same as criticizing a race.”

I know what you said. I also know what many people say. They criticize the two as one, conflating race with culture. As with “black”, or “African-American” or “Black-American” culture. Or confusing ethnicity with race and also conflating that with culture as with “Hispanic-American” or “Latino-American” culture. I have read many posts that criticize black culture that is not anchored by the two-parent family, which is a back-door way of criticizing the black “race”. Socio-cultural anthropology focuses on culture, not race. “Race” is practically ignored.

“I can use "bad" and "inferior" interchangeably here since I am talking about what makes a society or culture most successful.”

When discussing culture you can’t use “bad” and “inferior” interchangeably anymore than you can use “society” and “culture” interchangeably, which you wrongly state as being what you are talking about because you stated “culture”, not “society”, as being the point of discussion in your OP. They are two different things. There is no “bad” or “inferior” culture that can be measurably demonstrated as such. In one culture, it may be considered “bad” to look people directly in the eyes when first greeting. But, does that make the greeter “bad” or their or the other's culture “inferior”? Remember, your criteria for a most successful culture was to be “larger”, “wealthier” and more “powerful”. Well, China is larger, even the US accounting companies estimate China will be wealthier by 2030, but I think it will take longer to be more “powerful”. By your definition, they will be the most successful culture by 2030(2 out of 3 of your defining characteristics of success). The US will be #3 by before 2050, with India #2. But, that’s by YOUR measure.

“Why, which cannibalistic societies have flourished into the modern day?”

First of all, I’m not arguing this point. It has no bearing on what I’m saying. First before that, cannibalism is cultural, not of the greater societal context. You, as shown before and repeated here, don’t know the difference.


“And, uh, yeah...that's exactly what "successful" means in the context of society LOL The aim of a society is to have a secure, powerful presence that allows for the livelihood of a large population. Exactly, Roman culture was extremely successful because it relied on multiple qualities that are conducive to that end. Strong family units, a system of laws and government, a well-funded military maned by well-trained soldiers, etc....kinda like Western civilization today! Sure, China is coming around cuz they dropped a lot of their communist bullsh*t and adapted a more free market, capitalistic model, which, incidentally, is another quality that is found in all "successful" societies.”

You’ve changed the subject of your own OP entirely from “culture” to “society”. You’ve hijacked your own OP. You can’t even stick with your own story. Stay on topic. You know, your topic.

Culture and society are inextricably linked. The success of a society directly hinges on what sort of culture is developed and what standards they adopt. So for example, cannibalism is cultural, but societies have been built on that culture. It has been the way of life for them. Trying to define a society that practices cannibalism without mentioning their actual culture of cannibalism would be next to impossible. So I can criticize a society for being weak due to its culture but I couldn't criticize it due to its race. So to further my point about "bad" or "inferior" culture, I would say that whatever culture is detrimental to the society within which it is practiced is a "bad" or "inferior" culture. Cultures should strengthen, not weaken, a society(or at least be neutral, like looking someone in the eye). We should be able to reference culture in regards to society and vice versa without becoming too confused. My original point of "Race is different from culture" still stands in tact. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/culture-and-society-defined

 

[bluesmoke]

Culture and society are inextricably linked. The success of a society directly hinges on what sort of culture is developed and what standards they adopt. So for example, cannibalism is cultural, but societies have been built on that culture. It has been the way of life for them. Trying to define a society that practices cannibalism without mentioning their actual culture of cannibalism would be next to impossible. So I can criticize a society for being weak due to its culture but I couldn't criticize it due to its race. So to further my point about "bad" or "inferior" culture, I would say that whatever culture is detrimental to the society within which it is practiced is a "bad" or "inferior" culture. Cultures should strengthen, not weaken, a society(or at least be neutral, like looking someone in the eye). We should be able to reference culture in regards to society and vice versa without becoming too confused. My original point of "Race is different from culture" still stands in tact. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/culture-and-society-defined

“Culture and society are inextricably linked.”

Yes. Neither of us has said otherwise. Being different does not mean the two are not linked.

“The success of a society directly hinges on what sort of culture is developed and what standards they adopt.”

Culture is but one factor that contributes to the success or failure of society. Among others are economical, environmental and social.

“So for example, cannibalism is cultural, but societies have been built on that culture. It has been the way of life for them. Trying to define a society that practices cannibalism without mentioning their actual culture of cannibalism would be next to impossible."

What is your hang-up with cannibalism? You keep pushing that one thing as though it proves your point. What of the cultures of the “barbarians” that brought down Roman culture/society, as you might put it? By your definition, they were the more successful “culture”. But, you continue to debate by avoiding to address that point. You ignore the point that China, by your definition, will soon be a more successful culture than America (by your definition). Let alone the fact that it was the most successful culture in the world, by your definition, for hundreds of years, at a time when “Western Culture” thought of the East as “barbarians”. You, though, have no comment on that point. The Mongols decimated the populations of China, Russia, the Middle East, and Islamic Central Asia. Mongol leaders destroyed many cities, slaughtered thousands of people and did irreparable damage to the wonders of the ancient irrigation systems of Mesopotamia. Those invasions transformed civil society to a nomadic one. Was their culture “superior”?

“My original point of "Race is different from culture" still stands in tact.”

I’ve never disagreed with your point. I’ve only pointed-out that “race”, as commonly used by many is both a misnomer and misapplied. What race is Barack Obama? He is as much the 44th white president as he is the 1st black president.

 

[NoMereRanger]

“Culture and society are inextricably linked.”

Yes. Neither of us has said otherwise. Being different does not mean the two are not linked.

“The success of a society directly hinges on what sort of culture is developed and what standards they adopt.”

Culture is but one factor that contributes to the success or failure of society. Among others are economical, environmental and social.

“So for example, cannibalism is cultural, but societies have been built on that culture. It has been the way of life for them. Trying to define a society that practices cannibalism without mentioning their actual culture of cannibalism would be next to impossible."

What is your hang-up with cannibalism? You keep pushing that one thing as though it proves your point. What of the cultures of the “barbarians” that brought down Roman culture/society, as you might put it? By your definition, they were the more successful “culture”. But, you continue to debate by avoiding to address that point. You ignore the point that China, by your definition, will soon be a more successful culture than America (by your definition). Let alone the fact that it was the most successful culture in the world, by your definition, for hundreds of years, at a time when “Western Culture” thought of the East as “barbarians”. You, though, have no comment on that point. The Mongols decimated the populations of China, Russia, the Middle East, and Islamic Central Asia. Mongol leaders destroyed many cities, slaughtered thousands of people and did irreparable damage to the wonders of the ancient irrigation systems of Mesopotamia. Those invasions transformed civil society to a nomadic one. Was their culture “superior”?

“My original point of "Race is different from culture" still stands in tact.”

I’ve never disagreed with your point. I’ve only pointed-out that “race”, as commonly used by many is both a misnomer and misapplied. What race is Barack Obama? He is as much the 44th white president as he is the 1st black president.

And I never said they weren't different, I just refered to both when making my points because they are so closely linked. I wasn't aware I couldn't do that.

Yes but it's the one I wanted to talk about because it's so important. I never said it was the only one.

No it's just the example we've been consistently using. At this point though I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. Yes, multiple societies have risen and fallen over the years, I'm not disputing that. By my rekoning, Rome, China, the Mongols, etc could all be considered successful textbook societies because they took large amounts of land for themselves, built and developed new technologies and were secure from a military standpoint for a substantial amount of time. Their cultures all contributed to these successes. I don't think any one culture is 100% perfect but I think some have more condusive qualities than others. So the Mongols definitely had barbaric practices but they also developed a culture of military discipline which lead to their overwhelming success. Now were they an "ethical" or "moral" society because of it? Probably not, but they were effective, which is what I'm asking.

And Obama's diehard supporters would claim he was the first black president of the US and it was a great step forward for equality while simultaneously telling me there's no such thing as race, so I guess anything is possible.

 

[bluesmoke]

And I never said they weren't different, I just refered to both when making my points because they are so closely linked. I wasn't aware I couldn't do that.

Yes but it's the one I wanted to talk about because it's so important. I never said it was the only one.

No it's just the example we've been consistently using. At this point though I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue. Yes, multiple societies have risen and fallen over the years, I'm not disputing that. By my rekoning, Rome, China, the Mongols, etc could all be considered successful textbook societies because they took large amounts of land for themselves, built and developed new technologies and were secure from a military standpoint for a substantial amount of time. Their cultures all contributed to these successes. I don't think any one culture is 100% perfect but I think some have more condusive qualities than others. So the Mongols definitely had barbaric practices but they also developed a culture of military discipline which lead to their overwhelming success. Now were they an "ethical" or "moral" society because of it? Probably not, but they were effective, which is what I'm asking.

And Obama's diehard supporters would claim he was the first black president of the US and it was a great step forward for equality while simultaneously telling me there's no such thing as race, so I guess anything is possible.

You can do what you want and still miss move the target of your own topic. You originally said nothing of “society”. You only mentioned “culture” and “race” in your OP, to which subject I replied, not “society”. Culture, though, as I mentioned, is only a part of what makes up society. In fact, culture is less a factor in societal failure than the other factors of economic, environmental and social. If you’re going to go from a specific discussion of culture to the much broader subject of society, which has many more factors to it, you missed more contributory factors than you addressed than the one of culture. You expanded your topic. Your OP was about culture, race and conflation of the two.

Though cannibalism has been practiced since there have been humans, it’s a very tiny factor to be making a point of. Even if the Aztecs, who were a successful society for hundreds of years before the Spanish Invasion, practiced cannibalism, there is the argument as to whether it was a practice of religion (culture) or environmental (lack of protein in the diet).

 

[Wan]

Re: Monoculture v. mongrels

Your opinion of cannibalism or extremist Muslim societies is still your opinion. Subjective. It may be widely shared, but it's still subjective.

So what that it's subjective? Morality (and by extension, moral judgments) does not need to be universally accepted nor objective in order to have value.

No, it is geneticists who will tell you that there is no such thing as 'race'. Its non-existence is not a matter of political opinion but of scientific fact.

Of course there is no scientific evidence for "race". Race is a concept. Just like how rights (right to life, right to bear arms etc) are a concept. Science cannot prove the existence of rights either but that does not mean we don't have rights.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Monoculture v. mongrels

So what that it's subjective? Morality (and by extension, moral judgments) does not need to be universally accepted nor objective in order to have value.

Never wrote that.

 

[Sweden]

Re: Monoculture v. mongrels

So what that it's subjective? Morality (and by extension, moral judgments) does not need to be universally accepted nor objective in order to have value.



Of course there is no scientific evidence for "race". Race is a concept. Just like how rights (right to life, right to bear arms etc) are a concept. Science cannot prove the existence of rights either but that does not mean we don't have rights.

That's right, race is merely a concept. The problem is that all too many imagine that it has some objective reality.

 

[NoMereRanger]

You can do what you want and still miss move the target of your own topic. You originally said nothing of “society”. You only mentioned “culture” and “race” in your OP, to which subject I replied, not “society”. Culture, though, as I mentioned, is only a part of what makes up society. In fact, culture is less a factor in societal failure than the other factors of economic, environmental and social. If you’re going to go from a specific discussion of culture to the much broader subject of society, which has many more factors to it, you missed more contributory factors than you addressed than the one of culture. You expanded your topic. Your OP was about culture, race and conflation of the two.

Though cannibalism has been practiced since there have been humans, it’s a very tiny factor to be making a point of. Even if the Aztecs, who were a successful society for hundreds of years before the Spanish Invasion, practiced cannibalism, there is the argument as to whether it was a practice of religion (culture) or environmental (lack of protein in the diet).

You got me, I have talked about more than just race and culture on this thread. I humbly submit myself to the Conversation Gods for judgement. Next time I will take care to only say the words that I said in my OP. Now that that's out of the way, what is your viewpoint in regards to the OP? I assume it must be pretty contrary.

I wasn't aware that the Aztecs practiced cannibalism in any significant amount, I believed that the consensus was that they were more the human sacrifice type.

 

[bluesmoke]

You got me, I have talked about more than just race and culture on this thread. I humbly submit myself to the Conversation Gods for judgement. Next time I will take care to only say the words that I said in my OP. Now that that's out of the way, what is your viewpoint in regards to the OP? I assume it must be pretty contrary.

I wasn't aware that the Aztecs practiced cannibalism in any significant amount, I believed that the consensus was that they were more the human sacrifice type.

“what is your viewpoint in regards to the OP?”

OK…

“I often hear the argument of ‘You're criticizing their beliefs/traditions/ways of doing thing, therefore you are racist.’ But culture and race are entirely two different things, are they not?”

Yes, race and culture are entirely two different things. Also, yes that criticizing cultural characteristics does not make one a racist. However, people do use criticizing what they call cultural characteristics, wrongly, as a way of criticizing a “race” they thereby show a bias against.

“Races should be considered equal, whether you believe in a God that created us all or evolution that gave each race advantages and disadvantages.”

Yup.

“Cultures can be superior or inferior depending on our common definitions of what is good or bad.”

Each culture is what it is because that is how they want to be. So, whatever each group’s cultural characteristics are would be “good” by that group’s definition. If it wasn’t good, they’d change. Their preferred culture could perhaps have them think their culture is “superior”. There is no socio-cultural anthropological definition of what makes a culture “superior” or “inferior”, though “values” get banged around a lot.

“for example, cannibalism would be considered cultural, since it has existed across numerous different societies and continents, regardless of race.”

Yup. “Numerous” as it was widespread in ancient cultures.

“Most of us would rightly label it as an inferior mode of existence but it wouldn't be racist to believe that. But to claim that Pygmies are subhuman because they are Pygmies would be racism, plain and simple. Is this conflation common in anyone else's experience?”

Not “subhuman” as a COMMON conflation. “Inferior” close to common, but that includes conflating race with skin color. Hispanics, Latinos, Middle Easterners and North Africans are considered “white”.

As far as the Aztecs and cannibalism being more than ritual, there is argument that the elite practiced cannibalism as a source of protein.

 

[Barrythomas2018]

I often hear the argument of "You're criticizing their beliefs/traditions/ways of doing thing, therefore you are racist." But culture and race are entirely two different things, are they not? Races should be considered equal, whether you believe in a God that created us all or evolution that gave each race advantages and disadvantages. Cultures can be superior or inferior depending on our common definitions of what is good or bad. For example, cannibalism would be considered cultural, since it has existed across numerous different societies and continents, regardless of race. Most of us would rightly label it as an inferior mode of existence but it wouldn't be racist to believe that. But to claim that Pygmies are subhuman because they are Pygmies would be racism, plain and simple. Is this conflation common in anyone else's experience?

Yes races should have equal rights but to act like all races are the same is very dishonest.
I mean cmon look at the world. Not all races are the same in all areas on average thats for dang sure.

 

[bluesmoke]

Yes races should have equal rights but to act like all races are the same is very dishonest.
I mean cmon look at the world. Not all races are the same in all areas on average thats for dang sure.

“but to act like all races are the same is very dishonest. I mean cmon look at the world. Not all races are the same in all areas on average thats for dang sure.”

Are you trying to be funny, or trolling, or are you really so ignorant? "Dishonest"? Really?

For your edification, in 1950 the United Nations issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists. Even when anthropologist categorized “races” as Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid, most anthropologists of the day dissented.

For a number of recent years, a segment of our society that tends to be Trump supporters have sunk to the notion otherwise. Mainly, to avoid being called racist, they insist that the Black-American culture, having so few two-parent “families” (the definition of family is the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children) is the reason why blacks have lower income, housing, education, etc., not racism against blacks.

What hogwash.