• Thousands of Russian nationalist march in anti-immigrant protest
    146 replies, posted
I was in Russia about 9 years ago, didn't seem that bad.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42770751]Sorry, but I don't think "racism" applies. I mean, if a British Nationalist dislikes a French -and I'm using white people as an example- how can it be called "racism"? Xenophobia would be the right term.[/QUOTE] races don't actually exist so it doesn't matter
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42770777]races don't actually exist so it doesn't matter[/QUOTE] Races do exist. You just shouldn't judge and discriminate against people because of it. The real differences groups have are all cultural and that isn't connected to race.
The posts in this thread gave me cancer. Racists vs People totally ashamed of their culture. Brilliant Why does a fundamentally benevolent concept like pride in culture need to be used at the expense of other people, is it impossible to be proud of your culture or family without having to deride immigrants and be a racist? Since when is being hospitable to immigrants and encouraging them to practice their culture a bad thing? If you deride immigrants, make them shamed of their culture and try to evict them from your country, what does that say of your own people? [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;42770828]Races do exist.[/QUOTE] No they don't. Race is a false term coined by layman archaeologists in antiquity. The concepts of "race" are ambiguous to start with, and have since been debunked by modern historians and anthropologists thousands of times over. There's ethnic groups and skin color. There's no such thing as "race." Lets use Africa as an example, there's no "african race," africa is an extremely genetically diverse region with thousands of distinct ethnic groups and unique genealogies, having black skin doesn't make Africans at all similar to each other beyond a very superficial skin tone. Race can be used as a vague descriptor, but it has no deeper technical meaning beyond that.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42770828]Races do exist. You just shouldn't judge and discriminate against people because of it. The real differences groups have are all cultural and that isn't connected to race.[/QUOTE] No they don't. Its an old 18th century anthropological term that has kind of stuck around since.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42770777]races don't actually exist so it doesn't matter[/QUOTE] If races don't exist, then why use the term, racist to begin with?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42771974]If races don't exist, then why use the term, racist to begin with?[/QUOTE] Because shits still think it's a thing and discriminate on it.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42771974]If races don't exist, then why use the term, racist to begin with?[/QUOTE] Well the UN don't officially ever refer to it as racism anymore. It just stayed in common usage like a lot of old and out of date words.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42770777]races don't actually exist so it doesn't matter[/QUOTE] So how do you explain the possibility to find out where some guy emigrated from? Genes describe the structure of the body, and seeing how the majority of people from africa have a dark skin tone or how asians seems to have more rounder heads I would say that this is a racial trait. You can break down into so many subgroups until you find your unique genetical makeup that no one else has, but you are still a part of your family, your community, then your society, person of your continent, human from mankind, lifeform on planet earth, collection of biological molecules, which in the end consist of all kinds of atoms, etc.... In the end, we are all made of stars.
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42776710]So how do you explain the possibility to find out where some guy emigrated from? Genes describe the structure of the body, and seeing how the majority of people from africa have a dark skin tone or how asians seems to have more rounder heads I would say that this is a racial trait. You can break down into so many subgroups until you find your unique genetical makeup that no one else has, but you are still a part of your family, your community, then your society, person of your continent, human from mankind, lifeform on planet earth, collection of biological molecules, which in the end consist of all kinds of atoms, etc.... In the end, we are all made of stars.[/QUOTE] Because this is exactly why races don't exist because there can be more genetic variation between two anglosaxons than someone from the UK and Somalia. Race is a socio-political term that isn't used in science.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42776739]Because this is exactly why races don't exist because there can be more genetic variation between two anglosaxons than someone from the UK and Somalia. Race is a socio-political term that isn't used in science.[/QUOTE] It all depends on how broad you classify mankind. Otherwise you could say that there is no difference between humans and frogs because they are both lifeforms. Or that humans and apes are the same because they are anthropomorphic. I don´t think you read my post correctly or got its meaning.
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42777035]It all depends on how broad you classify mankind. Otherwise you could say that there is no difference between humans and frogs because they are both lifeforms. Or that humans and apes are the same because they are anthropomorphic. I don´t think you read my post correctly or got its meaning.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about genetic variation. If races were to exist then there needs to be distinct genetic variation between each race. That simply does not exist since it varies more at an individual level than it does between supposed races that were 'discovered' in the 1700s. There is a reason we don't classify the same species and subspecies of geckos into races based on the variety of skin colours you can find them in. There is no socio-political context to do so. This is a very simply concept.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42777146]I'm talking about genetic variation. If races were to exist then there needs to be distinct genetic variation between each race. That simply does not exist since it varies more at an individual level than it does between supposed races that were 'discovered' in the 1700s. There is a reason we don't classify the same species and subspecies of geckos into races based on the variety of skin colours you can find them in. There is no socio-political context to do so. This is a very simply concept.[/QUOTE] Species and subspecies are not races. Race is the taxonomic principle of grouping living things based on common heredity, physical attributes, and behavior, and where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification. Species is a taxonomic concept used in biology to refer to a population of organisms that are in some important ways similar. Again, there is nothing bad about this. Bad would be a discrimination based on these classifications.
Lets not beat about the bush. Races exist for a perfectly natural reason and there's nothing wrong with that.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)[/url] [quote]While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[4] or simplistic way,[5] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance and that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[6][7][/quote] [quote]Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [8] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[9] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[4][10][11][12][13][/quote] [quote]Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word "race" itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[14][15][/quote] [url]http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html[/url] [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277953692900866[/url] [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] This is all very basic school level stuff and it amazes me that people still can't grasp it [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42777331]Species and subspecies are not races.[/QUOTE] No shit. So explain to me why you don't find races outside of vague antiquated human anthropology.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42777380][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)[/url] [url]http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html[/url] [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277953692900866[/url] [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] This is all very basic school level stuff and it amazes me that people still can't grasp it [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] No shit. So explain to me why you don't find races outside of vague antiquated human anthropology.[/QUOTE] How can it be antiquated if it is still in general use? All these quotes just say that some scientists suggest that the idea is naive or simplistic while others still use it. That doesn´t say anything. Do you say that there are no differences between an african and an asian?
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42770751]Sorry, but I don't think "racism" applies. I mean, if a British Nationalist dislikes a French -and I'm using white people as an example- how can it be called "racism"? Xenophobia would be the right term.[/QUOTE] Who cares? It's still irrational hatred of other people
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42777528]How can it be antiquated if it is still in general use? All these quotes just say that some scientists suggest that the idea is naive or simplistic while others still use it. That doesn´t say anything. Do you say that there are no differences between an african and an asian?[/QUOTE] Its in general use because the meaning of race when used in racism has changed. People still think races exist, but that is because they're behind the scientific community by a hundred years. You can't educate everyone. Ethnic groups exist sure.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42766548]that doesn't even make sense[/QUOTE] I know what you are but what am I!?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42777547]Its in general use because the meaning of race when used in racism has changed. People still think races exist, but that is because they're behind the scientific community by a hundred years. You can't educate everyone. Ethnic groups exist sure.[/QUOTE] If the majority of the world uses a word for one specific meaning, that is the definition of the word. Because words are made up by people, they are not set in stone.
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42777637]If the majority of the world uses a word for one specific meaning, that is the definition of the word. Because words are made up by people, they are not set in stone.[/QUOTE] Yes but its not used by science or in genetics thus why i said its a purely socio-political word
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;42766351]Takes one to know one[/QUOTE] unbelievable
[QUOTE=thisispain;42781300]unbelievable[/QUOTE] That's because you're just too stupid to believe it ownd
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42776710]So how do you explain the possibility to find out where some guy emigrated from? Genes describe the structure of the body, and seeing how the majority of people from africa have a dark skin tone or how asians seems to have more rounder heads I would say that this is a racial trait. You can break down into so many subgroups until you find your unique genetical makeup that no one else has, but you are still a part of your family, your community, then your society, person of your continent, human from mankind, lifeform on planet earth, collection of biological molecules, which in the end consist of all kinds of atoms, etc.... In the end, we are all made of stars.[/QUOTE] that's nice but race is still not a scientific concept and hasn't been since the 19th century
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42777637]If the majority of the world uses a word for one specific meaning, that is the definition of the word. Because words are made up by people, they are not set in stone.[/QUOTE] Tons of people say "Koala Bear" but that doesn't make it a bear.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42777380]This is all very basic school level stuff and it amazes me that people still can't grasp it[/QUOTE]It isn't, actually. I'm just now hearing this. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] Regardless, you're all just arguing semantics. The base argument is still the same. X group is angry at Y group because of Z reason.
A good deal of people who've been targeted weren't even from outside the country, just from parts of Russia that don't fit into the nationalist mold of the more "pure" European, Eastern-Orthodox Russian as opposed to those of Muslim background or with more Asian appearances. The major parties in Russia haven't really done anything about this. If anything they've had a hand in subtly exploiting the nationalist sentiment to their own ends. That being said this kind of ugly nationalism rears its head anywhere. Like in this case the manifestations of it will often be handwaved as simply concern about crime, economy, or integration and whitewashing the beliefs of the movement as merely one of concerned citizens rather than bigotry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.