How do you react to being called racist bigot? Do you defend yourself or accept the tag?

[Tripredacus]

My answer is no. I am not a racist bigot. Each person makes their own choices. If those choices are to accept that which society places upon them, instead of what they feel is right, then those are people I am against.

[Gnist]

In a chat over some coffee in a group of five I was recently accused, by one guy, of being "prejudiced". I asked what my prejudice was, but there was no answer.

[magister]

Originally Posted by ares

I think the only remedy in this respect is that people should start to shrug off cries of "racist" and "anti-semite" and start to question these happenings openly. As soon as people lose fear things start to change.

Example :

People call you a "racist, bigot, anti-semite, intolerant" after hearing you say things.

You calmly say "Yes, now what's your point"




It will leave them open mouthed and with nothing to say.

I don't think anyone should accept being called racist. Racism is a perjorative term that is an evil by its very definition. It's contradictory for someone to advocate a logical and rational public policy change, or make a coherent political argument, and then accept the term racist. No one should accept this label.

[Delbáeth]

I laugh then I say, yes I am. Most people expect you to cower away from the big bad racist accusation. it's like a trump card, just never works on me..

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by magister

I don't think anyone should accept being called racist. Racism is a perjorative term that is an evil by its very definition. It's contradictory for someone to advocate a logical and rational public policy change, or make a coherent political argument, and then accept the term racist. No one should accept this label.

"Racism", unless specified further, does not imply evil, nor racial hatred. It implies any semantic that can be derived from combining "race" with "ism", and that is a broad spectrum of ideas and conceptions. That the term in these days is abused as meaning inherently the evil racial hatred towards other races (specifically "white" versus "black"), is perhaps, the product of an opposition towards the realization and conception of the existence of races and their significance, which people are kept from understanding with a social stigmatization, characterized by this one term, which people are so willing to avoid being labeled as, that they do not learn about academic racism and the reality of races. The only way to counter that, is to stop caring about the stigma when someone uses it as a straw man argument.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

"Racism", unless specified further, does not imply evil, nor racial hatred. It implies any semantic that can be derived from combining "race" with "ism", and that is a broad spectrum of ideas and conceptions.

I wonder if you've believed a word of what you've written here.

That the term in these days is abused as meaning inherently the evil racial hatred towards other races (specifically "white" versus "black"), is perhaps, the product of an opposition towards the realization and conception of the existence of races and their significance, which people are kept from understanding with a social stigmatization, characterized by this one term, which people are so willing to avoid being labeled as, that they do not learn about academic racism and the reality of races. The only way to counter that, is to stop caring about the stigma when someone uses it as a straw man argument.

The definition of 'racism' implies an interrelation between different races within a same physical space. If you want to argue that interrelation in terms of negative or positive, by all means go ahead and waste your time as much as you wish to do it.

I don't. I simply do not contemplate any such interrelation within my physical space.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I wonder if you've believed a word of what you've written here.

I do believe it.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The definition of 'racism' implies an interrelation between different races within a same physical space. If you want to argue that interrelation in terms of negative or positive, by all means go ahead and waste your time as much as you wish to do it.

I don't. I simply do not contemplate any such interrelation within my physical space.

It does not necessarily refer to an "interrelation between races within in a physical space" - that is more like the definition of some multi-racial interaction.

When I say what I say, I am completely aware that it is not possible for any person in public to admit to racism - because it will be interpreted as the definition I described, which is basically just a stigmatization of any belief that involves human races (racial hatred - evil), more than a conceptual belief. It is the fewest that actually fit that definition, without it being a stigmatization - examples of such few are neo-nazi hate mongers.

[Laocoon]

Better not to; we have laws here. Race related topics belong to a very "rolling thema" which I prefer not to deal with in public with a nobody.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I do believe it.

To want is to believe.

It does not necessarily refer to an "interrelation between races within in a physical space" - that is more like the definition of some multi-racial interaction.

Not really. Notice that the notion of "racism" is virtually absent in those physical spaces where there is no different races living side by side. Therefore there is no need to define anything in terms of race.

It is a terrible mistake to define one's political beliefs in terms of racism. Racism is not --or it should not be-- a political doctrine. Don't you admit having different races (or sub-races) as part of the Danish nation? The anthropological differences between the derivatives of Cromagnoids and of Aurignacoids are wide enough to call for a contructionism of a racist doctrine. Yet we don't do that, do we? We define a political doctrine in terms of ethnicity, not of race. Ethnic nations are made up of different anthropological types, which have come together to make up what we today know as the nation, at the time of its ethnogenesis. Or which have been assimilated over time, after that ethnogenesis.

You can see the results of defining politics in terms of racism, in the discussions of some individuals desperately (and pathetically) trying to prove that the different anthropological types in their nations are not what they look, but they are something altogether different. I'm referring to the pathetic attempts to define, for example, all Germans (be them Alpinids, Baltids, Dinarids or Mediterranids/Atlantids) as Nordids. How much time should we waste with such people? How much should we allow them to burden our possibilities of progressing, with their pseudo-scientifical speculations?

Personally, I believe that we should not waste one second and we should instead put a strong cordon sanitaire around them.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Better not to; we have laws here.

Yes, institutionalized stigmatization and penalty for dealing with the topic of race.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To want is to believe.
Not really. Notice that the notion of "racism" is virtually absent in those physical spaces where there is no different races living side by side. Therefore there is no need to define anything in terms of race.

The notion of biological human races was discovered primarily by English and other European anthropologists, when they discovered other continents and their primitive civilizations with e.g. Negroid people. At that point, they did not live among them. But yes, the only way you can distinguish between multiple races, is for you to know that multiple races exist. That is epistemological.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is a terrible mistake to define one's political beliefs in terms of racism. Racism is not --or it should not be-- a political doctrine.

Excuse me, but where does this come from? I didnt mention any political doctrine in my post, and the question of racism and racist political doctrines are very distinctive. If you cant distinguish between them, you're name must be Adolf Hitler. Please read it again.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

"Racism", unless specified further, does not imply evil, nor racial hatred. It implies any semantic that can be derived from combining "race" with "ism", and that is a broad spectrum of ideas and conceptions. That the term in these days is abused as meaning inherently the evil racial hatred towards other races (specifically "white" versus "black"), is perhaps, the product of an opposition towards the realization and conception of the existence of races and their significance, which people are kept from understanding with a social stigmatization, characterized by this one term, which people are so willing to avoid being labeled as, that they do not learn about academic racism and the reality of races. The only way to counter that, is to stop caring about the stigma when someone uses it as a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Don't you admit having different races (or sub-races) as part of the Danish nation?

First of all - lets get the taxonomy straight. One race is not the same as a sub-race. A sub-species of the human race is not the same as a sub-race - it can, in its taxonomic nature, contain a larger scope of variation than one phenotype, when we're talking biology, and anthropology. Nevertheless, I dont think sub-races are significant. No one in the general population distinguishes between them, whereas the general population can grasp and see the visible differences between entire human races. The approach of judging after the visible is also why physical anthropology is largely abolished in understanding human differences. The racial differences go under our skin and bones.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The anthropological differences between the derivatives of Cromagnoids and of Aurignacoids are wide enough to call for a contructionism of a racist doctrine.

I disagree that its possible. What evidence and practical examples do you have to support this claim, that its possible in a modern context to make a racist doctrine based on the differences Aurignacoids and Cromagnoids? All I see is claims, and no evidence. If this was the case, there would be some mention of these two "sub-races" in the general population and culture. The thing is, the general population does not adhere to retro-academic physical anthropology.

My elaborated take on your opinion that Europe is still to this day bi-racial is here: European Race or European Races

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yet we don't do that, do we?

No! We dont. So what makes you think its possible? The anthropological differences themselves? Phenotypology and sub-racial traits obviously dont have any real significance in society. People breed and mix between sub-races.
I just explained why - the general population do not have the expertise, knowledge, or care, to distinguish between sub-races. One of the reasons for this is that they are scattered across all populations, extremely mixed, and the majority of Europe is of mixed sub-race, the people of only 1 sub-race are either only visually so, and have ancestors of several sub-races, or are part of the only possible exception to this, which must comprise a very low part of the population, considering the general breeding trends for the last 2000-4000 years.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

We define a political doctrine in terms of ethnicity, not of race. Ethnic nations are made up of different anthropological types, which have come together to make up what we today know as the nation, at the time of its ethnogenesis. Or which have been assimilated over time, after that ethnogenesis.

Ethnogenesis has a basis in identity, and sub-race is not the prerequisite. Race, however, is at least more significant than sub-race, since the fewest ethnicities would accept a completely radically different person, i.e. a black-skinned sub-Saharan African with extremely visible different traits (thick lips, flat, broad nose), and the examples of such are very few, whereas the examples of different sub-races breeding together, i.e. what we today might call an "Alpinid" breeding with a "Baltid", or "Mediterranid" breading with a "Dinarid" (random examples) are numerous, something it is impossible to hold count of.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You can see the results of defining politics in terms of racism, in the discussions of some individuals desperately (and pathetically) trying to prove that the different anthropological types in their nations are not what they look, but they are something altogether different. I'm referring to the pathetic attempts to define, for example, all Germans (be them Alpinids, Baltids, Dinarids or Mediterranids/Atlantids) as Nordids. How much time should we waste with such people? How much should we allow them to burden our possibilities of progressing, with their pseudo-scientifical speculations?

I agree we should not waste our times with sub-races and the father/mother races of Europids in general, as if they had any significance after millenia of interbreeding. But that is what you do, isnt it? I dont consider it any better to suggest that there is any significant racial difference between one sub-race and another that somehow has political implications in a modern context, such as what you say seems to suggest, than to suggest that one nation are all one sub-race. Both claims and approaches are equally irrelevant and time-wasting, because they are based on the presumption that sub-races are somehow significant, important, un-mixed, pure and that political measurements should be taken that we base our ideals in them - sub-racialism.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Personally, I believe that we should not waste one second and we should instead put a strong cordon sanitaire around them.

I believe we should, but on sub-racialism, such as that of yours. Its like a plague for nationalist forums like these, that people put too much emphasis on racial taxonomy and typology. Its okay for the anthropology forum, but the political exploitation of sub-races is childish.

[Menydh]

Lutiferre, you are resorting to name calling. I would suggest you to use a different tactic.

What I do not confuse is raciology (anthropology, whatever) with racism. The -ism suffix implies an activity around the root, race. And that is clearly what you are confusing, raciology and racism.

Furthermore, it is surely more than merely coincidential that the issue of race is being discussed in a forum for politics.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

First of all - lets get the taxonomy straight. One race is not the same as a sub-race. A sub-species of the human race is not the same as a sub-race

From the moment that you call humans a race, you are not getting anything straight in taxonomy.

Even when what defines a race is subjective and allows a degree of discussion, this does not hold for humankind, which is a species and not a race.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Nevertheless, I dont think sub-races are significant. No one in the general population distinguishes between them, whereas the general population can grasp and see the visible differences between entire human races. The approach of judging after the visible is also why physical anthropology is largely abolished in understanding human differences. The racial differences go under our skin and bones.

Whatever anyone thinks as of significant. Significance is not the keyword here, but relevance. So sub-racial differences can be significant, yet not be relevant in depending with context.

But I agree that [not necessarily 'racial'] differences go beneath the skin and bones. Which in fact I could argue that this is what makes me different to you. Now, I think of this in terms of ethnicity and you misunderstand it in terms of sub-race. But that's your problem, not mine.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I disagree that its possible. What evidence and practical examples do you have to support this claim, that its possible in a modern context to make a racist doctrine based on the differences Aurignacoids and Cromagnoids? All I see is claims, and no evidence.

You don't see what you don't want to see. The fact is that if you construct your ideas around the concept of "race", then you leave the door opened to anyone else to do the same, around the concept of "sub-race".

It doesn't take an amateur anthropologist to notice how some characters are related to peoples with a certain physical characteristics. This is the case in the more robust derivatives of the Cromagnoid race vs de more gracile derivatives of the Aurignacoid race. Now, this does not tell anything in terms of negative vs positive. And it certainlyk does tell nothing in terms of ethnicity, since nations are made up of different types/sub-types.

This primitivist idea of defining a political idea in terms of sub-races is not different to your primitivist idea of defining them in terms of races. At least for those of us who work around the idea of evolution and ethnicity.

My elaborated take on your opinion that Europe is still to this day bi-racial is here: European Race or European Races

There, you are not answering me. You take two small lines from my text and then elaborate on something altogether different, pretending that what you write is an answer to what I've said.

And you do so because the idea of a two different race origin is a problem for you, since you are not an ethnic nationalist but a racist. Simple and plain. That idea does not pose any problem to me, so I can discuss it without problems and without it being traumatic.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I believe we should, but on sub-racialism, such as that of yours. Its like a plague for nationalist forums like these, that people put too much emphasis on racial taxonomy and typology. Its okay for the anthropology forum, but the political exploitation of sub-races is childish.

You will have to excuse me here, but I take no lessons from someone who has done nothing that we know of for nationalism, and yet he pretends that what others have done it is changed to suit his views, with insults and ad hominem disqualifications.

I have worked a lot to create this community on the basis of ethnic preservationism and of inter-ethnic cooperation among Nationalists from around Europe, while your colleagues up there entertained (and still do it) with sub-racial and racial disrespect and thuggery, provoking a hostility that is not going to be forgotten by many (and it shouldn't be) and which has left a profound feeling of distrust.

And those who have brought that up are the same that you are trying to cover up here, with your dishonest accusations against me of being a sub-racialist.

I already told you in private to make sure that you point into the right direction, before you make any such accusation. If only for the sake of honesty. And that means that you have to look closer to you than you would probably like to admit.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What I do not confuse is raciology (anthropology, whatever) with racism. The -ism suffix implies an activity around the root, race. And that is clearly what you are confusing, raciology and racism.

Furthermore, it is surely more than merely coincidential that the issue of race is being discussed in a forum for politics.

You don't see what you don't want to see. The fact is that if you construct your ideas around the concept of "race", then you leave the door opened to anyone else to do the same, around the concept of "sub-race".

This primitivist idea of defining a political idea in terms of sub-races is not different to your primitivist idea of defining them in terms of races. At least for those of us who work around the idea of evolution and ethnicity.

I dont define my political ideas in terms of race. In fact, I define them in terms of culture and cultural roots. But I will never deny that I think race is significant, and that race has a meaning. When I say I define my ideas in terms of culture, race still has a place - the place, that I believe the meaning of the cultural roots are vapourised in the hypothetical scenario that every member somehow involved in the cultural context suddenly changed into a sub-Saharan African, but I dont care about subjective anthropological sub-racial classifications, and the fact is, there are already members of every sub-race in the cultural context of every European nation. When it comes to race, I just dont think it should be the center of our attention, and as you expressed, I dont think we should waste our time with such beliefs.

I may emphasize the broadness of the term racism too much. However, what I said about it being used as a means of stigmatization for the political merit of being able to socially influence people away from either nationalism or any idea that ascribes significance or reality to race, still holds. And I think too, that "racism" is still a broad term, which is being used in a narrow down sense today, and this meaning has been installed by people that have political gain from it.

.. your primitivist idea of defining them in terms of races ..

As I said - that is not my idea.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

From the moment that you call humans a race, you are not getting anything straight in taxonomy.

Even when what defines a race is subjective and allows a degree of discussion, this does not hold for humankind, which is a species and not a race.

You are correct. However, race can be used in several different ways, and aside from the taxonomic biological context, in which it describes a sub-species, it can also describe almost every kind of people, tribe, etc.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Whatever anyone thinks as of significant. Significance is not the keyword here, but relevance. So sub-racial differences can be significant, yet not be relevant in depending with context.

But I agree that [not necessarily 'racial'] differences go beneath the skin and bones. Which in fact I could argue that this is what makes me different to you. Now, I think of this in terms of ethnicity and you misunderstand it in terms of sub-race.

Ethnicity does not imply any biological factor that goes under the skin, racial or not. It implies human identity and kinship, which is a sociological factor dependent on environment and human interactions.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It doesn't take an amateur anthropologist to notice how some characters are related to peoples with a certain physical characteristics. This is the case in the more robust derivatives of the Cromagnoid race vs de more gracile derivatives of the Aurignacoid race. Now, this does not tell anything in terms of negative vs positive. And it certainlyk does tell nothing in terms of ethnicity, since nations are made up of different types/sub-types.

I wouldnt disagree, the only place I disagree is that this somehow has political significance in any scenario. As you say, there are both derivates of both types in all nations. That is one of the reasons

Originally Posted by Mynydd