HOME | DD
Torkuda — reality vs intersectionality
#hate #intersectionality #prejudice #racism
Published: 2018-11-27 05:05:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 3374; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
This is the reality of hate liberals. Anyone can be guilty, anyone can be a victim.
People seem to want to take one of the most monstrous of human appetites and make it purely political.
Related content
Comments: 13
Racism is just a special form of tribalism - the same "us vs. them" mentality that drives feminists to carry out their crusades against the the patriarchy and the political right. You'll never get them to admit to this though.
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
The people who killed each other in Rwanda didn't consider themselves to be of the same race. Race is not an objective quality - it's an arbitrary distinction that is extremely fluid. When my great-great-grandparents came to the US from Ireland, they were considered "white negroes," not actually "white."
Ultimately, all "race" actually means is, "those good people who are like us," and "Those evil weird people we don't like." Nothing more.
👍: 2 ⏩: 2
Finns also moved to US, and they were considered as savages, like native Americans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Every large group of immigrants to the US has gotten this treatment to one degree or another. There's even a story that Benjamin Franklin once included Swedes in a list of "swarthy" people he was complaining about. Although I haven't been able to track down the origin of the supposed quote, so it may well be an urban myth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've actually heard rumors of a "reddening" effect going on in the Southern states. I'm aware some folks down there are known for having redder skin than the rest of the country, but I'm not sure if it's them actually starting to take on the traits of the native Americans- if that is indeed happening so quickly, it's further evidence that there's little to nothing behind racial distinctions. One can use them to tell people apart and potentially tell where someone comes from, that's ALL many people around the world ever use them for, as makes sense.
Course reality is, the image I posted is only scratching the surface. You'll actually find that while racial conflicts dominate the news, most massacres are actually interracial. Heck, the holocaust was terrible, but the mass killings in the Soviet Union and China made it pale in comparison. I guess if you're only killing "your own people" we use it as an excuse to look away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've read (although it was a while ago so I don't remember where) that skin tone is very closely correlated to the amount of UV in the places where people's ancestors lived. which implies that it's a trait that's very sensitive to environment. So I wouldn't be that surprised. althought he fact that people get a lot less sun exposure now than people did in the past, I'd expect the response to be muted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's also a factor. I've also heard that native Africans can spot African American's on sight, saying their skin and facial features tend to be completely different from the norm in Africa.
Course now I have to chuckle thinking about what you just said. How would a radical leftest respond to learning that- unless there is massive change, there will not be a great browning in the West- or rather there will, but it will be short lived. Really as the centuries go, unless technology goes backwards, with less exposure to the sun, there will be a great whitening. Flat out, less sun exposure means lighter skin tones. So yes, short term browning, long term whitening. In reality, it's as meaningless as it sounds- but say "great whitening" in a gender studies course. Sure the reaction would be as priceless as when I discussed the real life sexual harassment I received on the daily in the military- "but you're a guy" not sure if I had my trademark reply yet "I assume you have a point but I might be wrong..."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Keep in mind that sub-Saharan Africans are more genetically diverse than the rest of humanity put together. If you were going to base racial categories on real genetics and lines of descent, then you'd have a bunch of African races, and one race for the rest of the world. To go back to your original example of Rwanda, the Hutus and Tutsis actually look very different from each other. Take a look at a picture of the leaders of the conflict side by side, Tutsi on the left, Hutu on the right. African-Americans tend to have very mixed ancestry, starting with the slave trade that took people from a wide variety of tribes with a variety of ethnicities. Then they got a generous infusion of European genes and then finally they got the addition of any dark skinned immigrants from anywhere in the world.
-_- "The browning of America" is strictly a metaphor and has nothing to do with skin color. Latinos can be of any genetic background and any skin tone. For example, there are a substantial number of Latinos with Irish ancestry and are as fair skinned as that would imply. It's worth remembering that Ben Franklin is supposed to have once described Swedes as "swarthy."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In truth we in the west have been trained to see racial difference as defining- when in reality, simple tribal differences use to and in many cases still are just as apparent to people around the world. Koreans can often tell someone is Japanese on sight, and even Biblically there is some indication that one could have visually distinguished between the twelve tribes. Genetically this just makes sense, different family lines were kept separate in Israel (yes, direct inbreeding was banned, but the "families" we're talking about here would have been thousands or hundreds of thousands of people) and the island nation of Japan was fairly isolated.
I guess people on both sides of the debate hate the ideas we're discussing for the distinct reason that the conclusion is- diversity is a farce. It means that diversity is both NOT a strength and a lack of diversity is also NOT a strength, because it's simply an illusion either way. There is intellectual diversity, genetic diversity and cultural diversity, but race is entirely made up and of no real consequence. There is just as much diversity within a "race" as outside of it because there is, essentially, no such thing as a "race". This is why if you look at the people of the "middle east" you will notice pale whites in the Northern regions and dark brown almost black people in the south. (Actually, other than his wider eyes, this is why Aladdin in the Disney movie, was just fine for portraying an "Arab". He was just lighter skinned than the clechie, but there are perhaps millions of Arabs with his skin tone. Anyone who thinks only Jafar was racially accurate- yeah they did no research into the making of the film or the Middle East in general).
To the white supremacists- white skin does not cause more advanced living, more clothes and more time spent in doors, often as a consequence of technology, causes lighter skin. They have the order of causes reversed in their heads. Black supremacists are also in for a rude awakening as most of them live in America and are progressively losing their skin tone.
Course then, anyone with half a brain could tell you that whether or not there is any truth to the concept of racial diversity doesn't matter. Diversity, in it of itself, means nothing. Like diversity so much- hate is so much? How about work on a class project together with a group of five people? Now, which would you prefer- diversity of work ethic, (one procrastinator, one lazy, one does false research that leads him wildly down the wrong path, one drill sergeant like guy who yells at everyone else while doing nothing himself and finally you) or lack of diversity (out of the five, you're the only one who will be doing anything)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'To the white supremacists- white skin does not cause more advanced living, more clothes and more time spent in doors, often as a consequence of technology, causes lighter skin. '
Uhmmm.... the Innuit. Covered head to toe much of the year, live way the hell north... not exactly Nordic. Mind you, this has to do with the idea of living indoors and more clothes, not race.
I also note that Africans can tell an African-American when they see one.
Where did I see it this morning.... the gentleman who designed Rastifarianism. Ostensibly a 'black' thing- yet he looked like a fairly light-skinned Arab.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
depends... did for the zieg heilers and the klan
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did it really though? The Nazis were more "Aryan" supremacists than "white" supremacists, which is what allowed them to slaughter and conquer so many white nations without conscience. In reality they probably killed more white people than they killed anyone else, it's why I call Nazis "race traitors", if we accept that race is real then they quite literally are. Also they didn't hate the Jews because Jews are born with funny noses or something directly related to the true circumstance of their birth. The Jews were successful minority the government could prop up as the enemy of the people for support- tends to be easier to unite people against a live breathing foe than in support of an existential cause like "the good of the nation". Nazis DID have a low opinion of blacks but let's be real, of all the people groups they slaughtered, they really didn't care about Africans and for the most part didn't bother with African nations.
With the Klan... yeah they're just white supremacists. It's was started as a reactionary movement to the South losing the civil war and blamed black individuals for the woes for poor white societies in America- kinda like how liberals try to blame whites for the woes of poor black societies.
Will say though, don't think the Klan gives too much of a shit about those living in Africa. One can still note that proximity tends to have more influence on animosity than "racial" differences.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0