Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 09:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems you posted a result more than a reason. What was this dispute that they could not settle peacefully?

The southern States refused to give up their slaves so they tried to leave the Union.

According to Lincoln the war was to preserve the union, but the main reason the union was splitting was slavery.

[*bfine32*]

(01-26-2018, 09:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The southern States refused to give up their slaves so they tried to leave the Union.

I get it Fred. I could ask you why they wanted to leave the union but it would just continue in an exercise of tap dancing.

BLUF: You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens in an effort to show how animal-like we are. At any time you can just say: "Yeah, it was a stupid example"......or not. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-26-2018, 08:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Didn’t the African people sell off their own people as commerce?  

No, that's like saying the German killed their own people when they fought the Russians in WWI. 

The fact that Europeans made up this concept that we are divided into races based solely on our skin color doesn't mean the rest of the world saw things so black and white (pardon the pun). 

[BmorePat87]

(01-26-2018, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it Fred. I could ask you why they wanted to leave the union but it would just continue in an exercise of tap dancing.

BLUF: You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens in an effort to show how animal-like we are. At any time you can just say: "Yeah, it was a stupid example"......or not. 

The issue with this is that those tribes that did participate weren't selling their own "citizens". Slaves were from rival tribes.


Fred's example doesn't work because he's referring to countrymen killing each other but Africans were selling people from OTHER tribes. A better example is the systematic destruction of Native American tribes by the United States. Unfortunately, this example isn't a good one to use in this thread because Lucie says that it's a good thing because the US ended up being an awesome country and the Native Americans would have never have been that awesome. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 11:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, that's like saying the German killed their own people when they fought the Russians in WWI. 

The fact that Europeans made up this concept that we are divided into races based solely on our skin color doesn't mean the rest of the world saw things so black and white (pardon the pun). 

(01-29-2018, 11:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The issue with this is that those tribes that did participate weren't selling their own "citizens". Slaves were from rival tribes.

Fred's example doesn't work because he's referring to countrymen killing each other but Africans were selling people from OTHER tribes. A better example is the systematic destruction of Native American tribes by the United States. Unfortunately, this example isn't a good one to use in this thread because Lucie says that it's a good thing because the US ended up being an awesome country and the Native Americans would have never have been that awesome. 

Borders are irrelevant unless drawn by white western colonial powers.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Borders are irrelevant unless drawn by white western colonial powers.

Ethnic groups are irrelevant unless determined by white western colonial powers

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 11:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The issue with this is that those tribes that did participate weren't selling their own "citizens". Slaves were from rival tribes.


Fred's example doesn't work because he's referring to countrymen killing each other but Africans were selling people from OTHER tribes. A better example is the systematic destruction of Native American tribes by the United States. Unfortunately, this example isn't a good one to use in this thread because Lucie says that it's a good thing because the US ended up being an awesome country and the Native Americans would have never have been that awesome. 

Ah yes the old blame white Europeans for everything that happens to the poor savages despite their own terrible choices.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 11:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, that's like saying the German killed their own people when they fought the Russians in WWI. 

The fact that Europeans made up this concept that we are divided into races based solely on our skin color doesn't mean the rest of the world saw things so black and white (pardon the pun). 

Your first point is true, your second point is pure fiction.  Ethnicity, which is the correct word, is not an invention of the Europeans, it's a matter of genetics.  If this were not the case then it would not be possible to determine a person's genetic ancestry down to minute regions.  If you assertion is that Europeans invented ethnicity to justify treating other humans as less than human, well, you'd be wrong about that too.  Asian culture rather excels at that concept as well and every culture, when confronted by ethnicities visibly different from their own, has indulged in the exact same behavior.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 11:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ah yes the old blame white Europeans for everything that happens to the poor savages despite their own terrible choices.

The biggest problem with these types of posts, which you frequently indulge in btw, and aside from the obvious nauseating points you try and make, is that you reinforce the erroneous beliefs of the people responding to you.  You provide the perfect foil for them to practice their flawed arguments against because your counter arguments are even more flawed.  It's rather emblematic of US society as a whole and it's sad AF.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 11:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your first point is true, your second point is pure fiction.  Ethnicity, which is the correct word, is not an invention of the Europeans, it's a matter of genetics.  If this were not the case then it would not be possible to determine a person's genetic ancestry down to minute regions.  If you assertion is that Europeans invented ethnicity to justify treating other humans as less than human, well, you'd be wrong about that too.  Asian culture rather excels at that concept as well and every culture, when confronted by ethnicities visibly different from their own, has indulged in the exact same behavior.

I'm not referring to ethnicity. I am referring to "race", hence me saying "race". What you're saying about ethnicity is true, but this has no bearing on my post where I responded to someone who lumped all black people together.

Edit: in fact that's the very thing I would say when someone tries to say that race is scientific. There's no common gene cluster for race. We just decided to group people by skin color, which is as arbitrary as eye color or hair color. Ethnicity, however, has a genetic basis due to generations of mating and through out history is the better indicator of identity.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 11:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ah yes the old blame white Europeans for everything that happens to the poor savages despite their own terrible choices.

Where did I blame Europeans?  I explained the fact that Africans were divided into tribes and then discussed an example of the US killing Native Americans. 


and "savages" to top it off. This is why you get banned, not because the mods are mean to you. You make up stuff and then make blatantly racist comments. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 12:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not referring to ethnicity. I am referring to "race", hence me saying "race". What you're saying about ethnicity is true, but this has no bearing on my post where I responded to someone who lumped all black people together.

Except there is no such thing as race, as no human ethnicity has speciated.  The concept you are referring to is identifying genetic traits that differ from one's own ethnicity and then using those differences to describe the other as inferior or "less human" than oneself.  This concept is not an invention of European culture and is, in fact, indulged in almost every time different ethnic groups have encountered each other.

The assertion that European, or western, culture is uniquely or more inherently racist is an unfortunate byproduct of the current self hating trend in western society.  Indulge in it if you like, just don't purport it as fact.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 12:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except there is no such thing as race, as no human ethnicity has speciated.  The concept you are referring to is identifying genetic traits that differ from one's own ethnicity and then using those differences to describe the other as inferior or "less human" than oneself.  This concept is not an invention of European culture and is, in fact, indulged in almost every time different ethnic groups have encountered each other.

The assertion that European, or western, culture is uniquely or more inherently racist is an unfortunate byproduct of the current self hating trend in western society.  Indulge in it if you like, just don't purport it as fact.

I really have no interest in defending a position I did not take. Someone made the comment about Africans selling their own as if we should lump them all together by "race" (the social definition) rather than understand the "ethnic" and tribal differences they were divided by. You're apparently confused as to what I was saying. I wasn't invoking it to reference any sort of hierarchical racist ideology but rather just address a common misconception of lumping all black Africans together. 

The concept of three races consisting of caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid is in fact a Western invention, hence my comment. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 12:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I really have no interest in defending a position I did not take.

Nor am I interested in arguing against such a position.  I'm not Fred, I don't deliberately misrepresent what people said or offer counter points that have nothing to do with the point being made.  You did, however, take the exact position I am arguing against in the following quote;

Quote:The fact that Europeans made up this concept that we are divided into races based solely on our skin color doesn't mean the rest of the world saw things so black and white (pardon the pun). 

See?

Quote:Someone made the comment about Africans selling their own as if we should lump them all together by "race" (the social definition) rather than understand the "ethnic" and tribal differences they were divided by.

You mean Lucie, it's ok to use the correct name when it is known.  Lucie is wrong, per usual.  You are also wrong here, as different tribes are not different ethnic groups.  They are groups of people whose differences exist solely within a man made societal construct.

Quote:You're apparently confused as to what I was saying. I wasn't invoking it to reference any sort of hierarchical racist ideology but rather just address a common misconception of lumping all black Africans together. 

As a response to Lucie's argument, and confined within the terms you just expressed, you'd get no argument from me.  However, that's not what you said.  You stated Europeans invented to concept of "race" when this is simply not true, as I explained in my earlier posts.

Quote:The concept of three races consisting of caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid is in fact a Western invention, hence my comment. 

Using those terms, sure.  The concept of "races", however, is not uniquely European.  Judging, or categorizing, people by skin color is prevalent in the vast majority of human societies.  The reasons for this judgment vary, but the concept exists almost everywhere.  If we can agree that this is not a uniquely Western concept then we can absolutely move on.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The biggest problem with these types of posts, which you frequently indulge in btw, and aside from the obvious nauseating points you try and make, is that you reinforce the erroneous beliefs of the people responding to you.  You provide the perfect foil for them to practice their flawed arguments against because your counter arguments are even more flawed.  It's rather emblematic of US society as a whole and it's sad AF.

I know full well what it does when I place savage in a post. None of these guys want to discuss a topic they want to virtue signal. Regardless of the language I use it is the same ridiculous response.

Not being able to discuss a topic because of the use of a word is a them problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 12:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I know full well what it does when I place savage in a post.    None of these guys want to discuss a topic they want to virtue signal.   Regardless of the language I use it is the same ridiculous response.  

Not being able to discuss a topic because of the use of a word is a them problem.

Please save it, no one buys it.  You say intentionally inflammatory things because you are either; a: a bigot, b: a troll, c: because your vocabulary is limited or, d: some combination of the three.  If you want to actually discuss or debate a subject then intentionally using inflammatory language will achieve the opposite of your stated goal.  No one will ignore such rhetoric and engage in a discussion of the topic as doing so would provide, at the very least, tacit approval of the language you use to intentionally provoke.  

[fredtoast]

(01-26-2018, 09:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it Fred. I could ask you why they wanted to leave the union but it would just continue in an exercise of tap dancing.

BLUF: You used an example of the US righting a wrong that many African countries did to their own citizens in an effort to show how animal-like we are. At any time you can just say: "Yeah, it was a stupid example"......or not. 

The Southern US citizens who decided they would rather die than give up their slaves were acting every bit as much like animals as the Africans who sold their prisoners as slaves.

You can try to claim the Civil War as a "noble cause" but only if you only count half of the US citizens involved.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 01:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please save it, no one buys it.  You say intentionally inflammatory things because you are either; a: a bigot, b: a troll, c: because your vocabulary is limited or, d: some combination of the three.  If you want to actually discuss or debate a subject then intentionally using inflammatory language will achieve the opposite of your stated goal.  No one will ignore such rhetoric and engage in a discussion of the topic as doing so would provide, at the very least, tacit approval of the language you use to intentionally provoke.  

Just because you discuss something with me doesn’t mean you are caliing anyone a savage or approving of calling them one. I can use savage in a post and you can respond without using savage and yet the discussion will continue. It’s almost as if we are able to use the words we choose.

You are responsible for what you post. I am responsible for what I post. Calling me a bigot/troll/etc yourself is using inflammatory language. The reality is that we are all allowed to make an a-hole comment in a post. You are able to think whatever you wish about me as I am perfectly able to form my own opinions on you, others here, or topics.

It’s perfectly fine to be an a-hole from time to time. If this stops anyone from a discussion then once again, that is a them problem.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nor am I interested in arguing against such a position.  I'm not Fred, I don't deliberately misrepresent what people said or offer counter points that have nothing to do with the point being made.  You did, however, take the exact position I am arguing against in the following quote;

I'm challenging your assertion that I am misusing the word race when I mean ethnicity. I don't. I mean the social construct of race. We can disagree on the role of White Europeans in promoting the myth of three genetic races, but we both appear to be agreeing that there is no genetic basis behind it and that ethnicity does have a genetic basis. You seem to suggest that there is a difference of opinion here on my part.

Quote:You mean Lucie, it's ok to use the correct name when it is known.  Lucie is wrong, per usual.  You are also wrong here, as different tribes are not different ethnic groups.  They are groups of people whose differences exist solely within a man made societal construct.

"Ethnic and tribal". I wasn't suggesting tribes were only divided on ethnic lines. 

Quote: You stated Europeans invented to concept of "race" when this is simply not true, as I explained in my earlier posts.


Using those terms, sure.  The concept of "races", however, is not uniquely European.  Judging, or categorizing, people by skin color is prevalent in the vast majority of human societies.  The reasons for this judgment vary, but the concept exists almost everywhere.  If we can agree that this is not a uniquely Western concept then we can absolutely move on.

The contemporary notion is absolutely a European invention and the history of the concept is really only prevalent in Western civilization. A lot of this has to do with a better understanding of human anatomy and evolution. I'm not simplifying it as differentiating between groups of people by a variety of traits, physical included, which is likely the issue here. I will concede that I could have been more accurate and said "Europeans invented the modern idea of race", but that still didn't really explain your attempt to suggest I was misusing the word when I meant "ethnicity".

[Dill]

(01-29-2018, 11:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your first point is true, your second point is pure fiction.  Ethnicity, which is the correct word, is not an invention of the Europeans, it's a matter of genetics.  If this were not the case then it would not be possible to determine a person's genetic ancestry down to minute regions.  If you assertion is that Europeans invented ethnicity to justify treating other humans as less than human, well, you'd be wrong about that too.  Asian culture rather excels at that concept as well and every culture, when confronted by ethnicities visibly different from their own, has indulged in the exact same behavior.

"Ethnicity" is not somehow the correct substitute for "race." Ethnicity, in Western sociology and anthropology, has always been constructed with reference to a number of features, including language, religion, and various cultural practices, as well as (sometimes) anatomical variations within the species.  The genetics of one Indian from Maharashtra could be traced back to Mughals, Mongols and other central or East Asian groups. His neighbor, living across the street, might trace his genetics predominately to Dravidian Southern India. Yet both could be identified by their government--or any casual American observer--as ethnically "Hindu."  One American Hispanic's genetics might track back to Spain, another's back to indigenous peoples in Yucatan. One could expect similar divergences studying the ethnic heritage of an Egyptian from Alexandria and another from Thebes.   Many people in the UK are ethnically "English," not Norwegian or Danish. Yet their DNA will be indistinguishable from Norwegians and Danes. 

One of the most substantial objections to racist 19th century anthropology is exactly this constant misalignment of race/genetics with claimed or perceived ethnicity. And it is why "ethnicity" is not an especially useful guide to genetic heritage.

 Bpat is quite right about the uniquely European/Western origins of race as an anthropological/pseudo-social scientific category.

To claim that Europeans constructed notions of "ethnicity" to explain groupings of human differences is not to claim that people in non-European cultures do/did not also discriminate against outside groups based on anatomical or cultural differences.  But when they did that (or still do), they either deployed some non-Western system/standard of cultural hierarchy or adopted Western anthropology to their purposes, as the Japanese did during their Imperial era to construct Japanese citizens as a master race, German style. 

Even if non-Europeans were somehow magically deploying a concept invented in Europe without European influence, that still would not mean that Europeans did not construct the notion of ethnic difference to justify treating other humans as less than human.  They did exactly that.

Greeks like Aristotle, for example, felt it perfectly ok to enslave non-Greeks--Greeks being an ETHNOS constructed by language and culture--precisely because they were not ethnically Greeks.  Ethnic nationalism of the 19th century tended to amalgamate whole national ethnic groups out of an existing diversity, and then link this cultural construct and its traits to "race" from which behaviors wholly cultural in origin were supposed to originate.

I might add that the concept of the "human" and of a universal humanity, was never something just given, but developed in Greek and Roman antiquity.  It was the Romans who detached the concept of citizenship and political rights from ethnic attributes such as language, culture, or skin color.  The critique of ethnicity as a basis for ascribing "humanity" or rights, then, also emerges in European culture.