Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Its all a matter of context, really. Just be careful about saying "Human Race" or anything along that line. People tend to get a bit iffy about that.
First off to answer your question about our discussion. Not only have i found it greatly enjoyable, but incredibly productive. I feel we have cleared up a lot of confusion on this topic and using definitions to clarify proper terms is of great help. Do you know if there is multiple definitions for ethnicity/ethnic group? Or are they different in use. I can only find the definition in the dictionary that i used in the OP and have been building my argument from that.
Give me some time to look around and I'll see what I can find.
The Dreaded Double Post strikes again. Added Alliterative Appeal is fun.
@Myk
No you are not always intellectually honest, as a matter of fact you have rarely been in this entire discussion. I asked you to back up your claims of political bias on my part and you have failed to do so. I asked you to provide definitions to support your use of ethnicity you have failed to do so. And I am starting to suspect you 'agree' with your own replies to paint the illusion of consensus.
Now on what you have offered that is actually worth reaponding to. To say that because i challange a common misconception it is evidence of political motivation is absurd and reaching on your part. You accuse me of political bias and yet fail to see that you are doing just that. You have not actually responded to anything I have said which is why this conversation is going nowhere. I could easily engage in your tactics and play the game of arguing against what I want you to say in order to have a better response but unlike you I actually practice intellectual honesty.
And again, Liberal in politics and liberal as a philosophical world view are not the same.
@Alphalogica
Calling me names like intellectually dishonest discredits your post.
Beyond that, I said I agree with your post that we actually come from the same origin. I questioned the motive and I can apologize if you didn't intend to decry "political correctness."
If that is the case I stand corrected and do humbly apologize with all sincerity.
That does not alleviate the fact that I am making which is that boiling the entire human race to one type does great damage to people's striving for equality.
As far as evidence for my post, I did prove that Jon Stewart does not identify as liberal, politically of philosophically.
As you may well know that "dog whistle" phrases are very difficult to prove and expose, but everyone knows what they are and what they mean. You can't just research "conservatives claim that we are one race in order to combat political correctness."
So demanding that the phrase is in fact, a dog whistle phrase is a tactic where you know the outcome before asking it.
So accept my apologies for your intent and consider the outcome of boiling down the human race to one.
i accept your apology and I thank you for it. I disagree with your response and I will explain why. First off, I can see where you are coming from and you are correct in that my intent is to challenge people's perception of identity, but only insofar as where it is based on a misconception, like racial identity. To give an example, when a white supremacist claims that they only seek to preserve the 'purity' of the white race, I want to convince them that 1. There is no white race. 2. There is no such thing as genetic purity, as genes require diversity in order to thrive. Many people throughout history sought purity of blood line and that is called incest.
Or when a black nationalist sticks their fist in the air and says "Black and proud" I want to convince them that what they are claiming pride in, is holding to a delusion that was invented by ignorant twats who sought to subjugate people and they should be ashamed to take pride in this. To me "Black pride" and "White power" are no different in there meaning.
Now, where i mainly disagree is where you say that my argument will allow discrimination, or racism in general to go unchecked. I believe that the opposite will happen, because if one KNOWS that there is no racial diversity in the first place, then they cannot possibly discriminate based on this line of reasoning. But when you have groups of people who glorify this misconception of race and seek to isolate themselves from others who do not look them and only surround themselve with those who look like them, then that is only going make things worse. I believe that my argument will end this practice of segregation. But not until people see that they have no reason to identify with lie. I have made this argument in many different forums, always under my current handle of AlphaLogica with the same avatar and I am often asked if I am black, when I say yes I find consensus, when I say no, I am called a racist. It does not bother me to be called this, I know I am not and that is enough for me. But it is interesting to see that when the recipient of my argument agrees only when they believe i am a black, but is offended when they believe I am white, it is this trend that proves my point. That people who hold to a racial identity are not willing to see my argument for itself and need to filter their perspective based on trivial factors like what I look like. I want us as a species to stop maintaining delusions of the past whether it's religion or race.
I still think ethnicity is a delusion but not to the degree of race. Going back to my OP the definition of ethnicity is so vague that it is unreasonable to hold any personal attachment to it, because there is no fixed point where one can say that one ethnic gruop is different from another.
Thank you again for the apology and I want to continue having this discussion with you, and I look forward to your reply because you do not agree with me. It is possible that I am missing something in my reasoning and if so I want to know what it is. I strongly believe that my argument is correct, and my conclusion is supported by it. But not to the point that i am absolutely convienced that I am not wrong. This is why I brought it here to a debate page to hash it out.
Ah, the flaw in your thinking is one that places a great deal of responsibility in the sincerity of people that are generally deceitful and disingenuine.
Racists are not concerned with facts. They are concerned with racism.
You're right about "white power, but not about "black pride". Black pride is a response to white power.
Blacks, as a race have been demonized, so they needed to gain credibility as a people. Thus black pride came to be. Technically you are right in both phrases are incorrect, but socially and realistically they are very different.
True, racists are not concerned with facts, I live in an area where there is a small KKK division and occasionally when they hold picket signs against interracial marriage, citing the Bible as justification I approach them and try to argue against their entire philosophy and it only ever has lead to charges of race traitor on my part, i wear this accusation like a badge of honor, and my inner troll chuckles with delight... I almost have made a white shirt with big black writing that says Race Traitor but I am lazy and never got around to it.
But to some extent I want to keep arguing against them if only for the chance that maybe their kids or someone who is one the fence will hear and be convienced that facts trump ideology.
Now to get back to the topic at hand, if we accept your justification for Black pride as a response to racism, to me it seems that in hoping to combat the white power movement by adopting Black pride as a slogan they have become the very thing they are supposed to be against. To give a real world example, a black student at Claremont College does not want to live with white students because of her belief that their presence is an affront to her 'safe space'
http://claremontindependent.com/students-at-claremont-colleges-refuse-to...
This in my opinion is the end result of the glorification of racial identity, which oddly enough the students who support this obvious call for segregation cannot see the inherit racism of this position. And as you have said before, most racists do not know they are racists. To tie this into the black pride mentality, it is only through this delusional attachment to ones own race, that could lead to an otherwise completely intelligent person feeling justified in segregating based only race. This is why the meaning of white power and black pride is no different.
I understand your meaning. Let's look at "black power" where it came from and why. In the 50s and 60s, blacks were put down. Black power who they are, to not feel like second class citizens. This was important to achieve equality. It was a way to uplift the spirits of all black people to raise their collective self-esteem.
As I said before, you are technically correct. That I will not and cannot deny. I look at things historically when dealing with race. One must understand the origin of such movements to understand the whole of the thing.
Thank you for the historical perspective, it was informative. I agree that to start, the Black pride movement was a message of social unity in a time when blacks were facing extreme prejudice. And I cannot fault them for unifying because had they not, an argument could be made that the progress of civil rights movement may not have happened. That being said, in my opinion the black pride movement did not help relations between the black and white communities, because while it unified the black community, it drove a wedge between them and the white community.
To add to my point about the ineffective approach of the black pride movement and to give an example from that same period in time, that was far more effective in gaining progress for the civil rights movement was the approach of MLK who used the shared religion as a bridge to connect the black community to the White community, and avoided any such distinctions that would set blacks apart from whites. And concerning the disagreement between MLK and Malcom X, who really drove in the black pride movement and alluded to calls of self segregation as a means of obtaining progress, I believe that MLK felt that the wedge was more harmful than helpful. So when I see this wedge being justified today, I cannot help but think that we are better off calling out any who hold some racial identity. Not only because its factually incorrect, something we both agree on, but because any such notion by default unessacarly separates people and only allows for others to do the same.
Agreed. The MLK movement was primarily a southern movement and did not account for the injustices of the north and west, particularly California. Thus the Black Panthers were born. BTW the BP only killed one person in their history, that being a policeman. They suffered several dozen losses, due to the orders of J. Edgar Hoover that instructed local police departments to act on false information. Such as Fred Hampton who was killed by local police in an early morning raid that was misinformed about illegal weapons.
Malcolm X saw the error of his association with the Nation of Islam and Wallace D. Fard Muhammad, after Malcolm's pilgrimage to Egypt in the early 1960s. Malcolm X preached unity of the races until his assassination.
I personally have no issue with the Black Panthers, other than the obvious philosophical ones. I do not see them as on the same footing as the KKK for example, but this is because of the actions of each group sets them apart in my opinion. The KKK is a hate group that has actively sought to carry out violence, the Black Panthers is a racial pride group, I think Black nationalists is the appropriate term? But to me there are philosophical similarities between them though I was unaware of the killing of a police officer, I thought it was the Black Liberation Army that killed a cop and carried out violence, maybe with the BP it was only an isolated incident.
I am aware of Malcom X's change of heart later in life, and his assassination by the Nation of Islam for his 'apostasy' in their mind He was just an effective example of a parallel between two different approaches which i thought would add to my point.
@Alphalogica
Eldridge Cleaver and a teen associate killed a rookie cop. Cleaver left the teen to hold the bag and fled the country, eventually ending up in the USSR! That is the only recorded incident of the Black Panthers committing murder.
I agree that the BP did adopt unsavory idealism.
I'm with you, we don't need pride in any form. What we need is self-esteem. Mutual respect is key. I can even respect some conservatives that are honest but don't share my ideals.
I never try to be dishonest, intellectually or otherwise. What I try to do is call it as I see it. If that is somehow intellectually dishonest, I'm sorry.
Now I don't fault you for calling me intellectually dishonest. I took it as a challenge, not as a personal insult. As a Liberal, I am quick to call out things that I see as conservative hyperbole. I combat bumper-sticker mentality ever where I go and every time I can. I am not accusing you of anything, so don't take what I just said as so.
I do not take your reply as an accusation of any sort, just a clarification of your views and or position, which I can appreciate. On Eldridge Cleaver, from what I can find he appears to be a lone extremist, and considering that he was kicked out of the BP for his advocacy of violence instead of self defense, suggests to me that he was not in line with the majority of the BP who carried guns for only self defense, and as one myself who holds the U.S Constitution in high esteem I see nothing wrong with that.
You are also correct that what we dont need pride, but mutual respect, I would also add that we dont need tribalism of any sort, the "us vs them" mentality that permeates throughout humanity is what I find to be most harmful to social cohesion, yes people are different, but not so much so that one cannot have the sympathy or empathy of a basic human being to understand where another is coming from, or their experiences in life altogether.
Do you think the oppressed should be held to the same standard as the oppressor? Personally I don't; but I can understand if others do.
That is a very good question, one that is worthy of discussion. Because on one hand I say yes, but on the other hand I say no, to be honest I am greatly divided on this question. So I guess it really depends on specific examples. For me it is important to avoid double standards, but at the same time i believe that certian accommodations are required, but not at the expense of social cohesion, unless it is nessacary....man you have really got me chasing my own tail with this one lol.
Before i have a short circuit can you provide me with specific examples?
I suppose now would be the appropriate time to recognise that some situations are too controversial and deep to have a definite solution.
I agree but only insofar as a topic being too deep for definite solution, to me nothing is too controversial. But the depth of any given topic should not stop us from having a discussion on it, we may not come up with an answer but we can certainly come to a common consensus, which is really the point of a debate. idk maybe it's just my inner Socrates that seeks to explore these topics through discussion lol.
(edited to add)
Let's just look at the progress we have made in this discussion so far. We have found common consensus on the topic of Racial diversity, and speaking for myself I have learned a great deal from hashing out the differences in our ideas and gained a lot of new insight from speaking with you and Myk, add to it the very excellent question presented by Ny which could very well lead to even more understanding, to me these points are reason enough to continue having this discussion and I would hate to stop because of complexity alone.
Indeed! All right, gents. Shall we get back to discussion?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
yes, let us continue! For there is much to be gained.
Well how about an non-controversial (hopefully) case. The Warsaw ghetto uprising. The Jewish (clearly the oppressed in this situation) para-military organizations executed Jewish policemen and other Nazi Jewish intelligence assets in the ghetto during the uprising. Taken by themselves, these were incredible acts of barbarism. But it seems pretty ludicrous to hold these groups operating in the ghetto to any normal standard of behavior, considering the ruthless oppression they were under.
By holding the oppressed to the same standards as the oppressor, we in effect lock in the status quo. That any oppressed group is going to escape oppression without overturning the apple-cart of the oppressor seems rather unlikely in my opinion. And you can rest assured that the instant they do turn over the apple-cart, the apologists for the oppressors will cite this as justification for the oppression in the first place; despite the fact that this places effects before causes.
I'm sure we have all seen this many times in our lives. From the small scale of how Johnny feels about Sue; all the way up to the national political scale.
I can bring in a rather personal example: Kazakhstan. I will go ahead and tell you that I was born in Volgograd, close to both the Caucasus Region and Kazakhstan. There was an attempt made by KSSR(Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic) To attempt to remove the communist party's power their around the same time as the fall of the Berlin Wall. They actually seized military equipment and managed to take control of a region not to far to the south of Volgograd for a short time. Needless to say, it didn't go so well. To this day, I can recall the sound of strike aircraft launching from the nearby airbase....... But I digress.
You make a very good point about the status quo I do not agree with it entirely but it is still a good one , and in the example you have presented I see it more as a means of self defense than oppression. To me the we should hold all people to the same standard, by this I mean that if the Jews started to round up anyone who was simply a Nazi sympathizer, or of German ancestry then they are no better than the oppressors as they have become the very thing they are fighting against.
@Nyarlathotep
"By holding the oppressed to the same standards as the oppressor, we in effect lock in the status quo."
Unfortunately after emerging from oppression, the victims have all too often taken on the role of the oppressor. Israel and Palestine are an example of this. But as far as I can tell, every oppressor in history was previously oppressed. The British were oppressed by the Romans, Germanic tribes, Vikings and Normans but went on to become empire builders. The Spanish were oppressed by the Moors but drove them out and became the oppressors in Latin America. Moorish refugees from Spain fled to North Africa, where many turned to piracy as Barbary slavers. They kidnapped and enslaved several million Europeans until the region was taken over by another oppresor, France. Later, people whose ancestors had been oppressed by slavers, were able to justify their own oppressive involvement in the Atlantic slave trade with Christian hypocrisy about saving the souls of heathens. When the Japanese were forced out of national isolation by an American show of force in the mid-19th century, they saw European oppression across the entire Asia-Pacific region and realized that they had only one choice: oppress or be oppressed. They chose the former.
One of the biggest oppressed/oppressor cycles in history can be found in the evolution of Christianity. Early Christians were ruthlessly and barbarically persecuted by the Romans. Despite being a religion founded on love and peace, and having experienced this terrible oppression, the Christian church itself became a major oppressor, responsible for wars, massacres, inquisitions, and genocides. The cross is very appropriate logo.
I hope people will start to learn the lessons of history, because repeating history has become very tiresome
This brings a great point to light. As people, we would love the world where people are judged by their merit and not by so-called race. The OP makes the factually correct point that there is no race. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality. Minorities have been systematically and institutionally discriminated against. As Atheist, we all know what that feels like. I got off on the wrong foot with my first reply to AlphaLogica as I saw a "dog whistle" rhetoric post. I was wrong as that was NOT the intent of the OP. I have since apologized. I was dead wrong. I'll take the hit. I deserve it.
I have made my points of eliminating racial identity, and the OP has acknowledged that he understands, although he does not agree. That's fine. That is what debate is all about.
I think I have enjoyed this thread more than any that I have engaged in on this forum. For correcting me, and the full exchange of ideas. The flexibility of intelligent people to learn, to teach, to exchange cognitive thoughts. If Congress could work like this thread, we as a nation would not be mired in a partisan quagmire.
I cannot wait for the next great post and or thread that achieves such entertainment.
Congress to me is loaded with a bunch of ideologically closed minded yokels who are so locked in their views that they are incapable of making progress of any sort, add to it the media which panders to their own camps and vilifies the 'other'. If they would just get over themselves and try to see the big picture then we could have a much better country.
Hmm
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
*Clapping*
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
For many theists, race and ethnicity are anything but illusion. Apparently the christian god created us in different races because it wanted us that way, and to marry between races is a sin. For an example, look at the following website. (I suggest you hold your nose when you open it.)
http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/
When I was growing up in England in the 1950s, this was the prevailing view, the norm. So-called "mixed marriages" were considered to be against god's law. I heard bishops spouting learned sermons on TV about the need to keep god's races pure. People were especially concerned about the children of such marriages. I assume it was the same in the US. Religion played a central role in maintaining this prejudice. If you cherry pick the bible you'll find plenty of verses to justify hating, killing or enslaving people from different ethnic backgrounds.
There are still atavistic people, as evidenced by the website I cited, and occasional news items about pathetic plump rednecks in pointy white hats. However, I believe that the world has changed for the better. The bible still teaches us to hate, but genetic science, especially the wonderful Genographic Project, has shown us conclusively that we all came from the same place, that we are a very young species, though much older the Garden of Eden fable would suggest, and that we are literally all the same under the skin.
Our ethnic differences are also signs of evolution in action. People with more melanin can tolerate more UV in hot climates. People with less can absorb more sunlight to synthesize vitamin D in higher latitudes. Nose shape is an adaptation for breathing hot air or cold dry air. Shorter limbs are good for conserving heat, longer limbs for dissipating it. Christians look at these differences and say god designed us that way, each for their own part of the world. Genetics tells us that our ancestors migrated over vast distances and adapted and changed as they went.
Pages