Welcome to Gaia! ::

low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Booty Tickle
low iq 111


you can't see the difference between a statement that provides a lot of statistical evidence and a stretched allegory? why would you even go to the source anyway? it's like you are looking for ad hominems when what you should be doing is attacking the information at hand.
Curious if it was a reputable site any nothing he says has citations. For all I know he could be using information from 1950.


yes that is a good point. i would like to know that too. (i never took the info too seriously btw)
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
It's not that there aren't different kinds of cats.

It's that you're saying the black cat with more of white splotches is so different from the black cat with more rounded white splotches.


Give it a rest.

There's hardly enough genetic deviation to be classified as another race just based on color.


Neanderthals? Maybe. Cromagnum man? Sure. Bigfoot? Probably. Chupacabra? Sketchy. Early prime ates; I suppose. Sasquatch? Of course. Aliens? Obviously.

But, "black" people? Not really. There's so much evidence of this it's really quite astounding.


You're going to confine the entire history of black people to a month; you mean every day, every week, every year, of every moment, they don't exist, didn't exist?

Well okay then. I think racist white people felt bad so they tried to give stuff to "the blacks" and now they're more racist than before.


not another race another species

sub species, actually, but they can breed
Fire 0ak's avatar

Buggy Mage

I don't see any harm in it yet nether do I think it's essential it be an entire month, but I guess a week would seem like too brief a period of time. I think it's important that we are reminded of the wrongs that took place during this country's history so that we can begin to heal culturally. We just have to accept that the healing process is going to take a longtime. I think its pretty important that we acknowledge it and maybe overtime learn more from the experience.
Suicidesoldier#1
I think it's silly, and I think we ought to remove it as an official thing because, it's silly.

And racist; we're all people, it's American history, it's world history.


That's all there is to it.

Teach it, talk about it, of course, but to isolate based off of a person's skin color is only going to put a larger wedge in the divide, if anything.

So, let's see what we got;
1.) Its silly because its silly.

2.) Its racist because...?... profit!!!

3.) It will create a wedge, somehow by pointing out what we all can visually realize in a half second if you are not blind.

Another stunning post there friend. rolleyes
MisdreavusPrincess's avatar

Timid Vampire

9,750 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Streaker 200
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.



User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.I always forget about Black History Month until someone around here complains about it, but then again I live in the south.

I see no problem with it and from what I can tell most of the people that do have an issue with it are racist or borderline.

I don't remember white people as a whole ever having to struggle in America.
Sure, some of us grew up poor but as a race we haven't done anything but treat the other races absolutely awful throughout history.


Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

low iq 111
Suicidesoldier#1
It's not that there aren't different kinds of cats.

It's that you're saying the black cat with more of white splotches is so different from the black cat with more rounded white splotches.


Give it a rest.

There's hardly enough genetic deviation to be classified as another race just based on color.


Neanderthals? Maybe. Cromagnum man? Sure. Bigfoot? Probably. Chupacabra? Sketchy. Early prime ates; I suppose. Sasquatch? Of course. Aliens? Obviously.

But, "black" people? Not really. There's so much evidence of this it's really quite astounding.


You're going to confine the entire history of black people to a month; you mean every day, every week, every year, of every moment, they don't exist, didn't exist?

Well okay then. I think racist white people felt bad so they tried to give stuff to "the blacks" and now they're more racist than before.


not another race another species

sub species, actually, but they can breed


The difference is so minor it is nowhere near a sub-species.

A chihuahua compared to a saint Bernard, that's a sub-species.


Hell, a wolf compared to a dog, even, imo.

But when you're talking about a black Labrador and a gold Labrador, it's not even a sub-species difference. xp
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
I think it's silly, and I think we ought to remove it as an official thing because, it's silly.

And racist; we're all people, it's American history, it's world history.


That's all there is to it.

Teach it, talk about it, of course, but to isolate based off of a person's skin color is only going to put a larger wedge in the divide, if anything.

So, let's see what we got;
1.) Its silly because its silly.

2.) Its racist because...?... profit!!!

3.) It will create a wedge, somehow by pointing out what we all can visually realize in a half second if you are not blind.

Another stunning post there friend. rolleyes


You're isolating people based on arbitrary characteristics when you should be bringing everyone together and saying we're all one.

Increase black studies all year round, incorporate them into regular education, that's the goal. They're people whom have American history and to censor it would be stupid. But when you isolate these factors and separate them from regular education you're doing the exact opposite of the entire intended goal in the first place, which is acknowledging how people are people, and their struggles.


It's as dumb as saying "white history".

"Black history" is everyone's history, we're all people. It's not as only black people are benefiting from George Carver's stuff or from the struggles of our ancestors. It's ridiculous to isolate them based on characteristics that have no value, rather than their merits as people. The only focusing on single individuals based on their "race" is the very problem in the first place.


I'd rather see more HISTORY, potentially with people who are black, in standard education than isolate these people and say it's different from normal history.

That entire train of thought of separating them from, presumably "normal history", is counter productive and, racist. You should isolate their characteristics as people. Not focus on arbitrary qualities.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

desertpunk
Suicidesoldier#1


Even crazier, it's believed that white people began in Africa. O_o

So for whatever reason, larger ozone in that area, it developed before they even left. O_o


Not to mention it changes as a result of the sun! O_O;!
I don't think it's crazy white people came from africa Science thinks it and says they have proof so until some other new discovery says we came from a giant mayo jar I'll go along.

And to your other post I never said the sun is what makes you, you but it's a reason for Melanin which a lot makes you darker and less makes you whiter..thats all..

And Melanin is genetic..and evolution doesn't work that fast you learn that in a place called school. Darwin awards are awarded for a reason.

EDIT:
If you read back on the first post I commented on you, you will see if you reread you post I was agreeing that something as trivial as Melanin doesn't make a person a different race.. your part of the Human race so am I...I was saying you were right that color doesn't matter..

and scientific proof has shown through Darwin's research.


I know lol xD

I was just further commenting on the ridiculousness of the idea. xp
MisdreavusPrincess
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.



User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.I always forget about Black History Month until someone around here complains about it, but then again I live in the south.

I see no problem with it and from what I can tell most of the people that do have an issue with it are racist or borderline.

I don't remember white people as a whole ever having to struggle in America.
Sure, some of us grew up poor but as a race we haven't done anything but treat the other races absolutely awful throughout history.



Yeah, that's mostly been my experience in terms of the kind of people who generally oppose BHM or any racial month; racist or borderline.

I was hoping to hear from people who had some more substantive objections, hence my thread.
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
I think it's silly, and I think we ought to remove it as an official thing because, it's silly.

And racist; we're all people, it's American history, it's world history.


That's all there is to it.

Teach it, talk about it, of course, but to isolate based off of a person's skin color is only going to put a larger wedge in the divide, if anything.

So, let's see what we got;
1.) Its silly because its silly.

2.) Its racist because...?... profit!!!

3.) It will create a wedge, somehow by pointing out what we all can visually realize in a half second if you are not blind.

Another stunning post there friend. rolleyes


You're isolating people based on arbitrary characteristics when you should be bringing everyone together and saying we're all one.

Increase black studies all year round, incorporate them into regular education, that's the goal. They're people whom have American history and to censor it would be stupid. But when you isolate these factors and separate them from regular education you're doing the exact opposite of the entire intended goal in the first place, which is acknowledging how people are people, and their struggles.


It's as dumb as saying "white history".

"Black history" is everyone's history, we're all people. It's not as only black people are benefiting from George Carver's stuff or from the struggles of our ancestors. It's ridiculous to isolate them based on characteristics that have no value, rather than their merits as people. The only focusing on single individuals based on their "race" is the very problem in the first place.


I'd rather see more HISTORY, potentially with people who are black, in standard education than isolate these people and say it's different from normal history.

That entire train of thought of separating them from, presumably "normal history", is counter productive and, racist. You should isolate their characteristics as people. Not focus on arbitrary qualities.

First off, isolation has been occurring since this nation was founded. People were sectioned off, divided and sub-divided long before I got here, though I am flattered you would think I have such power. No, the 'isolation' that you are referring to is not based on arbitrary things- its based on a shared set of experiences and analytical perspectives that are part and parcel to a shared culture of any people. That the basis for these was something arbitrary like skin tone does not make THOSE experiences arbitrary (like the Zoot Suit riots, formation of the UFW, the "Forever 21" lawsuit, etc.) They happened and their stories and perspectives have worth.

Next, yeah, in fairy pony wonderland that would be awesome if we could fully integrate ethnic historical perspectives into mainstream education the whole year round. Now, show me one district anywhere that's willing to cut out the American mainstream historical folklore in exchange for this, and exactly what they are going to cut. There are just not enough days to do justice to all, and to expect any mainstream culture anywhere to sacrifice its story for the out-group's is a long shot at best. So, if the alternative is being reduced to Ceasar Chavez and maybe Ricky Martin or at least getting a month where its acceptable to go in depth, I sure as Hell ain't choosing the first option.

About the only thing of substance I think you did say was this idea that "people are people" and what makes someone a person does not include their racial skin tone or history attached to that. That is where I think there is a huge divide on this nation and, surprise surprise, its on racial lines. For me, to ask someone to discuss my history, my life experiences without reference to my race would be like talking about Rick Ross without using the word 'fat.' Who I am today is shaped in large part by the history, both culturally and personally, by my ethnicity. Arbitrary as it may be, its existence has substantive affects at all stages of my life. If you ask alot of people of color, you will find that I am not alone in this sentiment.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Suicidesoldier#1
low iq 111
Suicidesoldier#1
It's not that there aren't different kinds of cats.

It's that you're saying the black cat with more of white splotches is so different from the black cat with more rounded white splotches.


Give it a rest.

There's hardly enough genetic deviation to be classified as another race just based on color.


Neanderthals? Maybe. Cromagnum man? Sure. Bigfoot? Probably. Chupacabra? Sketchy. Early prime ates; I suppose. Sasquatch? Of course. Aliens? Obviously.

But, "black" people? Not really. There's so much evidence of this it's really quite astounding.


You're going to confine the entire history of black people to a month; you mean every day, every week, every year, of every moment, they don't exist, didn't exist?

Well okay then. I think racist white people felt bad so they tried to give stuff to "the blacks" and now they're more racist than before.


not another race another species

sub species, actually, but they can breed


The difference is so minor it is nowhere near a sub-species.

A chihuahua compared to a saint Bernard, that's a sub-species.


Hell, a wolf compared to a dog, even, imo.

But when you're talking about a black Labrador and a gold Labrador, it's not even a sub-species difference. xp


yeah i guess so hehe
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

low iq 111
Suicidesoldier#1
low iq 111
Suicidesoldier#1
It's not that there aren't different kinds of cats.

It's that you're saying the black cat with more of white splotches is so different from the black cat with more rounded white splotches.


Give it a rest.

There's hardly enough genetic deviation to be classified as another race just based on color.


Neanderthals? Maybe. Cromagnum man? Sure. Bigfoot? Probably. Chupacabra? Sketchy. Early prime ates; I suppose. Sasquatch? Of course. Aliens? Obviously.

But, "black" people? Not really. There's so much evidence of this it's really quite astounding.


You're going to confine the entire history of black people to a month; you mean every day, every week, every year, of every moment, they don't exist, didn't exist?

Well okay then. I think racist white people felt bad so they tried to give stuff to "the blacks" and now they're more racist than before.


not another race another species

sub species, actually, but they can breed


The difference is so minor it is nowhere near a sub-species.

A chihuahua compared to a saint Bernard, that's a sub-species.


Hell, a wolf compared to a dog, even, imo.

But when you're talking about a black Labrador and a gold Labrador, it's not even a sub-species difference. xp


yeah i guess so hehe


xp
Essandee's avatar

6,100 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Conversationalist 100
I think a month that celebrates a race promotes segregation.
Maybe people get upset about "black history month" because they feel the distinction is unnecessary as opposed to "White history year" or whatever you want to call it. Maybe it's because the schools try to hype the s**t out of it like it's something special while the rest of history is just normal history...

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games