[Closed] Is this racist?

Kryton - I know. It is our social condition that drive such trends.

Pale skin - doesn't have to work outside, sign of wealth...
Pale Skin - can't afford a decent holiday... sign of poverty...
Pale skin... sign of education... doesn't want to get skin cancer.

Western media plays a big part in the west believing white features are more attractive.

i'm definitely not racist, i have a black friend.

Excuse me? "Jews" in the modern sense of the word are followers of a religion, not a race. So yes, Junkyard is rather ignorant on the matter, as, it would seem, are you.

Oh right, because you've just redefined what it is to be Jewish then. I'll just tell all my Jewish friends who don't practice the religion that they aren't Jewish any more....

And Hitler's aversion to Jews was nothing to do with their Semitism or his Eugenicist philosophies of a 'Master Race', then. No, course not.

So if a Jew chooses to convert to another religion are they cursed as always being a jew then?

Open to interpretation I think.

Well I think I'll take the interpretation of people who are actually Jewish, if it's all the same.

now you are just being anti-semitic:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

In the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race, at least for purposes of certain anti-discrimination laws. Their reasoning: at the time these laws were passed, people routinely spoke of the "Jewish race" or the "Italian race" as well as the "Negro race," so that is what the legislators intended to protect.

But many Jews were deeply offended by that decision, offended by any hint that Jews could be considered a race. The idea of Jews as a race brings to mind nightmarish visions of Nazi Germany, where Jews were declared to be not just a race, but an inferior race that had to be rounded up into ghettos and exterminated like vermin.

But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

Or to simplify the point further for the benefit of padded-brain, Hitler would have had no problem with me, but had my brother decided to convert to Judaism, he'd have been sent off for a shower.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism. That Jews have been persecuted while their countrymen of other religions have not, proves MY point exactly - that this is an example of religious hatred, not racial.

And obviously, you're going to get differing opinions from certain sectors of the Jewish community based on their politico-religious leanings.

Shibboleth - Member

Excuse me? "Jews" in the modern sense of the word are followers of a religion, not a race. So yes, Junkyard is rather ignorant on the matter, as, it would seem, are you.

Feel free to 'cite' the Jewish quest for their own holy land as reason for them being a race, but you'd be wrong. There are followers of Judaism from many races.

That may be so, but there still exists a Semitic ethnic group that is not Arab, and that we call 'Jewish'. Perhaps a different name might be appropriate, but it is generally accepted that the word 'Jewish' refers both to a religion and to a race/ethnic group of people. So no, Elfinsafety is not reflecting ignorance. Know-it-alls who think they're being clever by challenging an entirely appropriate use of a word are.

As for the features of women from an African background, I would suspect that the psychologist's data is indeed skewed by an overrepresentation of respondants with a European background.

From a personal point of view, I had never appreciated the beauty of Black people before I moved to the Caribbean, when I realised that my concept of beauty was, without a doubt, entirely shaped by having grown up in a predominantly European place. Once I lived among people of African origin, it was plain that, while our respective assumptions about beauty were strong, they were also just that: assumptions. That is, they were easily dispelled as we adapted to a new context.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism.

In the context of the Nazi Holocaust, it was. Hitler saw the Jews as sub-human, and potential pollutants of his dream of an ethnically pure Aryan Master Race.

So when you say this:

For starters, the persecution of Jews is not racism

You are quite clearly wrong.

And go have a look round places like Stamford Hill, which has one of the largest orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel. you might notice certain common physical facial characteristics amongst those people, which distinguishes them on ethnic terms from other groups in that area.

I know you really want to look all clever and that, but tbh, you're the one coming across as pretty ignorant Shib.

Nazi propaganda used race as the basis for the promotion of it's warped ideologies. Have a look at this:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

And tell me that's got nothing to do with race.

SaxonRider - Member

That may be so, but there still exists a Semitic ethnic group that is not Arab, and that we call 'Jewish'. Perhaps a different name might be appropriate, but it is generally accepted that the word 'Jewish' refers both to a religion and to a race/ethnic group of people. So no, Elfinsafety is not reflecting ignorance. Know-it-alls who think they're being clever by challenging an entirely appropriate use of a word are.

Had the post been about the persecution of that group, then perhaps the use of the term "racism" would have been appropriate. Seeing as it was a reference to the persecution of followers of Judaism, then it is an inappropriate use.

Here you go Shib:

[img] [/img]

[i][b]"But many Jews were deeply offended by that decision, offended by any hint that Jews could be considered a race."[/b][/i]

Yeah the reason for that is that it would throw up the very awkward issue that Jews are not the only Semites, eg, the modern Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, are also Semites. The are no racial differences between Palestinians Jews and Palestinian Christians and Muslims - they share the same DNA.

So to get round the little problem the Zionists had when they decided to steal the land from the Palestinians, they chose to call themselves "a people" ..... preferably a "Chosen People", which very conveniently excludes all non-Israeli Palestinians. That's chosen by God btw.

Obviously many Jews have non-semtic DNA, specially North European DNA. But I notice TurnerGuy that you chose to call Elfin "anti-semitic", why would you do that - if you reject the claim that Jews are a race?

Defining yourself as a Jew does not have anything to do with religion, in fact half of the Jews in Israel are "secular" Jews........clearly religion, contrary to your claim, is not the deciding factor.

Jews are a race, but they share their race with other people. In the same way that Kurds can be racially identified, despite the fact that do not constitute a separate race.

To get slightly back on track ....

I don't see how people can have a 'type' / demographic group that they find either attractive or unattractive. For me, it's all about the individual, so I find certain people attractive regardless of race, hair colour, build, height, gender etc Actually having read that, it makes me sound like a floozy ... it's not that I find everyone attractive, but more that I couldn't ever specify a particular 'type' in even the broadest terms.

You're confusing "attractive" with "physically attractive." There's plenty of people I fancy that I'd never dream of going anywhere near for any sort of relationship (assuming I was single that is). Some of the most attractive people I know wouldn't win any beauty contests.

The point junkyard was trying to make, is that Jewish persecution was a matter of racism. That Jews have been persecuted while their countrymen of other religions have not

Actually I meant it only in relation to Hitler and the final solution tbh and it was used as an example, amongstt many, that this was BS

This pathological fear of racism that seems to be being instilled in society does more harm than racism itself, IMHO.

as it seems unlikely the fear of racism has done more harm than actual racism. You neatly side stepped this by discussing if Jews were a race. Unfortunately what we need to do here is to consider if Hitler was a racist and whether this motivated his killing of Jews. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Hitler’s was indeed a racist and killed Jews due to racism. Now you may wish to defend Hitler and explain why his final solution was not racist and he himself was not racist but I very much doubt even you wish to try to do this.
So back to your comment any chance you can give some example of where fear of racism has led to genocide, murders, political segregation of humans etc to support you assertion that fear of racism is worse than racism?
I await you further attacks on me , my spelling and a discussion on whether Jews are a race or not rather than any form of credible defence of your own view which is utterly unsupportable by observing reality.
It was knee jerk PC gone mad type piece of hyperbole which I am sure you will be only to happy to either retract or defend it as true.

I wouldnt say it was a racist paper, but I wouldnt trust it either. What's LSE (E for economics) doing this research for anyway?

The statement "Because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races." is absolutle rubbish.

If one believes the out of Africa hypothesis, which is generally accepted then yes humans started off as African and then migrated, random mutation occured and asian, european and other races originated from these mutations. So in fact I would argue that everyone, but Africans harboured more mutations than the norm. This bloke has taken his races DNA and compared it to Africans to claim they are more mutated. When he should be using African DNA as the reference sequence.

Bad science. I wouldn't give it the time of day. Who ever peer reviewed his paper are also morons.

Well, ...

I think we're missing the point a bit invoking the nazis in a discussion of black vs everybody else - nazis weren't only anti-jew as a single group, were they ? Gay people, gypsies (dunno, are they a race too?), communists, ... (how were they on christians?). Just all-round nasty ****ers IMO and there's no way that "racist" covers it alone; that's glossing over too much else that was so, so wrong.

They were surely "only" persecuting jews as a large majority because there were likely very few black/brown/yellow folk to hand - sure, xenophobic in the most exaggerated sense (anything different to their ideal) and unspeakably evil, but not (just) racist vs jews. If gays were easier to identify I guess there'd have been plenty (more) of them in the line than was the case

(If it had turned out different I do wonder what they'd had in mind for the Japanese, once the old 1000 yrs had started)

[as for the "research" - since we haven't seen his methods I don't suppose we can really say, but "****y" seems a likely favourite]