This discussion came up the other day...

[baja]

Is it possible to not like black people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?

[DivineBronco]

odd way to phrase it.........you can not like anyone, nothing wrong with that........but just by saying black person....it adds some suspect to the statement

[Popps]

I expect productive things from this thread.

[CBF1]

Racist.... you should be banned :)

[JCMElway]

To lay a judgment of not liking an entire race of people simply because of their physical attributes is inherently racist. There's no getting around it.

Why not judge someone not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their....oh, never mind.

[sisterhellfyre]

Is it possible to not like black people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?

Dislike for an individual "person of color" isn't racist. Disliking the black people that you've met so far isn't racist. I think it doesn't become "racism" until you generalize the dislike and it becomes an "-ism" belief system that guides your perceptions of everyone in that group. When that happens, then it's "racism" and prejudice, which is just a prejudgement that "they're all that way," for whatever "that way" may be.

I personally don't like some of what I see presented on the streets and in the entertainment media as "black culture." I don't like most rap or hip-hop, and I don't get the gangsta posing and conspicuous bling. Sagging their pants off the bottom of their asses never looks good on anyone of any skin color. (Living where I do, I see it on the streets all the time with white, black and hispanic young guys.) But then I also didn't like Izod yuppie shirts or cardigan sweaters with the arms crossed around the neck and over the chest when that was in fashion, either. It's my opinion that both are walking fashion disasters, but I think that's more of a generational difference (30+ years between me and the average teenager) than a skin color difference.

[Blueflame]

Depends on why you dislike the person in question, IMHO... if said person is difficult to get along with... or cut you off in traffic... or is wearing Raider gear, then disliking them is totally understandable. But if you dislike them for the color of their skin or the color of their hair or the size of their waistline... without even giving the person a chance... without getting acquainted with them at all... then I think that would make one... prejudiced.

[ZONA]

Anybody who doesn't like somebody else because of skin tone is a sorry loser.

For example - you have a racist white dude who hates African American people. He gets into a bad car accident. It was another White person who hit him as his attention was on beating on his girlfriend in the passenger seat. Basically a loser himself. To the rescue, an African American paramedic treats him so he doesn't die at the scene of the accident. The blood he received was donated by an African American. The doctor who saved his life was African American. He recovers in the hospital and sees an African American nurse changing the bed next to his and his first thought is "I hate black people". Ignorance at it's finest.

[Florida_Bronco]

I expect productive things from this thread.

Me too.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg89/danzan149/flame_suit.jpg

[baja]

One of the guys said he didn't consider himself a racist but he went on to say that he felt he had been imprinted by his parents at an early age with a general distrust and a kind of fear of black people that fit a certain profile. He said he believed with all his heart that a mans color made no difference and gave many good examples that he was clearly not acting as a racist. He said he was wondering if maybe he was racist because when he saw a black person that fit that profile he had been taught to fear he did become fearful and no matter what he told himself intellectually in his gut there was fear which left him feeling angry at the person and that made him ponder if he might be racist.

[baja]

He went on to say that he believed there were a lot of white people that felt the same way if they would admit it.

I thought about that for my generation (60+) and I would have to say that with the people I knew growing up that was true to a small degree.

[TheReverend]

I'm just afraid I'll get sickle cell.

[nadwiggins]

to not like all black peope yes it is racist! because everyone is differant!

[nadwiggins]

to be more clear do white people like all white poeple? no... so y would it be any differant?

[chrisp]

One of the guys said he didn't consider himself a racist but he went on to say that he felt he had been imprinted by his parents at an early age with a general distrust and a kind of fear of black people that fit a certain profile. He said he believed with all his heart that a mans color made no difference and gave many good examples that he was clearly not acting as a racist. He said he was wondering if maybe he was racist because when he saw a black person that fit that profile he had been taught to fear he did become fearful and no matter what he told himself intellectually in his gut there was fear which left him feeling angry at the person and that made him ponder if he might be racist.

I think a lot of middle class white people have a certain stereotype of the black gangsta bred into them by parents or the media and god knows what else. Very few people these days will fear a black man in a nice shirt and tie - however put the very same person into baggy jeans and a baseball cap or a hoodie and that's a different story....

BUt I think its important to distinguish between Racist instincts and racist beliefs. We can't really prevent ourselves from having some racist instincts because a lot of that is down to influences we can't control. However, we are NOT automatons who are just dumbly progreammed by the daily news. We're actually perfectly capable of questioning these influences and forming our own opinions.

So if we let our gut instincts get the better of us and start adopting the concious belief that a certain ethnic group are dangerous or a problem then we are allowing ourselves to be racist. But if we genuinely believe that all men are created equal, but can't stop ourselves from feeling a little uncomfortable around people who look and talk in a certain way, then that's not fully deserving of the term 'racist'. I mean, technically it still is (a little bit) but the word has become such a loaded, perjorative word these days I don't think its useful to categorise sucvh things in this way. The term should only be reserved for the true hard cases.

Then again, the word 'racist' has been bandied around and used so cheaply by certain groups and people that I'm not sure its a useful word to anyone who wants to make the world a better place anymore. Fighting racism used to be about establishing a common standard for all regardless of ethinic background or appearance, and taking exception to cases where rights were witheld on this basis. These days, however, a whole bureaucratic and legal network has grown up which defines 'fighting racism' as establishing special rights and treatment for a minority on the basis of how special and different they are - almost the polar opposite. I abhor this modern development becuase rather than trying to bring us all together it says we're all too different to get along without special regulation by the state and quasi-governmental institutions, and regulation of our thougths and conduct in line with what the experts say is healthy.

So that days for simple categories are behind us I'm afraid. It used to be the case that racism was a case of divide and rule (scapegoating one section of society to keep the rest in line). Now we're arguably in the situation where, peversely, official anti-racism is doing a similar job of keeping us nicely divided on multiple ethinic lines to make us all easier to control...

[ColoradoDarin]

This thread has been much better than feared. I thought it would end up here....



http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q227/dhaus5650/racist_park.jpg

[sirhcyennek81]

Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior to another. So in the scenario presented no, if you do not like all black people you are not racist. You are pretty damn prejudiced though.


:Broncos:

[Dedhed]

It's possible to not like A black person or some black people, and not be racist. However, to say "I don't like black people", is pretty much the definition of racism.

[kappys]

One of the guys said he didn't consider himself a racist but he went on to say that he felt he had been imprinted by his parents at an early age with a general distrust and a kind of fear of black people that fit a certain profile. He said he believed with all his heart that a mans color made no difference and gave many good examples that he was clearly not acting as a racist. He said he was wondering if maybe he was racist because when he saw a black person that fit that profile he had been taught to fear he did become fearful and no matter what he told himself intellectually in his gut there was fear which left him feeling angry at the person and that made him ponder if he might be racist.

I'm not sure that's entirely unjustified.

If some youth dresses up like a gangsta and projects that image and then is treated differently for it I don't think that's racist or entirely unfair. In that point he is profiling but based more on clothing/appearance rather than on race. In such a situation it is an appropriate learned behavior to be cautious; though as much as possible one should not be too quick to judge.

If however he views a well dressed black businessman like he's the ODB then there is a problem.

[WolfpackGuy]

Everyone's a racist.

[Pony Boy]

Is it possible to not like white people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?
<!-- / message -->

[BroncoBuff]

Dedhed's right ... that's pretty much the definition.

[Hamrob]

It's kind of an ignorant question if you ask me.

[Cito Pelon]

Everyone's a racist.

Everyone's not necessarily 'racist', though. But it's human nature to be tribal to some degree. Meaning a mistrust of another culture or 'tribe', a prejudice.

'Prejudice' is 'pre-judging', and everyone certainly has that learned into them by the older members of our tribes.

[mr007]

One of the guys said he didn't consider himself a racist but he went on to say that he felt he had been imprinted by his parents at an early age with a general distrust and a kind of fear of black people that fit a certain profile. He said he believed with all his heart that a mans color made no difference and gave many good examples that he was clearly not acting as a racist. He said he was wondering if maybe he was racist because when he saw a black person that fit that profile he had been taught to fear he did become fearful and no matter what he told himself intellectually in his gut there was fear which left him feeling angry at the person and that made him ponder if he might be racist.

I think this line right here is the exact definition of being prejudice. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what your skin color is, if you fit a certain profile, I'm probably going to be a lot more careful around you than I would other people. Stereotypes are around for a reason even if they don't apply to every situation.

[baja]

Everyone's a racist.

After thinking about it for awhile this is the conclusion I came to as well then I decided to look up the definition of 'racist'

rac⋅ism  [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

then there is this one;

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] Or, on the opposite side, racism can be described as the belief that a certain race or races portray undesirable characteristics. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.

The fact that you even see a distinction from one race to another could satisfy the definition there by making us all racist.

Can anyone honestly say they think and act exactly the same around all human beings? See every person with the exact same clean slate?



So now I think that we need a new word to describe that since of difference that seems to come up.

For those of you that have said this is a dumb question I have to disagree. If you are honest with yourself than it becomes a very thought provoking question. Ask the question this way. Am I a racist?

[baja]

Years ago B love started a thread about how he felt the young black players were ruining the game of football because of the flavorclownism they had brought to the game and he got killed on the thread and labeled a racist. It got so bad that he stopped posting for a long while. I know B love is not a racist but he was run off the old DPO board just for making the thread. i doubt that Jimmy the Greek was a racist either but he went from a very popular NFL telecaster to being blackballed for saying he believed blacks are superior athletes to white people. Howard Cosell had similar difficulties over his "Look at that little monkey go" comment.

Question I have is does this wide spread over reaction to these comments make a case that deep down most people really are racist and therefore over react to these situations.

[strafen]

Is it possible to not like black people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?I've been ripped off by black folks after I gave them my trust.
I wouldn't say I don't like black people, I chose "yes" on the poll for lack of better options, I just don't trust them anymore.

[baja]

I've been ripped off by black folks after I gave them my trust.
I wouldn't say I don't like black people, I chose "yes" on the poll for lack of better options, I just don't trust them anymore.

What would have been a better option?

[DenverBrit]

Everyone's a racist.

Speak for yourself.

I 'discriminate' against individuals, as do most people, not because of their skin color or ethnic origins but because we don't like them for one reason or another.

[bronco610]

The Older I get, the more I dont like Anybody.

[baja]

Speak for yourself.

I 'discriminate' against individuals, as do most people, not because of their skin color or ethnic origins but because we don't like them for one reason or another.

What I know for sure is we would all like to believe this about ourselves.

I have been blessed with the opportunity to travel extensively around the world and I consider myself an accepting and loving person yet I can not say in all honesty that I view everyone the same. What I do is make some subtle assumptions as I collect sensory information about the situation. I find even though I'd like not to I am making assertions about the people I encounter now is this racist or just basic survival strategies kicking in?

[DenverBrit]

What I know for sure is we would all like to believe this about ourselves.

I have been blessed with the opportunity to travel extensively around the world and I consider myself an accepting and loving person yet I can not say in all honesty that I view everyone the same. What I do is make some subtle assumptions as I collect sensory information about the situation. I find even though I'd like not to I am making assertions about the people I encounter now is this racist or just basic survival strategies kicking in?

In my travels, the times I become anxious are when the circumstances warrant. Wander into any area that is unsafe and everyone looks like a potential problem.......regardless of color.

[Br0nc0Buster]

I dont see how you can have a negative view on all black people and not be racist

Also I dont think the notion that everyone is racist is correct
To a degree I think everyone may harbor prejudices, but that doesnt have to include racism

[Jason in LA]

If somebody didn't know me at all and didn't like me simply because I'm black then hell yeah they're racist. If the person knew me or formed a dislike for me based on something that I did, and it had nothing to do with me being black, then no, they aren't racist, they just don't like me as an individual.

There have been some interesting points in this thread, and like somebody else mentioned, it has gone much better than expected. This thread had fail written all over it.

One point was about how blacks are portrayed in the media. Mainly hip hop and entertainment. There are blacks who are like that, but there are a lot of blacks who are not like that, myself included, and we're sick of having those images lumped on us. I had a conversation with a white guy about this a while back. He said that I didn't seem like a lot of other blacks. Meaning I dressed normal, I spoke proper English, and appeared to be a law abiding citizen. My point to him was that I wasn't going against the norm when it comes to black people. The bulk of my friends and people that I associate with are black, and I don't know any gangbangers, ex cons, folks with multiple kids by different people. Damn near all my friends are college educated and have careers. We don't fit the stereotypes that are lumped on black people. Well, we can dance and do like fried chicken. ;D

A while back I was watching some documentary where the Cosby Show was mentioned. When ever the Cosby Show was mentioned in a documentary about black people, it would show black people saying that the Cosby Show wasn't really reality. Then in this one documentary it showed one black guy saying that those other black folks are misinformed because he grew up with both parents, who were both college grads, and they lived in a nice area. That's pretty much my upbringing. That's pretty much a similar upbringing to a lot of my friends. We exist and there are a whole lot of us. Way more than people think. Stereo types would lead people to believe that we are rare.

And about the point about being afraid of certain types of black people. I don't have a problem with that statement because I'm very cautious around certain black folks. The ones who look "thuggish". I don't like getting gas at night in certain areas. I don't go to certain liquor stores. If a guy dresses like a thug then he shouldn't be upset when people are cautious around him. Hell, he's probably a thug. Black people kill blacks more than anybody else, so hell yeah I'm cautious around a lot of them.

Being cautious around certain people has nothing to do with race, well, at least for me. I stay away from the Latino thugs. There's a black vs brown war going on in LA. Innocent people have been targeted so I'm cautious around them. And I don't trust the white thugs. There were a couple times I didn't feel too comfortable. I was in a 7/11 once late at night and these two white guys rolled in. Both with bald heads and tats... on their heads! I didn't really look to see what the tats were, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had the "SS bolt" or something like that. Well I didn't feel the safest around those two guys. One other time, I was at a sports bar that I always watch football games at. This one Sunday a white biker gang held an event there. They rolled in like 100 deep. Me and another black guy who hung there every Sunday looked at each other and thought if we should leave. lol. We stuck around, Broncos beat the Chargers, so all was good. Not even a biker gang was going to keep me from watching the Broncos game.

My point is that there are cool people of every race and there are thugs of every race. Even the Asians out here are gangbanging. I would never judge a person based only on their race. Anybody who judges a person negatively based only on their race is being racist. But if somebody looks like a thug, no matter their race, there's nothing racist about being cautious around them.

[gyldenlove]

I expect productive things from this thread.

This can only lead to happiness and good things. Much like having sex with your student/niece/neighbours horse/vacuum cleaner.

[baja]

If somebody didn't know me at all and didn't like me simply because I'm black then hell yeah they're racist. If the person knew me or formed a dislike for me based on something that I did, and it had nothing to do with me being black, then no, they aren't racist, they just don't like me as an individual.

There have been some interesting points in this thread,<b> and like somebody else mentioned, it has gone much better than expected. This thread had fail written all over it. </b>

One point was about how blacks are portrayed in the media. Mainly hip hop and entertainment. There are blacks who are like that, but there are a lot of blacks who are not like that, myself included, and we're sick of having those images lumped on us. I had a conversation with a white guy about this a while back. He said that I didn't seem like a lot of other blacks. Meaning I dressed normal, I spoke proper English, and appeared to be a law abiding citizen. My point to him was that I wasn't going against the norm when it comes to black people. <b> The bulk of my friends and people that I associate with are black,</b> and I don't know any gangbangers, ex cons, folks with multiple kids by different people. Damn near all my friends are college educated and have careers. We don't fit the stereotypes that are lumped on black people. Well, we can dance and do like fried chicken. ;D

A while back I was watching some documentary where the Cosby Show was mentioned. When ever the Cosby Show was mentioned in a documentary about black people, it would show black people saying that the Cosby Show wasn't really reality. Then in this one documentary it showed one black guy saying that those other black folks are misinformed because he grew up with both parents, who were both college grads, and they lived in a nice area. That's pretty much my upbringing. That's pretty much a similar upbringing to a lot of my friends. We exist and there are a whole lot of us. Way more than people think. Stereo types would lead people to believe that we are rare.

And about the point about being afraid of certain types of black people. I don't have a problem with that statement because I'm very cautious around certain black folks. The ones who look "thuggish". I don't like getting gas at night in certain areas. I don't go to certain liquor stores. If a guy dresses like a thug then he shouldn't be upset when people are cautious around him. Hell, he's probably a thug. Black people kill blacks more than anybody else, so hell yeah I'm cautious around a lot of them.

Being cautious around certain people has nothing to do with race, well, at least for me. I stay away from the Latino thugs. There's a black vs brown war going on in LA. Innocent people have been targeted so I'm cautious around them. And I don't trust the white thugs. There were a couple times I didn't feel too comfortable. I was in a 7/11 once late at night and these two white guys rolled in. Both with bald heads and tats... on their heads! I didn't really look to see what the tats were, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had the "SS bolt" or something like that. Well I didn't feel the safest around those two guys. One other time, I was at a sports bar that I always watch football games at. This one Sunday a white biker gang held an event there. They rolled in like 100 deep. Me and another black guy who hung there every Sunday looked at each other and thought if we should leave. lol. We stuck around, Broncos beat the Chargers, so all was good. Not even a biker gang was going to keep me from watching the Broncos game.

My point is that there are cool people of every race and there are thugs of every race. Even the Asians out here are gangbanging. I would never judge a person based only on their race. Anybody who judges a person negatively based only on their race is being racist. But if somebody looks like a thug, no matter their race, there's nothing racist about being cautious around them.

First bold; Why do you assume this would be a "fail" thread?

Second bold; Why do you think it has turned out that most of your friends are black?

[baja]

This can only lead to happiness and good things. Much like having sex with your student/niece/neighbours horse/vacuum cleaner.

Some would this subject is akin the an elephant in the middle of the room that nobody is talking about.

Why is it so scary to some to have this discussion? What are you afraid of?

[Jason in LA]

First bold; Why do you assume this would be a "fail" thread?

Second bold; Why do you think it has turned out that most of your friends are black?

Have you read most of the race threads around here? I try to stay away from them. I used to get in a lot of the race debates around here, but a couple years back I decided to just avoid them for the most part. Some of the stuff being said in some of those debates are just crazy. I don't really care to get pissed off over that stuff, so I tend to stay out of those debates.

As for why most of my friends are black, that's pretty simple, and it has nothing to do with me not liking other races or associating myself with other races. I grew up in a black neighborhood, I am a member of a black fraternity, I have worked as a sports writer/photographer for two black newspapers. I'm a member of a few black social organizations. That's where the educated black women are ;D.

People tend to stick to their own. Nothing wrong with that. I don't want it to seem like all of my friends are black, or all of the people that I associate with are black. Growing up I always went to multi-race schools. My best friend in high school was a Mexican guy, and on the football and track team there were a number of blacks and Mexican guys. We were all really good friends. I'm still tight with my Mexican best friend from way back then. I'm also a member of a few groups that aren't based on race at all.

I've worked for black publications because that's who gave me my start, but I don't plan to work for black publications for the rest of my career. They are just stepping stones. A lot of writers and photographers get their start at community newspapers. So when I was looking to break in I went to all the black newspapers here in LA and one hired me. Then I ended up at another one. The goal was to work my way up to a publication like the LA Times, or maybe magazines. But the industry is changing, so my plans are kind of changing.

During my career I've networked with many non-blacks and have been well accepted by members from other races. At Lakers game it doesn't seem like race is even an issue with folks in the pressroom. We're all doing our jobs and everybody is pretty much friendly with everybody else.

So on one level I do gravitate to my own people, but on another hand, I don't limit myself to only black folks. People shouldn't limit themselves like that. Hell, I've been here with yall since the beginning. ;D

[Rohirrim]

I think it is possible to not like brussell sprouts, but how can you not like black people? Wouldn't you have to meet them all first? You wouldn't believe the range of dark skinned people. I did a contract years ago with a bunch of guys from Cameroon. They had thick, French accents. They wore suits while we were doing business, but on the last day, when they were flying home, they wore these electric colored robes and little pill box hats. The colors were mind-boggling, like brilliant parrots. Those guys had no inkling of what African-American culture or stereotypes are. Then I did another job with some blacks from Bermuda. When they spoke, they had the most upper crust English accents you ever heard. Really caused some cognitive dissonance. "I say. Quite." Then you have some of the blackest people in the world are Dravidians from southern India. They look nothing like Africans. They are also discriminated against in India because of their skin color. I remember watching a Frontline on race relations in the Caribbean and South America and was suprised to see the levels of discrimination caused simply by color. The darkest skinned people were always at the bottom of the social ladder. Maybe it's just an across the board, human prejudice. I don't know. I hate rap music, though. I don't have to hear every rap song (song?) to know I hate it all. But I love classic R&B and some funk. So, go figure. ;D

[Blart]

I love black people

[jhns]

You are racist if you really have to ask this question. It isn't that everyone is racist, it is that all older people are racist. At least that is how it seems here in Nebraska. I would assume it is mostly that they didn't grow up around different races. It is both sad and funny when you see a black guy leave a store and the two old white guys working their pretty much pull out their hoods. What is it about old white guys thinking every white person is in the KKK?

[sirhcyennek81]

Considering the use of race in regards to people is wrong, the word is just silly. There is no black race, white race, asian race, ect. Ethnicity is a response to thousands of years of environmental stimuli. Thats it.

Discussing "race" is something few people are comfortable with. It leads to generalizations and then some blanket statement like "we are all alike"...clearly we are not, otherwise we wouldnt have to talk about it. Being honest wont kill anybody, and until people get over the discomfort the sooner we can bury this racism bull**** and move on.

:Broncos:

[That One Guy]

I, personally, think races are different. I think it's not merely a coincidence that so many of the most athletic positions in sports are dominated by a specific race. Could it be related to the thousand years or so where whites have generally been industrialized while areas like Africa were less so and more dependant on physical survival? I don't know. I just personally wouldn't be surprised to one day see that there is a scientific explanation of some sort.

As for the rest, I'm very skeptical. I'll give anyone a feeling out period so long as they aren't thugged out or the like. All too often, I run into those bouncing their car down the street or something and I don't like them. I don't know who they are: black, white, or purple but I don't like them. If I walk into a room and 3 black guys are talking about BBQing some ribs this weekend, I might stop and join their conversation. If, conversely, they're talking about the new necklace they got or the new 20s they've got on their Impala... I'm probably gonna look down my nose at em, a bit. I don't necessarily know why. I'm that way with just about any race though. If you're ignorant or your world evolves around superficial nonsense and I think you're incapable of deep thought... yeah, I'm gonna look down upon you. Might make me a snob or something. I don't know and so long as that never impacts my day to day life, roll on.

I'm also quite critical of anyone who comes to America and doesn't conform to American traits, to a sense. If I hear you speaking a foreign language in the presence of those who don't speak it, I don't like it and quite often don't like that person. I understand it's nostalgia, to a degree, to speak to someone of your native tongue sometimes but don't make a habit out of it. Either you're American or you're not.

So, in turn... Most likely I would be considered racist if everyone I knew could read my every thought. In my mind, I'm just deciding not to like thugs, ignorant people, people who latch onto their country's traditions as if they're making a point, etc. On any given day at work you can find me having a laid back conversation with a half dozen folks of different races. But each have an inkling of sophistication or sensibility that I can relate to. I don't necessarily always have to make that bond before I can associate with white people... maybe I assume that I will have something in common with the white folk whereas I want to confirm it before I get interested in everyone else?

We are who we are, I guess. It can't always be explained.

[BroncoBuff]

I need to know ... what color are you baja?

Cause I want to avoid the Christmas rush and start hating you now.

[sirhcyennek81]

I, personally, think races are different. I think it's not merely a coincidence that so many of the most athletic positions in sports are dominated by a specific race. Could it be related to the thousand years or so where whites have generally been industrialized while areas like Africa were less so and more dependant on physical survival? I don't know. I just personally wouldn't be surprised to one day see that there is a scientific explanation of some sort.

As for the rest, I'm very skeptical. I'll give anyone a feeling out period so long as they aren't thugged out or the like. All too often, I run into those bouncing their car down the street or something and I don't like them. I don't know who they are: black, white, or purple but I don't like them. If I walk into a room and 3 black guys are talking about BBQing some ribs this weekend, I might stop and join their conversation. If, conversely, they're talking about the new necklace they got or the new 20s they've got on their Impala... I'm probably gonna look down my nose at em, a bit. I don't necessarily know why. I'm that way with just about any race though. If you're ignorant or your world evolves around superficial nonsense and I think you're incapable of deep thought... yeah, I'm gonna look down upon you. Might make me a snob or something. I don't know and so long as that never impacts my day to day life, roll on.

I'm also quite critical of anyone who comes to America and doesn't conform to American traits, to a sense. If I hear you speaking a foreign language in the presence of those who don't speak it, I don't like it and quite often don't like that person. I understand it's nostalgia, to a degree, to speak to someone of your native tongue sometimes but don't make a habit out of it. Either you're American or you're not.

So, in turn... Most likely I would be considered racist if everyone I knew could read my every thought. In my mind, I'm just deciding not to like thugs, ignorant people, people who latch onto their country's traditions as if they're making a point, etc. On any given day at work you can find me having a laid back conversation with a half dozen folks of different races. But each have an inkling of sophistication or sensibility that I can relate to. I don't necessarily always have to make that bond before I can associate with white people... maybe I assume that I will have something in common with the white folk whereas I want to confirm it before I get interested in everyone else?

We are who we are, I guess. It can't always be explained.


It reads like you are confusing culture and race. Genetically there is no difference between white, black, asian, ect.

:Broncos:

[Rock Chalk]

I don't like most black people I have met. Doesn't have anything to do with their race, but everything about the content of their character (because you know, that MLK Jr guy had a good point). Most black people I have met fit the stereotype of what most white people do not like about black folk in general.

That being said, I have met some really excellent black people in my life. ANd, from my experience, the ratio of excellent/****ty black people is about on par with any other race. Fact is, most people are ****ty, regardless of race. So when you find an excellent person, make friends, because they are few and far between.

[Br0nc0Buster]

It reads like you are confusing culture and race. Genetically there is no difference between white, black, asian, ect.

:Broncos:

I also wish the word "race" was used correctly as there is no such thing as different races in the human species
But I do think there is a slight biological difference between some of the ethnicities
For example black people have more melanin

[strafen]

It reads like you are confusing culture and race. Genetically there is no difference between white, black, asian, ect.

:Broncos: True...
I may also add culture is what differentiate races, and people from the same race may be different in customs as well...

[sirhcyennek81]

True...
I may also add culture is what differentiate races, and people from the same race may be different in customs as well...


Example being African blacks and American blacks, who are both different from Australian Aboriginies. Not similar at all, but lumped together due to skin hue.

:Broncos:

[strafen]

You are racist if you really have to ask this question. It isn't that everyone is racist, it is that all older people are racist. At least that is how it seems here in Nebraska. I would assume it is mostly that they didn't grow up around different races. It is both sad and funny when you see a black guy leave a store and the two old white guys working their pretty much pull out their hoods. What is it about old white guys thinking every white person is in the KKK?No way, dude! ROFL!
I can't imagine what is like in Arkansas, Mississipi or Alabama!

[baja]

Have you read most of the race threads around here? I try to stay away from them. I used to get in a lot of the race debates around here, but a couple years back I decided to just avoid them for the most part. Some of the stuff being said in some of those debates are just crazy. I don't really care to get pissed off over that stuff, so I tend to stay out of those debates.

As for why most of my friends are black, that's pretty simple, and it has nothing to do with me not liking other races or associating myself with other races. I grew up in a black neighborhood, I am a member of a black fraternity, I have worked as a sports writer/photographer for two black newspapers. I'm a member of a few black social organizations. That's where the educated black women are ;D.

People tend to stick to their own. Nothing wrong with that. I don't want it to seem like all of my friends are black, or all of the people that I associate with are black. Growing up I always went to multi-race schools. My best friend in high school was a Mexican guy, and on the football and track team there were a number of blacks and Mexican guys. We were all really good friends. I'm still tight with my Mexican best friend from way back then. I'm also a member of a few groups that aren't based on race at all.

I've worked for black publications because that's who gave me my start, but I don't plan to work for black publications for the rest of my career. They are just stepping stones. A lot of writers and photographers get their start at community newspapers. So when I was looking to break in I went to all the black newspapers here in LA and one hired me. Then I ended up at another one. The goal was to work my way up to a publication like the LA Times, or maybe magazines. But the industry is changing, so my plans are kind of changing.

During my career I've networked with many non-blacks and have been well accepted by members from other races. At Lakers game it doesn't seem like race is even an issue with folks in the pressroom. We're all doing our jobs and everybody is pretty much friendly with everybody else.

So on one level I do gravitate to my own people, but on another hand, I don't limit myself to only black folks. People shouldn't limit themselves like that. Hell, I've been here with yall since the beginning. ;D

Thanks for the thoughtful post Jason

[baja]

I think it is possible to not like brussell sprouts, but how can you not like black people? Wouldn't you have to meet them all first? You wouldn't believe the range of dark skinned people. I did a contract years ago with a bunch of guys from Cameroon. They had thick, French accents. They wore suits while we were doing business, but on the last day, when they were flying home, they wore these electric colored robes and little pill box hats. The colors were mind-boggling, like brilliant parrots. Those guys had no inkling of what African-American culture or stereotypes are. Then I did another job with some blacks from Bermuda. When they spoke, they had the most upper crust English accents you ever heard. Really caused some cognitive dissonance. "I say. Quite." Then you have some of the blackest people in the world are Dravidians from southern India. They look nothing like Africans. They are also discriminated against in India because of their skin color. I remember watching a Frontline on race relations in the Caribbean and South America and was suprised to see the levels of discrimination caused simply by color. The darkest skinned people were always at the bottom of the social ladder. Maybe it's just an across the board, human prejudice. I don't know. I hate rap music, though. I don't have to hear every rap song (song?) to know I hate it all. But I love classic R&B and some funk. So, go figure. ;D

Have you meant all the Brussel Sprouts?

[baja]

Considering the use of race in regards to people is wrong, the word is just silly. There is no black race, white race, asian race, ect. Ethnicity is a response to thousands of years of environmental stimuli. Thats it.

Discussing "race" is something few people are comfortable with. It leads to generalizations and then some blanket statement like "we are all alike"...clearly we are not, otherwise we wouldnt have to talk about it. Being honest wont kill anybody, and until people get over the discomfort the sooner we can bury this racism bull**** and move on.

:Broncos:

I like this post

[baja]

I need to know ... what color are you baja?

Cause I want to avoid the Christmas rush and start hating you now.

I'm transparent

[JCMElway]

One of the guys said he didn't consider himself a racist but he went on to say that he felt he had been imprinted by his parents at an early age with a general distrust and a kind of fear of black people that fit a certain profile. He said he believed with all his heart that a mans color made no difference and gave many good examples that he was clearly not acting as a racist. He said he was wondering if maybe he was racist because when he saw a black person that fit that profile he had been taught to fear he did become fearful and no matter what he told himself intellectually in his gut there was fear which left him feeling angry at the person and that made him ponder if he might be racist.

That's not the original thought you put forward. You said, "Did not like." That's different from what you describe here. No, I would not say he's a racist, because I believe a racist implies belief and action, none of which is displayed in this post.

[baja]

That's not the original thought you put forward. You said, "Did not like." That's different from what you describe here. No, I would not say he's a racist, because I believe a racist implies belief and action, none of which is displayed in this post.

Yes I know it is different from the OP this was just his thoughts on the general subject. I worded the thread title the way I did for a reason

[That One Guy]

It reads like you are confusing culture and race. Genetically there is no difference between white, black, asian, ect.

:Broncos:

Eh.. to a degree. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

When we define black stereotypes, we'd be more likely to include Eminem than Carlton from Fresh Prince. Obviously their skin tones don't match but the generalities do.

So a race does include both... we'll say "normal" people and the "radical" ones. In terms of normalcy, I consider the educated ones that contribute to society normal while the ignorant punks are not. The ignorant punks are what definite the different races because the normal ones don't necessarily stand out to be noticed.

And you also said there's no races... but if you believe in evolution (which you obviously do as that's the concept you put forth) wouldn't it be naive to believe that the ONLY changes that happened were skin tone? Would it be too outrageous to wonder whether one group of people refined their thinking capabilities whereas another depended on their physical capabilities to survive? Not saying it is because that'd be racist but isn't it feasible? In civilized and industrialized nations, the survival of the fittest could be based on intelligence. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if you can do long division in your head if you're incapable of hunting for dinner.

Just throwing that out there as a question... is it possible some races have been more dependant on brainpower vs some races being more dependant on physical stature? Could that explain any of the differences we see today?

[sirhcyennek81]

Eh.. to a degree. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

When we define black stereotypes, we'd be more likely to include Eminem than Carlton from Fresh Prince. Obviously their skin tones don't match but the generalities do.

So a race does include both... we'll say "normal" people and the "radical" ones. In terms of normalcy, I consider the educated ones that contribute to society normal while the ignorant punks are not. The ignorant punks are what definite the different races because the normal ones don't necessarily stand out to be noticed.

And you also said there's no races... but if you believe in evolution (which you obviously do as that's the concept you put forth) wouldn't it be naive to believe that the ONLY changes that happened were skin tone? Would it be too outrageous to wonder whether one group of people refined their thinking capabilities whereas another depended on their physical capabilities to survive? Not saying it is because that'd be racist but isn't it feasible? In civilized and industrialized nations, the survival of the fittest could be based on intelligence. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if you can do long division in your head if you're incapable of hunting for dinner.

Just throwing that out there as a question... is it possible some races have been more dependant on brainpower vs some races being more dependant on physical stature? Could that explain any of the differences we see today?

As an animal, a man is weak. We dont run very fast, compared to other "apex predators" we are not very strong, we have no claws and our teeth are small. Even a group of people relying more on physical attributes wont compete on the same level as other animals with more developed physical characteristics. Fundementally, all people are the same. We are where we are because we think. We lack strength, we develop weapons and tools. We lack claws and teeth, so we develop knives and process the food we hunt or gather. Survival of the fittest is not used in the correct way. Simply because someone is the smartest, or the strongest does not mean they live to reproduce. The members of society who do are the ones most capable of survival, and the ones more likely to reproduce in the first place.

Your question becomes a cultural one. All people have the same capacity for learning. Several factors can inhibit or enable that, but at the end of the day simply because group A is white and Group B is black does not mean group A will be more mentally competent while group B is more physically proficient.

:Broncos:

[watermock]

Well that certainly cleared that topic up.

Alot of sidestepping of the real causes of war...

There are more than race/color.

I would suggest that is minor factor.

Religion/Technology/Colonialism/Greed/Subjication/Gold and the Catholic Church developed rascim.

It's all about money.

[Rohirrim]

Have you meant all the Brussel Sprouts?

If you've tried one brussel sprout, you've tried them all. ugh!~

[kappys]

Eh.. to a degree. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

When we define black stereotypes, we'd be more likely to include Eminem than Carlton from Fresh Prince. Obviously their skin tones don't match but the generalities do.

So a race does include both... we'll say "normal" people and the "radical" ones. In terms of normalcy, I consider the educated ones that contribute to society normal while the ignorant punks are not. The ignorant punks are what definite the different races because the normal ones don't necessarily stand out to be noticed.

And you also said there's no races... but if you believe in evolution (which you obviously do as that's the concept you put forth) wouldn't it be naive to believe that the ONLY changes that happened were skin tone? Would it be too outrageous to wonder whether one group of people refined their thinking capabilities whereas another depended on their physical capabilities to survive? Not saying it is because that'd be racist but isn't it feasible? In civilized and industrialized nations, the survival of the fittest could be based on intelligence. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if you can do long division in your head if you're incapable of hunting for dinner.

Just throwing that out there as a question... is it possible some races have been more dependant on brainpower vs some races being more dependant on physical stature? Could that explain any of the differences we see today?

Except that you're way off base here with your assumptions of industrialization. The industrial revolution is a few hundred years old - certainly not thousands. Perhaps you're referring more to sedentary agrarian societies vs. herding societies at which point you do have some splits that occurred a few thousand years ago - though there are plenty examples of the former among the great African societies. Most African cultures haven't been based on a hunter/gatherer paradigm for millenia.

That said of course important race differences do exist. Sherpas have physiologic traits that help them adapt to high altitude living, as do Eskimos to arctic climes. My complaint is not with your observation but rather your proposed theory as to why.

[That One Guy]

As an animal, a man is weak. We dont run very fast, compared to other "apex predators" we are not very strong, we have no claws and our teeth are small. Even a group of people relying more on physical attributes wont compete on the same level as other animals with more developed physical characteristics. Fundementally, all people are the same. We are where we are because we think. We lack strength, we develop weapons and tools. We lack claws and teeth, so we develop knives and process the food we hunt or gather. Survival of the fittest is not used in the correct way. Simply because someone is the smartest, or the strongest does not mean they live to reproduce. The members of society who do are the ones most capable of survival, and the ones more likely to reproduce in the first place.

Your question becomes a cultural one. All people have the same capacity for learning. Several factors can inhibit or enable that, but at the end of the day simply because group A is white and Group B is black does not mean group A will be more mentally competent while group B is more physically proficient.

:Broncos:

So... just for arguments' sake, you think it's strictly the cultural aspects that cause athletic positions to be dominated by non-whites while positions like QB are dominated by whites? How many non-athletic black QBs have there been? I think McNabb, Vick, Vince Young, Randall Cunningham... the days of Kordell Stewart... who am I missing?

How many top flight white RBs are there today? Top WRs?

I think we'd all like to believe that everyone is created equal. I think for the most part, we are. I don't know that the results currently suggest that there are no inherent physical differences though. Obviously any intelligence based statistics would be dismissed on account of unequal education so I can't really include that. But on a physical stage, when can we start saying maybe they are actually better at sports?

EDIT: And just to be clear, the QBs I listed were all the pretty good ones that were athletic. I don't know any that were pretty good but not. I guess I should also include Mcnair, forgot about him. He was fairly mobile though, definitely no Peyton Manning or Drew Bledsoe.

[That One Guy]

Except that you're way off base here with your assumptions of industrialization. The industrial revolution is a few hundred years old - certainly not thousands. Perhaps you're referring more to sedentary agrarian societies vs. herding societies at which point you do have some splits that occurred a few thousand years ago - though there are plenty examples of the former among the great African societies. Most African cultures haven't been based on a hunter/gatherer paradigm for millenia.

That said of course important race differences do exist. Sherpas have physiologic traits that help them adapt to high altitude living, as do Eskimos to arctic climes. My complaint is not with your observation but rather your proposed theory as to why.

And it simply is a theory...

I think I did use industrialization incorrectly there. I'm thinking more along the lines of the point at which farming cities became more prominent, tools were used more, stock animals worked the fields... etc. It's been a long time since many areas of the world did a task that was not heavily dependant on tools and animal labor. I guess I don't know... have Africans traveled horseback the way Europeans have for 2000 years? I think I was under the assumption they don't. Also, the jungles of Africa would be way more condusive (or conducive, not sure) to a lifestyle of hunting prey vs, again, the Europeans who have been way more dependant on farms. Maybe it's just the movies but I guess I didn't know the Africans were as farm dependant.

And again, it's all just a theory but if you get away from the politically correct concept that we are all of the exact same stock... isn't it possible there are differences? I recall reading an account (mostly discredited) about an explorer in the early 1900s that swore a young boy in Africa was running 50 MPH... I don't imagine that was accurate but I don't know enough of their culture to say if they are ACTUALLY more physically capable than the rest. Just what I've seen in movies and whatnot which would suggest they are.

[kappys]

And it simply is a theory...

I think I did use industrialization incorrectly there. I'm thinking more along the lines of the point at which farming cities became more prominent, tools were used more, stock animals worked the fields... etc. It's been a long time since many areas of the world did a task that was not heavily dependant on tools and animal labor. I guess I don't know... have Africans traveled horseback the way Europeans have for 2000 years? I think I was under the assumption they don't. Also, the jungles of Africa would be way more condusive (or conducive, not sure) to a lifestyle of hunting prey vs, again, the Europeans who have been way more dependant on farms. Maybe it's just the movies but I guess I didn't know the Africans were as farm dependant.

And again, it's all just a theory but if you get away from the politically correct concept that we are all of the exact same stock... isn't it possible there are differences? I recall reading an account (mostly discredited) about an explorer in the early 1900s that swore a young boy in Africa was running 50 MPH... I don't imagine that was accurate but I don't know enough of their culture to say if they are ACTUALLY more physically capable than the rest. Just what I've seen in movies and whatnot which would suggest they are.

You need look no further than Mali to answer questions about advanced African societies.

That said I recommend a youtube video: The ideas of Chomsky - BBC interview. Don't worry its not political so it won't offend the conservatives. It is a discussion b/t an English philosopher and Chomsky regarding his ideas about generative grammer/universal language and their philosophical implications. One of the things that he addresses is the fact that many of our more advanced intellectual abilities - a penchant for the applying abstract number theories - would be fairly unlikely to provide survival advantages in hunting/gathering societies. At least its hard to imagine how such an aptitude would necesarilly have been used. While we have advanced greatly in this area - and now have the fruits to show for it in other areas such as emotional description/understanding we are only marginally better than we were in antiquity.

[That One Guy]

You need look no further than Mali to answer questions about advanced African societies.

That said I recommend a youtube video: The ideas of Chomsky - BBC interview. Don't worry its not political so it won't offend the conservatives. It is a discussion b/t an English philosopher and Chomsky regarding his ideas about generative grammer/universal language and their philosophical implications. One of the things that he addresses is the fact that many of our more advanced intellectual abilities - a penchant for the applying abstract number theories - would be fairly unlikely to provide survival advantages in hunting/gathering societies. At least its hard to imagine how such an aptitude would necesarilly have been used. While we have advanced greatly in this area - and now have the fruits to show for it in other areas such as emotional description/understanding we are only marginally better than we were in antiquity.

And possibly that is where my theory falls apart. Don't know much about Africa other than what I've seen on TV or read in a book I can't recall the name of about some evil African Queen.

I'll check out the video, I can't say I completely understand the point without seeing it but unfortunately a small child the wife dumped on me would inhibit my watching it attentively at this point.

[Rohirrim]

For the most part, Africa doesn't have an agricultural tradition for a very good reason; lousy soil. Also, resources were sparse. The most successful traditions in such a place, naturally, were hunting, gathering and herding. For the most part, Africa was made up for millenia of nomads following the herds. Such a way of life does not lend itself to the construction of city states. The chief exception being the Egyptians who had the Nile River, with it's dependable annual flood, creating one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. You could really argue that agriculture gave birth to what we call "civilization."

[That One Guy]

For the most part, Africa doesn't have an agricultural tradition for a very good reason; lousy soil. Also, resources were sparse. The most successful traditions in such a place, naturally, were hunting, gathering and herding. For the most part, Africa was made up for millenia of nomads following the herds. Such a way of life does not lend itself to the construction of city states. The chief exception being the Egyptians who had the Nile River, with it's dependable annual flood, creating one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. You could really argue that agriculture gave birth to what we call "civilization."

And I guess that's more what I thought... does that conflict with what he put above or is there middle ground?

[ZachKC]

Is it possible to not like black people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?

I would say no...because the reason you don't like them is because they are black.

lol

[gyldenlove]

For the most part, Africa doesn't have an agricultural tradition for a very good reason; lousy soil. Also, resources were sparse. The most successful traditions in such a place, naturally, were hunting, gathering and herding. For the most part, Africa was made up for millenia of nomads following the herds. Such a way of life does not lend itself to the construction of city states. The chief exception being the Egyptians who had the Nile River, with it's dependable annual flood, creating one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. You could really argue that agriculture gave birth to what we call "civilization."

It is water that leads to civilization. Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Persia etc. even the South and Middle American nations as well as Rome were all founded based on where water was abundant. With water comes a high food yield which allows the majority of people to do tasks not related directly to accumulating food.

The natural extension is of course agriculture and fishery, since both can yield much more food than the people directly involved can consume.

[Merlin]

I'm not going to bother reading the thread, but by definition is not possible. The term racist states that a person can be defined by the mere color of their skin. Which means one can know the person without knowing them, they are predefined. If you cannot like a person because of the pigment of their skin you are a racist, plain and simple (i.e. you are saying their race defines them). Any attempt at arguing the converse is just a moronic attempt at rationalizing a moral stance one knows is unacceptable.

PS, there is no gene that defines race (race from a biologic perspective is analyzed from the perspective of strands, not a particular gene that defines one as black, caucasian, etc.) , so the argument is just based on social constructs that serve to reinforce our social dogmas. The "races" share more in common across the mean than they do within the "category"; the whole concept is artificial in the context of racism and the social practices associated with them.

[gyldenlove]

And it simply is a theory...

I think I did use industrialization incorrectly there. I'm thinking more along the lines of the point at which farming cities became more prominent, tools were used more, stock animals worked the fields... etc. It's been a long time since many areas of the world did a task that was not heavily dependant on tools and animal labor. I guess I don't know... have Africans traveled horseback the way Europeans have for 2000 years? I think I was under the assumption they don't. Also, the jungles of Africa would be way more condusive (or conducive, not sure) to a lifestyle of hunting prey vs, again, the Europeans who have been way more dependant on farms. Maybe it's just the movies but I guess I didn't know the Africans were as farm dependant.

And again, it's all just a theory but if you get away from the politically correct concept that we are all of the exact same stock... isn't it possible there are differences? I recall reading an account (mostly discredited) about an explorer in the early 1900s that swore a young boy in Africa was running 50 MPH... I don't imagine that was accurate but I don't know enough of their culture to say if they are ACTUALLY more physically capable than the rest. Just what I've seen in movies and whatnot which would suggest they are.

Very few Africans would have ridden since the horse is not native to most of Africa. It is entirely possible that Africans developed ox drawn carts and plows very early on though.

It has been shown that Africans especially those tribes in the slave coast and upper volta areas have very skinny but long legs which allow them to run more efficiently than caucasians which partly explains why Africans tend to dominate the long distance running at the Olympics. As for other physical traits, that is more a result of training I am sure - relatively few caucasians need to do track and field or other athletics to get out slums.

African tribe life often involves animal husbandry and has for millenia (buffalo and cows mostly) as well as gathering and hunting, some farming is done especially in regions that allow for certain crops, but since yields are often very poor and few crops will even grow at all it is limited how much can be done without modern techniques.

In many parts of Africa today though modern techniques as well as deforestation allows for traditional farming, especially in sub-saharan Africa.

[That One Guy]

It has been shown that Africans especially those tribes in the slave coast and upper volta areas have very skinny but long legs which allow them to run more efficiently than caucasians which partly explains why Africans tend to dominate the long distance running at the Olympics.

OK... so not to discount your post, I assure I read the whole thing. This part though obviously caught my attention. It may not be a golden ticket to professional sports but it conceivably gives them an edge. In the military, I've done PT tests next to guy who do the exact same PT program I do and while I'm running 15 minutes on my 2 mile, they can run 13. They don't do a lick more, sometimes even less, but are just natural runners. That would be similar. If we both do the same and I don't train harder, we'd never run the same. If two people have different style legs and one gets an advantage... it's most likely a genetic advantage that is more widespread.

Not to say this is the magical info I've been looking for but as I said in my first post, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there's a scientific reason behind it. This is just another possibility.

By the way, thanks to everyone for taking my wildly non-PC theory and not being assclowns addressing it. Very mature and very appreciated.

[Rock Chalk]

You need look no further than Mali to answer questions about advanced African societies.

That said I recommend a youtube video: The ideas of Chomsky - BBC interview. Don't worry its not political so it won't offend the conservatives. It is a discussion b/t an English philosopher and Chomsky regarding his ideas about generative grammer/universal language and their philosophical implications. One of the things that he addresses is the fact that many of our more advanced intellectual abilities - a penchant for the applying abstract number theories - would be fairly unlikely to provide survival advantages in hunting/gathering societies. At least its hard to imagine how such an aptitude would necesarilly have been used. While we have advanced greatly in this area - and now have the fruits to show for it in other areas such as emotional description/understanding we are only marginally better than we were in antiquity.

Those people, the ones with more advanced intellectual abilities, are the ones that came up with the concept of tools, of advancing stone hand axes and putting them on sticks for greater leverage. Of the pulley system. Intellectuals in the modern era are seen to not be very physical but that does not mean that in a hunter gatherer society they wouldn't have been. Indeed, those with the abilities to think in teh abstract are the ones that greatly enhanced societal life from the hunter gatherer stage to the agricultural stage so its quite clear that Chomsky was a ****ing idiot.

This has actually been proven in Chimpanzee society. A less dominant chimpanzee became the Alpha of the pack because the chimp used abstract concepts (in this case, he picked up a metal garbage can and used a stick to beat on it to scare the bigger more physical males away). Brilliance trumps strength every time and thats why human beings are the most dominant creature on the planet.

[Jason in LA]

I don't like most black people I have met. Doesn't have anything to do with their race, but everything about the content of their character (because you know, that MLK Jr guy had a good point). Most black people I have met fit the stereotype of what most white people do not like about black folk in general.

That being said, I have met some really excellent black people in my life. ANd, from my experience, the ratio of excellent/****ty black people is about on par with any other race. Fact is, most people are ****ty, regardless of race. So when you find an excellent person, make friends, because they are few and far between.

I'm curious, where are you hanging out where most of the black people fit the stereotypes? I see a lot of black folks who fit the stereotypes, but I don't have very many conversations with black folks who fit the stereotypes. I don't really hang out in those areas of town. I avoid the hood as much as possible.

[Jason in LA]

So a race does include both... we'll say "normal" people and the "radical" ones. In terms of normalcy, I consider the educated ones that contribute to society normal while the ignorant punks are not. The ignorant punks are what definite the different races because the normal ones don't necessarily stand out to be noticed.



One thing that has always annoyed the hell out of me is that blacks are typically defined by, well, the n iggas (I'm black so I can say it ;D). White people aren't defined by the low end of their race. They're not defined by the folks on welfare, the felons, the thugs. But the black race is. That has always bothered the hell out of me. Because I'm educated and have no record, I'm considered different from other black folks, when in reality, there are a boat load of black people just like me. But my race isn't defined by people like me, it's defined by the thugs. Latinos get it kind of bad too. Whites, not so much.

[sirhcyennek81]

So... just for arguments' sake, you think it's strictly the cultural aspects that cause athletic positions to be dominated by non-whites while positions like QB are dominated by whites? How many non-athletic black QBs have there been? I think McNabb, Vick, Vince Young, Randall Cunningham... the days of Kordell Stewart... who am I missing?

How many top flight white RBs are there today? Top WRs?

I think we'd all like to believe that everyone is created equal. I think for the most part, we are. I don't know that the results currently suggest that there are no inherent physical differences though. Obviously any intelligence based statistics would be dismissed on account of unequal education so I can't really include that. But on a physical stage, when can we start saying maybe they are actually better at sports?

EDIT: And just to be clear, the QBs I listed were all the pretty good ones that were athletic. I don't know any that were pretty good but not. I guess I should also include Mcnair, forgot about him. He was fairly mobile though, definitely no Peyton Manning or Drew Bledsoe.


So now we are discussing athleticism? I think that boils down to individual people and how well that individual cultivates their natural talents.


:Broncos:

[Swedish Extrovert]

Is it possible to not like black people and not be a racist?

I was surprised to hear some of the responses.

What would you say.?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg

[sirhcyennek81]

One thing that has always annoyed the hell out of me is that blacks are typically defined by, well, the n iggas (I'm black so I can say it ;D). White people aren't defined by the low end of their race. They're not defined by the folks on welfare, the felons, the thugs. But the black race is. That has always bothered the hell out of me. Because I'm educated and have no record, I'm considered different from other black folks, when in reality, there are a boat load of black people just like me. But my race isn't defined by people like me, it's defined by the thugs. Latinos get it kind of bad too. Whites, not so much.


Its about who controls the narrative. Too many people who are like you (no record, good all around guy) are not the ones making the most noise, simply because they dont have to. Perceptions will change when the "high end" starts to define the group, and not the "low end".

:Broncos:

[Swedish Extrovert]

Are we talking about a black person? There are plenty of black people that I really don't like. But to dislike people as a general race, and to wonder, "is this racist?" That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Can we send this to the butt yet? Three pages?

My ginger thread was way more benign than this, and it ended up there after one and a half.

[watermock]

Baja is just race baiting, which is itself racist.

[broncocalijohn]

i look at it this way, you cant be a racist unless you act upon it. Some people just dont associate with them either by their neighborhood, work, school, etc. and figure there way is perfect as is. I dont care if someone doesnt like a typicle race or group but I would hope they dont act on their feelings towards them or try to influence their feelings to others (like children).

[sirhcyennek81]

Can we send this to the butt yet? Three pages?

My ginger thread was way more benign than this, and it ended up there after one and a half.


Well clearly your ginger thread was sent to the butt because of the great ginger syndicate, who works to oppress non gingers world wide.


:Broncos:

[Punisher]

Well i'm mixed I'm black and P Rican and i hate black stereotypes u know the black people who are lazy and like to cheat the system,the black girls who are living off child support. And the lazy mean black guy who sell drugs "Cause he can't get a job and has too feed his kids" What the **** ever **** them stupid lazy ****erpeople can go to hell if all i care.

[Punisher]

And i love how ever body try's to act "black" Like its the cool race, like ****ing wiggers you know those stupid white people that try to act black. Get the hell out of here

[baja]

Can we send this to the butt yet? Three pages?

My ginger thread was way more benign than this, and it ended up there after one and a half.

Have you read the thread numbnutts?

[broncocalijohn]

One thing that has always annoyed the hell out of me is that blacks are typically defined by, well, the n iggas (I'm black so I can say it ;D). White people aren't defined by the low end of their race. They're not defined by the folks on welfare, the felons, the thugs. But the black race is. That has always bothered the hell out of me. Because I'm educated and have no record, I'm considered different from other black folks, when in reality, there are a boat load of black people just like me. But my race isn't defined by people like me, it's defined by the thugs. Latinos get it kind of bad too. Whites, not so much.

not so fast. Whites and any other race can call someone white trash or describe something as white trash (even heard it on Leno) but no way you would here someone this side of political correctness as describing something as ghetto or ****a sheat. It is exceptable to call something as white trash but not the other way around. I dont mind describing something as it appears but it just isnt accepted. Hell, if you got a car on blocks with barefooted kids running around with a pellet gun, I think that is white trash. If I see something totally ghetto, I somehow wouldnt be describing it like that in public. Whites and blacks can make fun of low class whites, but no way whites can make fun of low class blacks.

[Rabb]

And i love how ever body try's to act "black" Like its the cool race, like ****ing wiggers you know those stupid white people that try to act black. Get the hell out of here

um

[Kaylore]

No, it's not possible if that is your criterion. In fact even if it's one of many criteria it's still racist.

[baja]

No, it's not possible if that is your criterion. In fact even if it's one of many criteria it's still racist.

What if you interchange blacks to people with lots of tattoos that you don't like? What is that?

[watermock]

What if you interchange blacks to people with lots of tattoos that you don't like? What is that?

Why not put up another Poll?

[DenverBrit]

What if you interchange blacks to people with lots of tattoos that you don't like? What is that?

Good taste?? Hilarious!

Seriously, you might as well start a multiple choice poll and get it over with. :thumbsup:

[baja]

Why not put up another Poll?

http://rlv.zcache.com/everybody_loves_my_polish_kielbasa_tshirt-p23591083351630417730x9_400.jpg

[baja]

Why not put up another Poll?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/europe_polish_voters_in_london/img/4.jpg

[Cleo McDowell]

i am an equal opportunity hater.

[baja]

Why not jut say Pollock Baja?

That's what you mean.

Mock what happened to you? You have zero since of humor these days.

[baja]

Oh it's funny allright.

Mock, 'Laughter is the Best Medicine' is an old but valuable truth. Especially in these coming days.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Mock what happened to you? You have zero since of humor these days.

I've noticed you have zero sense of grammar, too.

[baja]

I've noticed you have zero sense of grammar, too.

Stop eating fast food.

Or are you into the angry food they serve in the mess hall. Army chow always left me feeling angry and up tight. They were honest about the name anyway; mess hall.

[Swedish Extrovert]

Stop eating fast food.

Or are you into the angry food they serve in the mess hall. Army chow always left me feeling angry and up tight. They were honest about the name anyway; mess hall.

I've been out of the military for almost a year, I'm a junior at the University of Denver now.

[strafen]

I've been out of the military for almost a year, I'm a junior at the University of Denver now.Good job man.
Good luck in your career!

[baja]

I've been out of the military for almost a year, I'm a junior at the University of Denver now.

So it is the fast food that is making you cranky than. ;D

[kappys]

Those people, the ones with more advanced intellectual abilities, are the ones that came up with the concept of tools, of advancing stone hand axes and putting them on sticks for greater leverage. Of the pulley system. Intellectuals in the modern era are seen to not be very physical but that does not mean that in a hunter gatherer society they wouldn't have been. Indeed, those with the abilities to think in teh abstract are the ones that greatly enhanced societal life from the hunter gatherer stage to the agricultural stage so its quite clear that Chomsky was a ****ing idiot.

This has actually been proven in Chimpanzee society. A less dominant chimpanzee became the Alpha of the pack because the chimp used abstract concepts (in this case, he picked up a metal garbage can and used a stick to beat on it to scare the bigger more physical males away). Brilliance trumps strength every time and thats why human beings are the most dominant creature on the planet.

Rereading my post I can see how I put an obviously stupid argument forward. That was not the intention. I listened to parts of the interview again - pretty broad and covers a number of interesting points.

For background it was in the late 60's/early 70's - the height of liberal optimism about nurture trumping nature. Chomsky argues, however, that we are considerably more preprogrammed and limited by our genetics than we(at least durin those times) might admit.

The discussion is really more of why certain intellectual faculties seem to have developed while others are fairly similar to those possessed by man thousands of years ago. Obviously those with intelligence will suceed compared to those without - however he posits the question why some abilities that at the time probably offerred little in the way of real advantage have developed so markedly while others are similar.

Anyways just interesting food for though. You sound like a Chomsky hater - which I can understand though agian this does not address politics.

[kappys]

For the most part, Africa doesn't have an agricultural tradition for a very good reason; lousy soil. Also, resources were sparse. The most successful traditions in such a place, naturally, were hunting, gathering and herding. For the most part, Africa was made up for millenia of nomads following the herds. Such a way of life does not lend itself to the construction of city states. The chief exception being the Egyptians who had the Nile River, with it's dependable annual flood, creating one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. You could really argue that agriculture gave birth to what we call "civilization."

I think Mali was an exception as well. The subsaharan climate was suitable to some crops - though I certainly don't know if the yields compared to say rice or wheat. Of course they also had a river.