Disclaimer- I am not a rascist.  This was just a thought.

So we were talking about this in govt class.  The slaves and segregation was similar to the Roman class structure as in the working class and the naturally rich class.  The Patrician class was the born with a silver spoon in your mouth rich class of people (whites), while the Plebians were the working class (blacks).  The Patricians were not supposed to marry out of their class.  And if a Patrician fell in love with and Plebian, they were thrown out of the class.  Especially if it was a woman.  This relates to white people being osticized (sp) if they were with a black person.  The plebes were treated like crap by the upper class as it was with slavery. 

Slavery was a form of labor and not a form of rascism. Rascism developed later on and became a trend among white people.  Cruelty and the like (whipping etc) had been popular since the middle ages and the style of doing so had not yet begun to wane from society as a whole.  Of course this is all about the individual slave owner. 

On to the n word.  The term african american wasnt around yet.  The term black people wasnt being used yet.  So what word was created to refer to the slaves?  You guessed it, the n word.  The n word was just used as a prefix on a slave's name.  Like the one you see in family guy: N word John.  That was the original use of the word.  The word became a derogitory term when the black people learned to speak english.  That was when instead of having a name you were just called the n word and it slipped of the white man's tongue like nothing.  Unless it was used as an insult.  

Thats all i have thought of for now.  I know i didnt cover every topic or go very in depth, but those are my thoughts and what i have found in research. 

The slaves were a big part of this countrys economy.

And whipping a man to does become a bit racist.

Aparently you feel guilty enough to attempt to make it sound not as bad as it really was.

It was a horrid thing. We, the white people, screwed up. Please admidt that and stop trying to sugar coat it.

Cedric wrote: We specifically took black people and put them into slavery...

Along with people of other nationalities, its mainly the African Americans you here about mostly.

SuperXero wrote: Because...? I've chosen to take an alternative look at our society...

That's not exactly an "alternative" look at society...   I know of several citizens' groups that hold exactly those views.  Those views are quite popular, actually.

You are right, Xero.  We might all not be "equal".  In fact, it is quite obvious that we are all not "equal".

What makes it hard is when people look at all of the various differences between people, and arbitrarily designate one group as "better" than another group (and conveniently, the designator seems to always end up in the "good" group).

All too often, "different" is simply code for "I am better than you", and is simply poor justification for self-aggrandization.

All too often, the underlying theories collapse upon themselves upon closer inspection.  As a result, it is easy to jump on people (like yourself) who appear to hold the same beliefs that we have watched crumble many times before.

Fat Stalin wrote: Not all of them were pointless. He did own you in his first post

Which post was that? 

BTW - what is an "ethnic"?

SuperXero wrote: Ethnic - Of or relating to people grouped according to a common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin.

So everybody is an ethnic?

SuperXero wrote: when an ethnic is referred to, it is usually as a race other than white.

So you simply mean non-white.

By your posts, you give the impression that "ethnics" collectively are different from whites - that ethnics share common qualities that are different from white.  I.e., for instance, an African and an Arab are more similar to each other than either is to an Englishman.

Is that correct?

SuperXero wrote: Yes, I would say that that is correct, though I am referring to mainly blacks in my posts, with some exceptions where I have latins, and other groups in mind.

So, in other words, whites are just different from other people.  Is that correct?

SuperXero wrote: So to answer your question in short, yes, whites are different from other groups.

But more specifically, whites are MORE different from other groups than those other groups are from each other.  Hence the "whites and ethnics" distinction.

Correct?

SuperXero wrote: Yes, I would say that, are you trying to change to subject?

Not at all - just trying to understand your views completely.

So - what are some of the qualities that set whites apart from ethnics?  What do whites have more or less of (or not at all) than ethnics?

What are these differences?

Ok, so all races are equidistant in terms of differences.

I visited your link, and reviewed some of the listed differences (and I will accept all as stated for purpose of this discussion).  Most of them, however, are not really "differences" at all - an observation about how many inventions have been made by blacks versus whites is not helpful or particularly informative.  Is this meant to imply that blacks have less imagination than whites?  If so, then imagination is the difference.

Other differences are literal but uninteresting.  Like dental differences - what relevance that blacks have "more apelike" dental features than whites?  Blacks have darker ("more apelike") skin than whites, but so what?  Again, the implication is left unsaid.

But there is one - IQ.  Your link claims that blacks have a lower average IQ than whites.  This makes a good discussion point.

My question:  Assuming that blacks have an average IQ of 15 points less than the average white (and assuming that the IQ scores accurately reflect intelligence) - so what?  What do we do about this?  Which policies should we enact as a result of this?  Or is this simply justification for whites to declare themselves "superior"?  Simply put - why do I care?

Xero - I understand.  And the link was fine.

But the evolutionary scale thing - again, so what?  That's not helpful - how does that affect anything?

Ok, so we can sit around and observe that black people are not as smart as white people, and are not as "evolved" - but so what?

What is the result?  What is the purpose?  Are there/should there be policies or rules?  Or are we just going to sit around feeling superior?

Why do I care?

I think his point, Clark, is that becuase they are not as good as Whiteys, it makes it ok that we beat them, forced them into slavery, and caused a chain of events that effect them still today.

Its all ok now that some Klansmen scientist proved they are still half apes. They aparently dont have feelings becuase of that....

*edit*

That link is such trash SuperXero. If you actually buy into the "Facts" that it says you should try playing hide and seek in a walmart bag...

Linus wrote: Pred, thanks for stating whats been stated for hundreds of years. Jews (white people) were slaves to Egyptians (Blacks/Arabs)

Middle Eastern Jews =\= White.

IQ tests are very interesting things...  very worthy of discussion.  But probably not in this thread.

:)

(unless the slavery/racism discussion is over now)

The testosterone bit is not universally accepted ( http://www.drmirkin.com/men/1583.html - link ), but there is some evidence to support the theory.

There are other more solid differences observed, however, like susceptibility to sickle cell anemia among American blacks.  Of course, most observers don't bother to note that this is due to a particular gene cluster that also produces greater resistance to malaria - a fair evolutionary tradeoff if you live in Africa.

There are other studies related to proportions of fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscle mass, but I am not certain of the reliability of this data.

What ALL of these studies and "differences" share, however, is a central flaw - population definition and sampling procedures.

A statement like "black men are better sprinters than white men", for instance, may have some foundation in truth (per various fast-twitch theories), but the statement suffers from over-inclusiveness.  Kenya, which is populated mostly by black people, has not TMK ever produced a world-class spinter, but consistently pumps out olympic marathon runners.  Even though Kenyans are "black", they are quite different, ethnically, from American blacks (who are mostly of West African descent), and it is probably scientifically incorrect to consider them a single population.  It is also my understanding that Kenyans do not have the genetic inclination for sickle cell anemia that is common among American Blacks.

Similarly, "whites" is a silly term, as Meph has pointed out.  Germans, for instance, are ethnically closer to Iranians (both from the Aryan subgroup) than they are to Spaniards.  Some scientists that study these things do a good job of determining appropriate populations; others do not.

Fat Stalin wrote: Predatorr wrote: Disclaimer- I am not a rascist.  This was just a thought. So we were talking about this in govt class.  The slaves and segregation was similar to the Roman class structure as in the working class and the naturally rich class.  The Patrician class was the born with a silver spoon in your mouth rich class of people (whites), while the Plebians were the working class (blacks).  The Patricians were not supposed to marry out of their class.  And if a Patrician fell in love with and Plebian, they were thrown out of the class.  Especially if it was a woman.  This relates to white people being osticized (sp) if they were with a black person.  The plebes were treated like crap by the upper class as it was with slavery. I agree with you somewhat, but I think there were some differences. And Corrections. Commons (plebs or vulgus): all other freeborn Roman citizens. The special mark of dress for citizen males was the toga. All Roman citizens had conubium, the right to contract a legal marriage with another Roman citizen and beget legitimate children who were themselves Roman citizens. Slaves (servi): system of chattel slavery where human beings were born into slavery or sold into slavery through war or piracy. Slaves were the property of their owners by law, but by custom some slaves (especially urban, domestic slaves) might be allowed their own savings (peculium) with which they might later buy their freedom, or their masters could manumit them, so some mobility into the previous class was possible. . Roman slavery was not racially based, and slaves had no special distinction of dress, though slaves who had run away were sometimes made to wear metal collars with inscriptions such as the following: “I have run away. Capture me. When you have returned me to my master, Zoninus, you will receive a reward.” There were no white slaves in America. In the Roman Empire, there were. Slavery was a form of labor and not a form of rascism. Rascism developed later on and became a trend among white people.  Cruelty and the like (whipping etc) had been popular since the middle ages and the style of doing so had not yet begun to wane from society as a whole.  Of course this is all about the individual slave owner. Blacks were slaves because they were black. Blacks were chosen to be slaves in the beginning because they were 'inferior to whites'. Slavery was both. Blacks were chosen because they were believed to be inferior, and that is why whites were not used. On to the n word.  The term african american wasnt around yet.  The term black people wasnt being used yet.  So what word was created to refer to the slaves?  You guessed it, the n word.  The n word was just used as a prefix on a slave's name.  Like the one you see in family guy: N word John.  That was the original use of the word.  The word became a derogitory term when the black people learned to speak english.  That was when instead of having a name you were just called the n word and it slipped of the white man's tongue like nothing.  Unless it was used as an insult. When did the term African American originate? Thats all i have thought of for now.  I know i didnt cover every topic or go very in depth, but those are my thoughts and what i have found in research.  Where's whale with swms. I didn't finish what I was going to say. I will edit it soon and finish it. UPDATED

sorry i havent been able to get back to all this.  Okay so here goes.  Just because we look at slavery different does not make us rascist.  If i think a femenist extremist has gone too far, i am now a sexist.  If I dont like hip hop and support reperations or something, im a rascist.  You get the idea.  Being a white male is very dangerous because i am the scapegoat for many crimes committed by others.  Now on to responding to this post.  I never said that there were slaves in america.  There werent but there were in several other places of the world.  Slaves were used because they were cheap, and worked hard.  The whipping etc did not take place at every plantation.  There were also two types of slaves.  The indoor slave, and the outdoor slave.  The outdoor slave was usually a male, teen in good shape and didnt wear good clothes because he was working outside.  The indoor slaves were usually women and children who were treated much better and wore good clothes.  When we think of a slave we think of the outdoor uncle tom kind of slave. I would like proof from a credible source saying that blacks were chosen because they were "inferior to whites".  Actually they were chosen because it would be harder for them to run because they didnt know the landscape, didnt speak the language, and other crap i dont know about.  The term african american came about when slaves were being freed and the like.  When they learned to speak english and could associate themselves with other people.  I dont know the time or whatever but thats why.

SuperXero wrote: As I said, I thought we were allowed expression of our opinions, though you go so far as to tell me I'm one step higher than an idiot for having them.

No man, I am saying you are below the level of the idiot.

Hades wrote: Sweet! In some cultures it is okay to have sex slaves. Send me your sisters people....

Sister's? Please Hades. I'll just package myself up, what's your address again?

What about what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WWII? That was acceptable then. We can't criticize it?

What about what the Nazi's did?

What about not letting women vote? Many places world wide didn't allow women the same rights as men. Was that wrong of them, or can we not criticize it?

I could keep going, but simply put, we can't criticize slavery because they were black right?