CNNSI MNF Article-----Race

[Psycho Ward 86]

I hear ya, Coach Dungy.  That interracial stuff is just wrong, man.  Wrong.

123653[/snapback]

Amen, brother--I mean "I agree"

[stevestojan]

I hear ya, Coach Dungy.  That interracial stuff is just wrong, man.  Wrong.

123653[/snapback]

 

Two races mixing like that? Gross.

 

I mean, I heard one time a 50-meter dash and a half-marathon were thinking about tying the not...

 

could you imagine if they had a KID?

 

Good lord.

 

Thank God we have racists like R. Rich around to keep people in line...

[KurtGodel77]

From reading the comments on this thread, I sense confusion about does or doesn't constitute racism. Thinking that your own race is better than everyone else's is racism. Thinking that your own race (and the world's other races!) should be preserved is not. Many oppose interracial marriage because that leads to the gradual elimination of races. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion that has nothing to do with racism.

[Cutting Drew With Dignity]

Race is a social, not biological construct, Mr. Duke. Same species, big gene pool.

 

Wake up white people!

[MRW]

From reading the comments on this thread, I sense confusion about does or doesn't constitute racism. Thinking that your own race is better than everyone else's is racism. Thinking that your own race (and the world's other races!) should be preserved is not. Many oppose interracial marriage because that leads to the gradual elimination of races. This is a perfectly legitimate opinion that has nothing to do with racism.

123929[/snapback]

Sorry, "racial preservation" has some rather ominous overtones to me. Don't like interracial marriage? Don't marry a member of a different race. Otherwise, let people live their own lives.

[KurtGodel77]

Race is a social, not biological construct, Mr. Duke. Same species, big gene pool.

 

Wake up white people!

123934[/snapback]

I'm not sure where you got that idea. The world's races have been separated from each other for 100,000 years. Humans have been separated from chimpanzees for 3 million years. I'm not saying that some races are more like chimpanzees than others!! But clearly, there is a biological difference.

 

I remember being told there were no biological differences between men and women, except for the obvious ones. We now know this was a bunch of Leftist propaganda. Just like the Left's pronouncements about race. Our differences are what give us dignity. No man wants to be called feminine, and no woman wants to be called unfeminine. Racial differences are the same: such differences help promote cultural differences, making the world a richer, more diverse place than it would be if we were all homogenized.

[KurtGodel77]

Sorry, "racial preservation" has some rather ominous overtones to me. 

123940[/snapback]

The opposite of "racial preservation" is "racial elimination." Of the two, I happen to prefer preservation. I'm sorry if this preference strikes you as ominous.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The opposite of "racial preservation" is "racial elimination." Of the two, I happen to prefer preservation. I'm sorry if this preference strikes you as ominous.

126612[/snapback]

 

 

I think the key here is individual freedom. All individuals should have the right to take any action which does not harm another individuals rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The only limitation to this is that when one is only happy when someone's else's individual rights to life and liberty are limited the individual who wants to limit others loses.

 

Regardless of whether one is pursing preservation, purity, or what have you if to do so limits another person's right to liberty then in my view (and I think the vast majority of American society) then you lose.

[Guest KurtYokel]

I'm not sure where you got that idea. The world's races have been separated from each other for 100,000 years. Humans have been separated from chimpanzees for 3 million years. I'm not saying that some races are more like chimpanzees than others!! But clearly, there is a biological difference.

 

I remember being told there were no biological differences between men and women, except for the obvious ones. We now know this was a bunch of Leftist propaganda. Just like the Left's pronouncements about race. Our differences are what give us dignity. No man wants to be called feminine, and no woman wants to be called unfeminine. Racial differences are the same: such differences help promote cultural differences, making the world a richer, more diverse place than it would be if we were all homogenized.

126611[/snapback]

 

 

When you daughter conceives with a black man consider this:

 

``The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,'' according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. ``It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity . . . in the human species.''

 

Many Americans still believe in three great racial groups, a system developed in Europe and North America in the 18th century.

 

Under that notion, indigenous residents of France, Iran and Poland, for example, are all Caucasoids, members of the so-called white race. People from Somalia, Nigeria and Zimbabwe in Africa are all Negroid, belonging to the black race. Ethnic Chinese, Koreans, Malays and American Indians are all Mongoloids, variants of the yellow race.

 

And people born to, say, ethnic Swedish and Chinese parents are of mixed race.

 

No way, say scientists, who call such thinking a folk myth.

 

``We don't even come close to having enough genetic diversity for races, or subspecies -- not close,'' said Robert Sussman, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis and editor of a newsletter of the anthropological association that has taken on race and racism as its yearlong theme.

 

``It's hard to get across,'' said Sussman. ``The best audience to try to get to is probably high school and young college students. But even they are steeped in American folklore, and the folklore is that races really exist.''

 

One reason race is a myth, the great majority of anthropologists agree, is that there has not been enough time for much difference to build up between human beings.

 

By most measures, modern humans arose in Africa less than 200,000 years ago, a short time by evolutionary time scales. And the migration out of Africa by the ancestors of today's Europeans, Asians, and North and South Americans took place less than 100,000 years ago.

 

Environmental pressure produced different physical appearances, including slightly different physiques, and Africa has the most human genetic diversity of any continent.

 

``But the environment, literally, works only on the surface, changing skin and hair a little bit,'' said Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, a Stanford University geneticist. ``Underneath, there has been little change.''

[Nanker]

I hear ya, Coach Dungy.  That interracial stuff is just wrong, man.  Wrong.

123653[/snapback]

 

 

I agree! Who in their right mind wouldn't be offended if the cast for this travesty were Oprah and Mike Ditka? Instead of just humping Desparate Horny Housewives, they could have done a reach around for Levitra and gastric bypass surgery at the same time.

What a missed marketing opportunity! Somebody quick contact Tags.

[rockpile]

He made some valid points about rascism, but in the wrong context.

 

I do not see rascism as an issue in this instance. It was a cheap publicity stunt that got a lot of attention. Mission accomplished as far as ABC is concerned.

 

It has also provided fodder for a lot of "journalists" who have run out of things to write or talk about.

 

Take a walk in any mall with your kid and observe how much "rascism" amd "sex" is thrown in your face.

[KurtGodel77]

Robert Sussman, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis and editor of a newsletter of the anthropological association that has taken on race and racism as its yearlong theme.

 

126812[/snapback]

The statements you quoted are political rather than scientific in nature. To pretend academia has any interest in an honest debate about race is amusing. There is only one permitted view of race in this country--that race is an artificial construct--just as there was only one permitted view about race in Nazi Germany. As was the case in Nazi Germany, professors who do not agree with orthodoxy are subject to intimidation. Take, for example, the treatment of the authors of the Bell Curve. I'm not saying I agree with those authors. Their relevance is this: that after they published their book, they were subjected to academic and physical intimidation, just as those who published non-Nazi points of view about race were subjected to intimidation in Nazi Germany. When academic debate ceases to be free and open, the results of the process become mere propaganda.

 

Some of the quotes you published are flat-out lies. The idea that there is no difference between the races except for skin and hair is belied by the fact that scientists are able to tell someone's race by looking at the skull. If you've been paying attention, you've noticed articles about ancient skulls of Caucasians in western China and North America.

 

If the people you described were real scientists, they would say, "We are interested in finding out the scientific truth, no matter what that truth might be." That's not what they are saying, nor is that how they are acting. They're saying, "We want to get rid of racism." Fine. That's their objective, and pretending they are real scientists gives an air of authority to their propaganda.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The statements you quoted are political rather than scientific in nature. To pretend academia has any interest in an honest debate about race is amusing. There is only one permitted view of race in this country--that race is an artificial construct--just as there was only one permitted view about race in Nazi Germany. As was the case in Nazi Germany, professors who do not agree with orthodoxy are subject to intimidation. Take, for example, the treatment of the authors of the Bell Curve. I'm not saying I agree with those authors. Their relevance is this: that after they published their book, they were subjected to academic and physical intimidation, just as those who published non-Nazi points of view about race were subjected to intimidation in Nazi Germany. When academic debate ceases to be free and open, the results of the process become mere propaganda.

 

Some of the quotes you published are flat-out lies. The idea that there is no difference between the races except for skin and hair is belied by the fact that scientists are able to tell someone's race by looking at the skull. If you've been paying attention, you've noticed articles about ancient skulls of Caucasians in western China and North America.

 

If the people you described were real scientists, they would say, "We are interested in finding out the scientific truth, no matter what that truth might be." That's not what they are saying, nor is that how they are acting. They're saying, "We want to get rid of racism." Fine. That's their objective, and pretending they are real scientists gives an air of authority to their propaganda.

127915[/snapback]

 

 

The real question here is not simply the debate over what is science and what is pseudo-science, the real world question is what should society do in terms of action depending on which view you hold as to what is science or truth.

 

Fortunately, regardless of what you feel about the science, I think society takes the same clear stance either way.

 

This is a question of individual rights versus some supposedly scientiffic determination of rights. American society has decided that regardless of whether you have an adoration of "racial preservation" or of pcness, individuals have a right to think what they want to think and act as they wish to act as long as they do not interfere with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others.

 

Thus, even though it might make you Tony Dungy, or anyone happier if there is racial preservation, no one has the right to interfere with any racial mixing anyone wants to do.

 

The Bell Curve book for example showed that anyone has the ability to think pretty much what they want about these issues and make scads of money publishing what they want. The author was obviously vigorously opposed by many, but they neither could stop his ideas from getting published with some prior restraint, stop him from making big bucks from its vigorous sale, or prevent its wide distribution and vigorous debate of its ideas.

 

However, there was nothing advocated in this book and any effort to enforce actions on individuals to "preserve" any particular race would be vigorously and (correctly in my view) opposed in my view.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter what you or Tony Dungy think if Nicoletter Sheridan and Terrell Owens decided to make some puppies. I think that is how it should be and I'm pretty certain that while most Americans neither want to sleep with Terrell or Nicolette, or see them do it on TV, they would vigorously defend their right to do so behind closed doors if they so choose, racial preservation be darned.

[KurtGodel77]

The Bell Curve book for example showed that anyone has the ability to think pretty much what they want about these issues and make scads of money publishing what they want.  The author was obviously vigorously opposed by many, but they neither could stop his ideas from getting published with some prior restraint, stop him from making big bucks from its vigorous sale, or prevent its wide distribution and vigorous debate of its ideas.

 

128026[/snapback]

The Bell Curve's publication showed that there are publishers--not many, but some--that are willing to go against the Leftist Establishment. The reason that book got so much attention was that one of its authors was a Harvard professor. However, future books which question the Leftist Establishment's view of race will be prevented by the fact that anyone with a non-Leftist point of view is being systematically excluded from humanities professorships. The U.S. News and World Report performed a study which showed that 90 - 95% of college professors, in subjects where a political view would matter, are members of the Democrat or other Left-wing parties. The Harvard professor who co-authored the Bell Curve is an old man, who upon retirement will almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat, a Socialist, or a Communist. Those who control the universities are using their power to silence dissent.

 

As for the issue of individual rights: a grown man has the right to have sex with a grown woman. An underage boy has the right to have sex with an underage girl. But a grown man cannot have sex with an underage girl, because there is too big a difference in their ages. Nobody points to this as a violation of individual rights. If people can be told that others are too different chronologically to make sex legal, then certainly they can be told that others are too different racially to make it legal. Especially with something like this, because it's clearly in the interest of future generations that racial diversity be preserved. If, today, we commit global marital genocide, we will have made a decision about race for all future generations to come. We don't have the right to arrogantly grab this much power for ourselves.

[jarthur31]

Sorry but heterosexuality has no place in professional football!

 

The NFL is turning gay.

[KurtGodel77]

Race is a social, not biological construct, Mr. Duke. Same species, big gene pool.

 

Wake up white people!

123934[/snapback]

 

 

When you daughter conceives with a black man consider this:

126812[/snapback]

It's funny, the same people who have been brainwashed into thinking race is just a social construct have come to conclusions about what my race is. For all that Yokel guy knows, I'm a black man myself, and would like nothing better than for my daughter to marry within her race. It doesn't bother me that others think I'm white, but if race is just a social construct, how can they be sure?

 

This situation reminds me of the debate about intelligence. The same group of academics who told us there is no such thing as race have, just as loudly, told us there is no such thing as general intelligence. This, despite the fact that all of the world's languages have a word that refers to general intelligence--such as the word "smart." Anyone even vaguely familiar with the standards of intellectual rigor--or lack thereof--that exist in that portion of academia realizes those professors can't possibly know enough to be justified in contradicting the collective wisdom of the entire human race, as expressed in language.