[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by frankieboy)
I think you missed the crux of my point. In a society of white power, it would not be considered racist. In a society of black power where (and if) whites are oppressed, it would.

Just a normal society, nowhere is white or black supremacist these days but everywhere has both elements.

I'd be very careful before attributing these points to genetics. Many theories suggest that the reason for these differences (if indeed they are true) are cultural, environmental and socio-economic etc. Attributing these points to genetics is a very dangerous road, which could easily lead to racism.
If you're going to roll with these (probably fairly scientifically inaccurate) statements, then another outcome that will emerge is that Asians have higher IQ's than whites. In my opinion, also due to cultural differences. Nothing to do with genetics.

I think like you said "theory" so its down to each person to take what their believe as fact and what is not.

Asians I will give them that, work great together to produce mass production and generally do stick to their own and keep themselves to themselves.

Of course there are differences. It's why there are differences that is the big question, and it's not necessarily to do with genetics (depending on what the differences are). For example, to say that black people have a higher crime rate is a socio-economic difference. To say they have darker skin is a genetic difference.

Blacks do cause more problems in society crime wise than any other race, every countries statistics will prove this in all fairness, I don't see how that is 'racist' to say that.

Just because there has always been racism does not logically follow that there need be racism in the 21st century. I do however agree that unfortunately it looks like it will never go away.

That is real life mate, nobody will ever get on, take away racism and you will still have sexism and any other discrimination that is present and was 100 years ago.

I also don't agree that you can state this as a "fact". It's more likely a probability.

Only time will tell but lets just say its 99.9%?

It depends on what environment you're in, and what differences you point out. To be in a white power society and state that black people have a higher crime rate, and lower IQ's is indeed racist, because it is derogatory, and also attributes these "differences" to race, whereas they are in fact the result of black people being socially and economically, and politically downtrodden.

I totally disagree, showing statistics facts and evidence can not be said to be racist, it is silly that.

Whites do have higher IQ's than blacks and blacks do have smaller brains (does not mean they are less intelligent due to smaller brains as women do have smaller brains than men as well).

Indeed, in a white power society, only white people can be racist, depending on whether the race that they're insulting has a history of being repressed by whites. This is reversed in a black power society.

Spitting hairs really there, everything is 'racist' these days, I take the word like a pinch of salt.

According to the Telegraph 1/4 of the British public said the St George's flag is a racist symbol, that is crazy and insane, if people don't like the flag being shown then there no where to go.

Again, if we go by the studies that state this, unscientific though they are, we have to accept that Asians take top dollar. Whites are not the most intelligent. These tests also, only use the intelligence quotient to determine overall intelligence, which is not necessarily that accurate an indicator. Personally I don't buy it, in the same respect as I don't buy the fact that Asians are more intelligent due to genetics. They score higher on the tests due to social and cultural differences, not genetic differences.

I think you will find whites are most advanced and have accomplished the most throughout history, no denying that.

Whites on overall figures (everything not just IQ) are higher generally.

I would agree with you on this point. Although I think you are too quick to brand them as left wingers or non whites, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I bet if you ask 7/10 their political beliefs, I will be right.

(Original post by frankieboy)
No to all of these.
But to some of them the answer is "No but they are probably pretty stupid and unrealistic". For example this would be the answer to the first two and the penultimate one.

Personal opinion again, we shall agree to disagree yes?

[frankieboy]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Just a normal society, nowhere is white or black supremacist these days but everywhere has both elements.

Apologies for not being clear, what I meant was a society that has predominantly white or black economic, social and political majority, for example in this country this would be white. In Zimbabwe it would be black. I didn't mean it in terms of literal "supremacist" terms as in the national front or the black power movement.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Asians I will give them that, work great together to produce mass production and generally do stick to their own and keep themselves to themselves.

I was using Asians actually to refer to academic intelligence and achievment, not so much manufacturing (although like you say they are excellent at that).

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Blacks do cause more problems in society crime wise than any other race, every countries statistics will prove this in all fairness, I don't see how that is 'racist' to say that.

It's not racist to say that. However, it is racist to think that the reason for that is somehow genetic. It is socio-economic. In other words "why" do you think the statistics for blacks crime-wise are higher?

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
I totally disagree, showing statistics facts and evidence can not be said to be racist, it is silly that.

See above point.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
According to the Telegraph 1/4 of the British public said the St George's flag is a racist symbol, that is crazy and insane, if people don't like the flag being shown then there no where to go.

I would agree with you here. It's the same with the American confederate flag. People are so quick to judge it as racist. Both of these flags (along with the stars and stripes and possibly the union jack) have been hijacked by racist movements at some point. That by no means indicates that these flags are anything to do with racism.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
I think you will find whites are most advanced and have accomplished the most throughout history, no denying that.

Are you sure? there is much debate surrounding this. Even if it is the case, again, are you sure it's "genetic"? There can be other reasons for this.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Whites on overall figures (everything not just IQ) are higher generally.

See above.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Personal opinion again, we shall agree to disagree yes?

Of course. It's a debate. None of us are claiming that what we say is set in stone

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Apologies for not being clear, what I meant was a society that has predominantly white or black economic, social and political majority, for example in this country this would be white. In Zimbabwe it would be black. I didn't mean it in terms of literal "supremacist" terms as in the national front or the black power movement.

I get what you mean now, well at least the concept of what you're saying...

I was using Asians actually to refer to academic intelligence and achievment, not so much manufacturing (although like you say they are excellent at that).

But you be good at manufacturing for example without good skills really (in a team worked fast pace).

It's not racist to say that. However, it is racist to think that the reason for that is somehow genetic. It is socio-economic. In other words "why" do you think the statistics for blacks crime-wise are higher?

Have you heard of scientific racism before? It wouldn't or at least shouldn't be considered 'racist' to state certain differences among races, of course there is myths about races like all blacks are big down below and all brown people are small (from a scientific point of view it has been also verified there is no relation between penis size and race) but you get my point...

I would agree with you here. It's the same with the American confederate flag. People are so quick to judge it as racist. Both of these flags (along with the stars and stripes and possibly the union jack) have been hijacked by racist movements at some point. That by no means indicates that these flags are anything to do with racism.

But again what do you really consider a racist movement or organisation? For example in Britain as we both know the two major far right wing parties now are the BNP and the NF but these aren't really racist only by the left wing and commie standards, they still respect other races, cultures and religions in their own land and with their own people, there is many very similar (or same) movements or organisations promoting the exact same for other races yet nobody says they are racist.

Same as in Britain it seems to be this fad or a fashion accessory down south especially to purposely have a mixed race child and there is several organisations promoting these... there should then also be labelled racist because they are judging them by their race(s) and advocating them to be some sort of luxury icon or something silly.

From Wikipedia itself : "There are several associations in the UK that help promote mixed-race heritage and raise awareness of issues relating to mixed ethnicity" - how is that not propaganda?

Or the "is it better to be mixed race?" program that was on claiming they are genetically superior and better looking, that again is nonsense and propaganda.

Why do the media not put programs on about how it has destroyed both the races involved and actually can cause health problems like finding bone marrows and so forth? But no no, it is a one-way game with them.

Are you sure? there is much debate surrounding this. Even if it is the case, again, are you sure it's "genetic"? There can be other reasons for this.

Biological of course, there will be many numpties on here who think that race is just skin colour you know!

Of course. It's a debate. None of us are claiming that what we say is set in stone

Good.

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
]Biological of course, there will be many numpties on here who think that race is just skin colour you know!

White people are racially different from one another as well. Furthermore, they don't constitute a single, separate race.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by fbear)
White people are racially different from one another as well. Furthermore, they don't constitute a single, separate race.

Generally speaking its Caucasian which has changed its meaning over the years, the white race is said to mean the Caucasian race if just applied to Europeans only.

Check here which sees the Caucasian and the white race as the same race and that Caucasian should only mean white people.

Although some see 'white' as a separate race, the same as the black race, brown race, etc etc.

[ednut]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
I think op is a racist.

oh btw im black

[ednut]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Fear.

fear of what exactly theres nothing to fear

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Generally speaking its Caucasian which has changed its meaning over the years, the white race is said to mean the Caucasian race if just applied to Europeans only.

Check here which sees the Caucasian and the white race as the same race and that Caucasian should only mean white people.

Although some see 'white' as a separate race, the same as the black race, brown race, etc etc.

True, Caucasian has been applied to white people specifically and people see 'white' as a separate race. However, since you're talking about biological factors we must look at human genetic clusters. After all, people see 'Jew' or even 'German' as races.

From that wikipedia article: "Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian. Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races."

According to the prevalent theories of races, white people cluster in the Caucasian group. All Caucasians are not white nor are all white people in the same sub-group. Thus, if one can attribute the achievements of the ancient Greeks to all white people, you can logically attribute them to all Caucasians as well or even all humans.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by fbear)
True, Caucasian has been applied to white people specifically and people see 'white' as a separate race. However, since you're talking about biological factors we must look at human genetic clusters. After all, people see 'Jew' or even 'German' as races.

From that wikipedia article: "Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian. Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races."

According to the prevalent theories of races, white people cluster in the Caucasian group. All Caucasians are not white nor are all white people in the same sub-group. Thus, if one can attribute the achievements of the ancient Greeks to all white people, you can logically attribute them to all Caucasians as well or even all humans.

There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.
Some authorities, following Huxley (1870), distinguished the Xanthochroi or "light whites" of Northern Europe with the Melanochroi or "dark whites" of the Mediterranean.

So if Caucasian means just Europeans then its the white race, if not then it'll be just seen as a different race known as the white race.

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.
Some authorities, following Huxley (1870), distinguished the Xanthochroi or "light whites" of Northern Europe with the Melanochroi or "dark whites" of the Mediterranean.

So if European means Caucasian then its the white race, if not then it'll be just seen as a different race known as the white race.

Some of the people you mentioned are from over a hundred years ago. Physical Anthropology has progressed a lot since then. Caucasian includes the Middle-East, North Africa, Central Asia (historic) and South Asia based on genetic clusters as well as physical features.

Furthermore, while there wasn't or isn't a scholarly consensus on racial groups, there is little to no support for the existence of a white race. 'White' is a group of ethnicities who live in Europe and their descendants. Not all white people belong to the same genetic clusters. A Norwegian would be typically in a different cluster than a Greek or Serbian. Hence, all whites do not belong to the same sub-racial group either.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by fbear)
Some of the people you mentioned are from over a hundred years ago. Physical Anthropology has progressed a lot since then. Caucasian includes the Middle-East, North Africa, Central Asia (historic) and South Asia based on genetic clusters as well as physical features.

Furthermore, while there wasn't or isn't a scholarly consensus on racial groups, there is little to no support for the existence of a white race. 'White' is a group of ethnicities who live in Europe and their descendants. Not all white people belong to the same genetic clusters. A Norwegian would be typically in a different cluster than a Greek or Serbian. Hence, all whites do not belong to the same sub-racial group either.

You have the three sub-races in Europe - Nordic, Mediterranean and the Alpine races which all belong to the Caucasian race.

Caucasian has been narrowed down since the 20th century to just mean Europeans, I've told you...

In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin". Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian. Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans. The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure. He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea. Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.

So even many moons ago Caucasian was limited to just white people (Europeans) many other people felt the same.

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
You have the three sub-races in Europe - Nordic, Mediterranean and the Alpine races which all belong to the Caucasian race.

Agreed.

Caucasian has been narrowed down since the 20th century to just mean Europeans, I've told you...

Caucasian has actually been broadened to include people of the Middle-East, North Africa, Central Asia (historic) and South Asia (the northern part mostly).

"The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia (the Middle East), Central Asia and South Asia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin". Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian. Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans. The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure. He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea. Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.

This supports what I have said before.

So even many moons ago Caucasian was limited to just white people (Europeans) many other people felt the same.

If people 'felt' this way then race was just a social construct. Jews 'feel' they are a separate race but this isn't biologically supported.

Like I said, if you look at physical features and genetic clusters it is largely agreed upon the inclusion of non-Whites into the Caucasian race. Even if you look into the Caucasian race, whites do not form a separate sub-race. The Mediterranean sub-group also includes people such as Syrians and Iranians. If you have some links on how 'White' people are a separate race based on things such as genetics, craniometry, etc. then do post them.

You were talking about achievements being a biological factor attributing the achievements of 'White' people to all whites. However, since 'White' is not a separate genetic cluster this makes little sense.

[Mexican Red Knee]

[QUOTE=fbear;37906601]

Caucasian has actually been broadened to include people of the Middle-East, North Africa, Central Asia (historic) and South Asia (the northern part mostly).

Well the way I see it is simple, All whites are Caucasian but not all Caucasians are white.

The same as not all Mongoloids are Asian.

"The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of ၁frica, Western Asia (the Middle East), Central Asia and South Asia."

Has been? Key words.

It depends on what you define as the Caucasian race, many early people who supported this race only considered Europeans.

If people 'felt' this way then race was just a social construct. Jews 'feel' they are a separate race but this isn't biologically supported.

They are not part of the white race, Caucasian race (perhaps), depends how you define it.

Jews do feel this way, they are not white.

They all trace their origins out of Europe.

Like I said, if you look at physical features and genetic clusters it is largely agreed upon the inclusion of non-Whites into the Caucasian race. Even if you look into the Caucasian race, whites do not form a separate sub-race. The Mediterranean sub-group also includes people such as Syrians and Iranians. If you have some links on how 'White' people are a separate race based on things such as genetics, craniometry, etc. then do post them.

The Mediterranean race features can be found in many non-European parts but as a **race** it is for Europeans only, mostly southern Europeans (i.e Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, etc etc) who are all white Europeans.

If you look on the Caucasian race it indicates that white is a separate race but sometimes the words are used the same but all Europeans are white and Caucasian but not all Caucasians (depending on how its defined) are Europeans and white.

Mongoloid and Negroid are neither set to be easily defined, different people use them for different definitions.

You were talking about achievements being a biological factor attributing the achievements of 'White' people to all whites. However, since 'White' is not a separate genetic cluster this makes little sense.

How? It's all Europeans whom are white... stretching from the Georgians to the English to the Greeks.

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)

Well the way I see it is simple, All whites are Caucasian but not all Caucasians are white.

Agreed.

The same as not all Mongoloids are Asian.

Agreed. Asian is a geographical term.

Has been? Key words.

It depends on what you define as the Caucasian race, many early people who supported this race only considered Europeans.

Many early people also had no scientific backing for their theories.

They are not part of the white race, Caucasian race (perhaps), depends how you define it.

Jews do feel this way, they are not white.

They all trace their origins out of Europe.

Since race is biological, Europe should not be a factor. You're confusing biology with geography.

The Mediterranean race features can be found in many non-European parts but as a **race** it is for Europeans only, mostly southern Europeans (i.e Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, etc etc) who are all white Europeans.

A race is defined in biological and anthropological terms. Thus, it is dependent on genetics and physical features. The Mediterranean sub-race includes many non-Europeans. 'White' on the other hand, is an ethnic term.

If you look on the Caucasian race it indicates that white is a separate race but sometimes the words are used the same but all Europeans are white and Caucasian but not all Caucasians (depending on how its defined) are Europeans and white.

No, 'White' is not a separate race as stated in racial theories backed by science. Europe is a geographical restriction and, thus, 'White' is an ethnic term dependent on geography. Again, I ask for some evidence of white being a separate race backed by science.

Mongoloid and Negroid are neither set to be easily defined, different people use them for different definitions.

If you disagree with the classifications, which is fine, it still would be hard to call 'White' a race because you're using a geographical restriction rather than biology and anthropology.

How? It's all Europeans whom are white... stretching from the Georgians to the English to the Greeks.

How do you arrive on the conclusion that 'White' is a race? You keep using the term 'Europeans' which is geographical.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by fbear)
Agreed. Asian is a geographical term.

Some people use Asian as a race including Mongoloid and Malay.

Many early people also had no scientific backing for their theories.

Many did though...

Since race is biological, Europe should not be a factor. You're confusing biology with geography.

Race is also defined by geographical ancestry.

A race is defined in biological and anthropological terms. Thus, it is dependent on genetics and physical features. The Mediterranean sub-race includes many non-Europeans. 'White' on the other hand, is an ethnic term.

Not quite, it's also by other things as well (including geographical ancestry), the Mediterranean features of that race is seen in parts of non-Europeans but if you use it as the Mediterranean race then its only for Europeans, hence why its only included in the **Races of Europe**.

No, 'White' is not a separate race as stated in racial theories backed by science. Europe is a geographical restriction and, thus, 'White' is an ethnic term dependent on geography. Again, I ask for some evidence of white being a separate race backed by science.

Yes it is a separate race, hence why even on the Caucasian race it says "relation to the White race", White is a race not an ethnicity, simply look at the Caucasian race when it is limited for Europeans only, thus the white race.

Even the Nordic and Malay for example lack scientific evidence but are still both considered races.

Race is not easily defined.

If you disagree with the classifications, which is fine, it still would be hard to call 'White' a race because you're using a geographical restriction rather than biology and anthropology.

But a race is still defined partly by geographical ancestry.

How do you arrive on the conclusion that 'White' is a race? You keep using the term 'Europeans' which is geographical.

Because that is the origins of the white race, race is also defined by geographical ancestry, the same way people say Africa is for black people or Asians for brown people.

[SpongebobSquarepan]

People who think it is racism, make it racist.

Takr crimewatch the other day, most criminals apart from one were either black, asian or eastern european.

I suppose I am racist now according to you.

[fbear]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
Race is also defined by geographical ancestry.

Not quite, it's also by other things as well (including geographical ancestry), the Mediterranean features of that race is seen in parts of non-Europeans but if you use it as the Mediterranean race then its only for Europeans, hence why its only included in the **Races of Europe**.

If you ignore biological and anthropological factors and hold geographical ancestry above them then, by that logic, race is a social construct.

Yes it is a separate race, hence why even on the Caucasian race it says "relation to the White race", White is a race not an ethnicity, simply look at the Caucasian race when it is limited for Europeans only, thus the white race.

When you restrict the Caucasian race to only Europe then what you get is a socially constructed classification of race.

Even the Nordic and Malay for example lack scientific evidence but are still both considered races.

Again, what the average person sees as a race is not a race. Perceptions change over time. If tomorrow people started seeing Sub-Saharan Africans as wWhites', would it make them Caucasians?

Race is not easily defined.



But a race is still defined partly by geographical ancestry.



Because that is the origins of the white race, race is also defined by geographical ancestry, the same way people say Africa is for black people or Asians for brown people.

Race is not easily defined but when it is, it's defined by in scientific terms. If I were to say 'Whites' also included people with geographical ancestry from Africa, would that make sense?

Originally, you talked about biological factors contributing to achievements. So if you want to argue for a racial theory based on that then you must look at race from a biological anthropological point of view. Caucasians include population with genetic clusters close together and similar physical features. If a Greek and an Iranian both come under the Mediterranean sub-group and then you say only one is white because of Geography, then you're using a socially defined version of race.

Saying 'Whites' are a race comprising of Europeans is a socially constructed definition. I'm simply asking for evidence of a white race. People saying there is a white race doesn't make it so if they don't back it up.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by fbear)
If you ignore biological and anthropological factors and hold geographical ancestry above them then, by that logic, race is a social construct.

It is a factor of many things, even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes categorising races.

When you restrict the Caucasian race to only Europe then what you get is a socially constructed classification of race.

Race is both biological and socially constructed, for example 'Asian' is often seen as a race but it's actually both Mongoloid and Malay but these are never shown on forms where you will in your race identification.

Again, what the average person sees as a race is not a race. Perceptions change over time. If tomorrow people started seeing Sub-Saharan Africans as wWhites', would it make them Caucasians?

Oh c'mon, stop being so silly... there is a difference between thinking and actually being, you can easily tell (generally speaking) what race someone belongs to.

Race is not easily defined but when it is, it's defined by in scientific terms. If I were to say 'Whites' also included people with geographical ancestry from Africa, would that make sense?

The Caucasian when you go by terms of skin colour for race as a key factor it is only meant for Europeans, "Historically, the term has been used to describe many peoples from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone." that is the difference.

Then you get for example the Jews a total separate race from the greater Caucasian race, get it?

Originally, you talked about biological factors contributing to achievements. So if you want to argue for a racial theory based on that then you must look at race from a biological anthropological point of view. Caucasians include population with genetic clusters close together and similar physical features. If a Greek and an Iranian both come under the Mediterranean sub-group and then you say only one is white because of Geography, then you're using a socially defined version of race.

Greeks are white.

Iranians are not white.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The white race is a completely different sub-race of the greater Caucasian race than say the Semitic race... there is scientific evidence of the sub-races within the Caucasian race and the Nordic, Mediterranean and Alpine are all white, the rest are not.

Saying 'Whites' are a race comprising of Europeans is a socially constructed definition. I'm simply asking for evidence of a white race. People saying there is a white race doesn't make it so if they don't back it up.

We've been through this - the definition of race is not easily defined and when defining a race, geographical ancestry does come in to it.

[aqquaintance_sport]

(Original post by whofan)
what are you on about? are cameron and clegg white supremacists or something? is every coalition policy designed to further the cause of their white supremacy?

this is not a white controlled country. it is a european country which is run, surprise surprise, by europeans.

the fact that you have called it a 'white' controlled country, as if thats negative, is racism. i very much doubt you would berate the chinese for being controlled by those pesky 'yellow' people. or india by those bigoted 'brown' people.

no, only white people have to hear that they can't be victims of racism because they a majority. its absurd.

the whole politically correct system is based around white guilt; white people are told daily that they are guilty. that they should be ashamed of their identity; that their existence is not desirable. that the country will be better off when they mix themselves out of existence and everyone is coffee coloured. they are told that they do not matter, that they should celebrate their ethnic dispossession.

racism, (meaning white people) is apparently responsible for every ill that afflicts non whites. if white people are mugged by racists its their fault, if they are assaulted by racists its their fault -- its payback for some imagined crime that the 'white race' is collectively guilty of.

white people can never win. wherever they turn they are confronted with an angry grimacing face accusing them of racism.

such undeniable truth.

[aqquaintance_sport]

(Original post by SpongebobSquarepan)
People who think it is racism, make it racist.

Takr crimewatch the other day, most criminals apart from one were either black, asian or eastern european.

I suppose I am racist now according to you.

I missed Crimewatch. They should really put it on iPlayer?