Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
why is blood and genetics a big deal?
whatever happened to the *prized* individual that matters?
whatever happened to the *prized* individual that matters?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
white supremecy
- Thread starter give me liberty or give m
- Start date
Almost all of the ideas about race that exist in this country are the result of a movement called Eugenics. It is basically the thought that whites are superior to everyone and we must breed correctly so that we may evolve towards perfection. This movement is responsible for the Holocaust, ethnic "cleansing," Social Darwinism (or Spencerism if you want to get it right), the Gospel of Wealth, racism, and all of the ideas y'all have about race existing at all. Darwin spawned a resurgence of this movement and it has taken hold in the world. Please refer to these websites to learn more. Some of them are pro-Eugenics, some con:
www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm
www.eugenics.net/index.shtml
www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm
www.marmoset.com/60minute/Webnav/eugen.html
There exist laws in certain states that give the government the right to sterilize certain members of certain races so that they may not spread their seed. They were enacted when Eugenics was the prevailing philosophy in this country. Do you live in one of those states? Do you have a clue whether you do or not? When the Nazis were brought before the tribunal they produced a few publications as their inspiration. The books were written in America, spoke of eugenics, and were critically acclaimed by everyone from book reviewers to the President of the United States.
Want to learn more about racism? Are you racist?
www.tolerance.org
www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/index.cfm
www.unc.edu/courses/2003fall/poli/061/001/Gallup Race relations report 2001.pdf
Remeber how I said the whole idea about the "missing link" was Catholic in origin? Check out the chain:
www.stanford.edu/class/engl174b/chain.html
It's just a drawing, but you get what they were getting at, don't you? More? OK.
From Cellmark Diagnostics:
"To date there is no test which can determine a person's race or heritage. We can perform DNA testing to determine parentage, but not whether someone is of a particular racial or ethnic origin."
From the American Anthropological Association:
"..it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them."
Highlights and observations from the President's Cancer Panel Meeting, Concerns of Special Populations in April 9,1997:
"all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable; rather, race is a social construct-a product of the Nation's social and political history."
The panel further states in conclusions:
"Races in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past. Generally traits used to characterize populations are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within a population. Therefore the combination of these traits in an individual commonly deviates from the average combination in the population, a fact that renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives."
From the Human Genome Diversity Project:
"Although there are genetic differences between groups, the extent of such difference is small compared with the amount of difference found within a group. People within ethnic groups are genetically more different from each other than their group is from other groups."
Refer to these sources if you just on't want to believe me:
Debra Harry, Director Indigenous Peoples' Council on Biocolonialism.
American Anthropological Association - Statement on Race - 1998.
DNA Diagnostic Center
Patrick Beatty, M.D. PhD
Human Genome Diversity Project North American Committee - Ethics Subcommittee:
Professor Henry T. Greely, Stanford Law School.
National Cancer Institute - Advisory Boards and Groups
PRESIDENT'S CANCER PANEL
CONCERNS OF SPECIAL POPULATIONS
IN THE NATIONAL CANCER PROGRAM
Oh, how about more from the American Anthropological Association:
"Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences."
Another stereotype. Not every black man in the world plays basketball. They're just the more media prominent, that's all.
As far as your scientific "evidence," they're just false assumptions. Don't believe everything your computer breastfeeds you.
www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm
www.eugenics.net/index.shtml
www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm
www.marmoset.com/60minute/Webnav/eugen.html
There exist laws in certain states that give the government the right to sterilize certain members of certain races so that they may not spread their seed. They were enacted when Eugenics was the prevailing philosophy in this country. Do you live in one of those states? Do you have a clue whether you do or not? When the Nazis were brought before the tribunal they produced a few publications as their inspiration. The books were written in America, spoke of eugenics, and were critically acclaimed by everyone from book reviewers to the President of the United States.
Want to learn more about racism? Are you racist?
www.tolerance.org
www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/index.cfm
www.unc.edu/courses/2003fall/poli/061/001/Gallup Race relations report 2001.pdf
Remeber how I said the whole idea about the "missing link" was Catholic in origin? Check out the chain:
www.stanford.edu/class/engl174b/chain.html
It's just a drawing, but you get what they were getting at, don't you? More? OK.
From Cellmark Diagnostics:
"To date there is no test which can determine a person's race or heritage. We can perform DNA testing to determine parentage, but not whether someone is of a particular racial or ethnic origin."
From the American Anthropological Association:
"..it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them."
Highlights and observations from the President's Cancer Panel Meeting, Concerns of Special Populations in April 9,1997:
"all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable; rather, race is a social construct-a product of the Nation's social and political history."
The panel further states in conclusions:
"Races in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past. Generally traits used to characterize populations are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within a population. Therefore the combination of these traits in an individual commonly deviates from the average combination in the population, a fact that renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives."
From the Human Genome Diversity Project:
"Although there are genetic differences between groups, the extent of such difference is small compared with the amount of difference found within a group. People within ethnic groups are genetically more different from each other than their group is from other groups."
Refer to these sources if you just on't want to believe me:
Debra Harry, Director Indigenous Peoples' Council on Biocolonialism.
American Anthropological Association - Statement on Race - 1998.
DNA Diagnostic Center
Patrick Beatty, M.D. PhD
Human Genome Diversity Project North American Committee - Ethics Subcommittee:
Professor Henry T. Greely, Stanford Law School.
National Cancer Institute - Advisory Boards and Groups
PRESIDENT'S CANCER PANEL
CONCERNS OF SPECIAL POPULATIONS
IN THE NATIONAL CANCER PROGRAM
Oh, how about more from the American Anthropological Association:
"Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences."
Another stereotype. Not every black man in the world plays basketball. They're just the more media prominent, that's all.
As far as your scientific "evidence," they're just false assumptions. Don't believe everything your computer breastfeeds you.
Nobody has anything to say? Surely someone can come up with some witty banter to make my point seem juvenile and uninformed. Surely someone has studied the claims they are making. Surely I can't be right; that would just be horrible. How could I possibly be right? I am never right in these forums. There's always someone to step up and save me from my own conviction. Someone is always there to make me feel just a little worse about my conclusions.
No? Well, maybe it's time to stop thinking inside that box and expand your mind a little. The world is a very big place, and I've got news for you: most of what you know about it is wrong. Most of what I know about it is wrong, too; but I figured that out a long time ago, and I'm getting over it. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's true.
No? Well, maybe it's time to stop thinking inside that box and expand your mind a little. The world is a very big place, and I've got news for you: most of what you know about it is wrong. Most of what I know about it is wrong, too; but I figured that out a long time ago, and I'm getting over it. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it's true.
Dear Dan,
I have a feeling that I may have been among your opponents. In that case, I sincerely hope that I haven't been sounding too harsh. It is a delicate balance between clearly stating one's own views and damning those of other persons. I am here not to spread my own convictions, but to discuss, question my own views and to learn.
I am not setting a precedent, but this time, your views coincide with mine. I haven't looked at all your links yet, but I sure will. Thank you for your thorough research.
Kindest regards (which should always be understood, even when not spelled out)
Anders
I have a feeling that I may have been among your opponents. In that case, I sincerely hope that I haven't been sounding too harsh. It is a delicate balance between clearly stating one's own views and damning those of other persons. I am here not to spread my own convictions, but to discuss, question my own views and to learn.
I am not setting a precedent, but this time, your views coincide with mine. I haven't looked at all your links yet, but I sure will. Thank you for your thorough research.
Kindest regards (which should always be understood, even when not spelled out)
Anders
I just read my post and it does seem a little harsh. I guess I get really sarcastic when I get put on the defensive. I hope I didn't offend anyone; but I do appreciate your honesty and candor. The world is, however, not all figured out yet. I don't pretend to have it figured out at all, but I've gotten used to admitting that Iwas wrong. If I'm aggressive or vehement about something it's usually because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have found the truth. I try to tone it down when it is pointed out to me, but it's one of my weaknesses that I'm probably gonna have to struggle with for a long time. Please forgive me if I seem sardonic or abrasive at any time.
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
i can reply...
theres only one race and thats human. we should all look beyond our physical and genetic differences and work together!
jeez.
theres only one race and thats human. we should all look beyond our physical and genetic differences and work together!
jeez.
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
sorry....
linwood
Well-Known Member
Very true along with the fact that many of our American leaders weren`t too far behind Hitler in his racial policies at the time.
In fact Planned Parenthood arose from this mentality via Margaret Sanger.
I don`t want to go point to point with you on this topic Dan as I`ve already seen the links you`ve supplied and agree with their content..to an extent.
The thing is that you are prescribing a biological definition of race to societal/cultural topics which will never change any minds.
It`s true microbiologists have no use for racial classification but that doesn`t mean race doesn`t exist in any form.
I don`t think I have to illustrate the different "Racial" cultures across the globe and within the USA itself to make my point.
The point is that these different cultures are identified by physical and intellectual characteristics which do indeed exist.
The sad part is it`s these individual cultures themselves that have the ill effect of strengthening the very characteristics that cause them so much trouble.
Breaking down the biological differences between the races isn`t going to change Joe Sixpacks idea of racial differences.
What needs to be done is that these different cultures within our one large American culture need to be broken down while still allowing for pride in heritage.
When blacks believe they have as much going for them as whites and whites lose their belief in any type of superiority then and only then will we begin to get somewhere.
This is a societal problem..not a genetic one.
Actually, we were their inspiration. I think I mentioned this once, but when the Nazis were brought before the tribunals they produced as their evidence a book that they claimed was the driving force behind their philosophies. The book talked about Eugenics and the need for what is today know as "ethnic cleansing." This might not raise any eyebrows, but the book was written in the states in the early 1900's. It was critically acclaimed by everyone from reviewers to the actual president of the United States. There were several movements in the U.S. that spawned the Holocaust, from Social Darwinism (or Spencerism) to the Gospel of wealth to the theory of evolution. If we want to point fingers we have to start with ourselves. We came up with the ideas, the Nazis carried them out.
Ardhanariswar
I'm back!
we? not everyone in the states at the time supported ethnic cleansing.
just because some dude wrote it in the states, 'we' as a country didnt start it. and its not fair to call all germans nazi too.
just because some dude wrote it in the states, 'we' as a country didnt start it. and its not fair to call all germans nazi too.
Hitler didn't buy a hammer, though. Anecdotes are the most irritating form of argument in the world. They mean absolutely nothing. And just whose hatred are you talking about? And what solution are you talking about?
That book, by the way, is only one of many that addressed the issue. It did not invent Eugenics, and it is not solely repsonsible for it. Nice try, though.
Would you like to nit-pick at anything else, or is this all? There's a really big post up there just waiting for you to tear it apart. C'mon, I know you don't want to cede anything to me. Surely you don't agree with me.
That book, by the way, is only one of many that addressed the issue. It did not invent Eugenics, and it is not solely repsonsible for it. Nice try, though.
Would you like to nit-pick at anything else, or is this all? There's a really big post up there just waiting for you to tear it apart. C'mon, I know you don't want to cede anything to me. Surely you don't agree with me.
Pah
Uber all member
dan said:
I presented an analogy not an anecdote.
You were addressing the Nazi's and the holocast.. In that vein, it should be obvious I was talking about the hatred of Nazi's toward the Jews and "The Final Sountion" as the solution. Thus, I disagreed with your idea of philiospohical motive for the holocast.
Which book are we to take as reference to "one of many" The one I named or the one you didn't name. I do believe my evidence is very good for the origin of Eugenics. Sir Francis Galton was cousin to Darwin and eugenics takes much of its basis from evolution. Eugentics follows the process of evolution
Two books are said to have influenced Hitler in his writing of Mein Kamf The first was Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens written in 1920 By Germans Alfred Binding and Karl Hoche. The second was The Principles of Human Heredity and Racial Hygiene by Germans Buauer, Fischer, and Lenz in 1921
So you can see, Dan, the American influence, if it even existed, was minor.
Dan said:
I don't think major error as to the basis of the holocast is "nit-picking" but that's why we have horse races.
Geez, Free speech goes a long way in this country. What are you guys actually talking about? White supremacy? What a joke? Why don't you guys go outside and ride a bike or go rent a movie with Ben Stiller in which to laugh. Get your head out of your ideas and be human beings. Your ideas are what hurts other people. Saying that you are superior to others can really get your *** kicked.
Pah
Uber all member
It seems, Dan, the Mormon Church had something to do with the proliferation of racial biblical thought to its own adherents
JOSEPH SMITH Discoverer of the Golden plates
First Prophet and President and Founder of the Mormon Church: "Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species ...
BRIGHAM YOUNG 2nd Prophet and President ...If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot....
JOHN TAYLOR 3rd Prophet and President ...it was necessary that the devil should have a representation [pah- the blacks] upon the earth as well as God;.. "
Further quotes may be found here
The Bible is quoted by the KKK as the source of inferiority
Clergy had their say as well.
The Puritan thoughts of religious superiority translated into a racial policy
I stopped my google search for the above is more than sufficient to show that the inferiority of blacks was biblical based. Eugenics is a strawman to divert attention away from the biblical source.
JOSEPH SMITH Discoverer of the Golden plates
First Prophet and President and Founder of the Mormon Church: "Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species ...
BRIGHAM YOUNG 2nd Prophet and President ...If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot....
JOHN TAYLOR 3rd Prophet and President ...it was necessary that the devil should have a representation [pah- the blacks] upon the earth as well as God;.. "
Further quotes may be found here
The Bible is quoted by the KKK as the source of inferiority
.
Clergy had their say as well.
The Puritan thoughts of religious superiority translated into a racial policy
I stopped my google search for the above is more than sufficient to show that the inferiority of blacks was biblical based. Eugenics is a strawman to divert attention away from the biblical source.