Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Has there ever really been a time, where the races were separate? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    I starting to think there never has been a time (I mean, apart from that time a really, really long time ago) where the race were separate and people who think multiculturalism is bad, are fighting for something that has never really existed.

    what choo think?
    1948 was a really, really long time ago? England has gone from being 99.9% white to having white British being a minority in several large cities such as London, Luton, Leicester and Slough in just six decades.

    But apparently that isn't enough "diversity" for some? One wonders when Japan will catch on to the idea that to avoid the racist label Tokyo ought to be 80% African?

    At its core, multiculturalism is a self-interested policy promoted by Jewish international communists, who, because Jews are, and have historically been, universally despised, benefit from patently absurd notions like "everyone is equal" being enforced in totalitarian format at State level, and fellow travellers of the idea are ethnics with a chip on their shoulder about perceived past ills who are intent on seeing the destruction of the European (white) races as revenge. Then there are the State funded academics, to enforce the ideology with "credibility".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    If we're really 98% chimp then I can only imagine how small the number of genetic differences between each race is.
    If you believe in evolution then it should be patently obvious that if human species develop over tens of thousands of years in completely separate environments with vastly differing specialisations in both intelligence and physical genetics required as a result of the terrain and climate, then you are not going to end up with, eg, sub-saharan Africans being identical to northern Europeans.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    If you believe in evolution then it should be patently obvious that if human species develop over tens of thousands of years in completely separate environments with vastly differing specialisations in both intelligence and physical genetics required as a result of the terrain and climate, then you are not going to end up with, eg, sub-saharan Africans being identical to northern Europeans.
    Agreed. So?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    Agreed. So?
    So why would you pretend otherwise by uttering fatuous platitudes about chimps?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    So why would you pretend otherwise by uttering fatuous platitudes about chimps?
    Thread is "Has there ever really been a time, where the races were separate?"

    My point was that if they're separate then it's only in the most superficial of ways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    Thread is "Has there ever really been a time, where the races were separate?"

    My point was that if they're separate then it's only in the most superficial of ways.
    Not really. That's just misuse of statistics. If just 2% of genetic material is enough for a substantive difference (assuming that you don't in fact believe any human race is equivalent to a chimp) then obviously fractions of that will have huge implications too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Not really. That's just misuse of statistics. If just 2% of genetic material is enough for a substantive difference (assuming that you don't in fact believe any human race is equivalent to a chimp) then obviously fractions of that will have huge implications too.
    Yes really. We're very different in appearance to chimps, but appearances are deceptive since the supposed 98% of shared genes makes us actually really close. Then consider all the human races, which look a bit different, but not extremely different like humans vs. chimps. Just a bit different, enough for racism to exist. Different skin colour, hair texture, minor facial differences - just what must be the tiniest little genetic tweaks, but that produce enough of a visual effect to make people imagine significant differences in other respects (character, intelligence or whatever). But the genetic difference between races must be absolutely miniscule, orders of magnitude less than 2%.

    So a racist gets all hateful over what being what, 0.1% different? 0.00001% different? Whatever it is, it's such a small percentage that race doesn't really exist in any significant sense, it just looks like it does. So racists acting like another race is so inferior to them is pretty ****brained.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    Oh yeah, the Europeans that colonised America and Australia have nothing to feel guilty about, do they. If your so fussed about 'racial purity', why not keep yourself to yourself?
    So Europeans are the only ones in history to invade anyone and should feel especially guilty. There were no Islamic crusades, Samurai battles or African tribal wars?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    Yes really. We're very different in appearance to chimps, but appearances are deceptive since the supposed 98% of shared genes makes us actually really close. Then consider all the human races, which look a bit different, but not extremely different like humans vs. chimps. Just a bit different, enough for racism to exist. Different skin colour, hair texture, minor facial differences - just what must be the tiniest little genetic tweaks, but that produce enough of a visual effect to make people imagine significant differences in other respects (character, intelligence or whatever). But the genetic difference between races must be absolutely miniscule, orders of magnitude less than 2%.

    So a racist gets all hateful over what being what, 0.1% different? 0.00001% different? Whatever it is, it's such a small percentage that race doesn't really exist in any significant sense, it just looks like it does. So racists acting like another race is so inferior to them is pretty ****brained.
    The typical "anti-racists" use of statistics is quite irritating. The races were always mixed (when about 0.1 percent of Britain was non-native before 1950), and DNA differences between races are less than 0.1%. We are 99% similar to a rat in DNA because DNA has a logarithmic not linear scale. It conveys a level of understanding which would perhaps be suitable for assessing the relative contents of foods but not DNA. Pretty brain dead if you ask me but that's the propaganda that has been propagated.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    1948 was a really, really long time ago? England has gone from being 99.9% white to having white British being a minority in several large cities such as London, Luton, Leicester and Slough in just six decades.

    But apparently that isn't enough "diversity" for some? One wonders when Japan will catch on to the idea that to avoid the racist label Tokyo ought to be 80% African?

    At its core, multiculturalism is a self-interested policy promoted by Jewish international communists, who, because Jews are, and have historically been, universally despised, benefit from patently absurd notions like "everyone is equal" being enforced in totalitarian format at State level, and fellow travellers of the idea are ethnics with a chip on their shoulder about perceived past ills who are intent on seeing the destruction of the European (white) races as revenge. Then there are the State funded academics, to enforce the ideology with "credibility".
    There are bit of what you say, that ring true with what I think. this idea that the jew are responsible for multiculturalism, can't be proven. Lets face it, there has pretty much always been less of the white race, which i think is the reason why certain people are panicked.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    So Europeans are the only ones in history to invade anyone and should feel especially guilty. There were no Islamic crusades, Samurai battles or African tribal wars?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well we were talking about white "purity", if you want to yourself "pure" you keep yourself to yourself and try your hardest not to have sex with the indigenous people. Nobody's "pure". You can't start whining when you've basically done the same thing, your fighting against now. Immigration.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    Well we were talking about white "purity", if you want to yourself "pure" you keep yourself to yourself and try your hardest not to have sex with the indigenous people. Nobody's "pure". You can't start whining when you've basically done the same thing, your fighting against now. Immigration.
    What you are basically saying is that child is mixed race because everyone is mixed race. Shall we wait till he is 15 and put it to him. It's laughable considering he isn't.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    What you are basically saying is that child is mixed race because everyone is mixed race. Shall we wait till he is 15 and put it to him. It's laughable considering he isn't.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How is he not?

    So your basing it on appearance only, 'If you look a white white, you are white'.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    How is he not?

    So your basing it on appearance only, 'If you look a white white, you are white'.
    If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Your argument is that there are marginal variations between ducks therefore none of them are ducks.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest the fact that different races even exist at all suggests they were separate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Your argument is that there are marginal variations between ducks therefore none of them are ducks.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, what I'm saying is, they are all ducks, with marginal differences. So what are you fighting against?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    No, what I'm saying is, they are all ducks, with marginal differences. So what are you fighting against?
    It was a euphemism. You are effectively saying that there is no difference between a Collie and a Labrador due to the flat that they are both dogs and each bread has slight variances and you can cross bread them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    It was a euphemism. You are effectively saying that there is no difference between a Collie and a Labrador due to the flat that they are both dogs and each bread has slight variances and you can cross bread them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    Yes.
    Well you would never win at Crufts with that attitude. But don't tell me, it doesn't matter because Crufts is a social construct.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    Well you would never win at Crufts with that attitude. But don't tell me, it doesn't matter because Crufts is a social construct.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Haha, exactly! I can live without it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.