Interactions of social racism.

Why is it that the social interactions of people who view race to be a validated part of their existence, culture, tradition, or social exchange is completely downplayed if not scorned in ridicule?

I know of the reason defined by political correctness but to say that is the real reason of it's ridicule I don't think I can believe in all that.

We do know from a biological point of view that visual symbols,meanings,and displays play a important factor in the social exchanges of other animal species where up to a hundred years ago was practically the same for our own ancestors.

( Of course even in modern times there are some nations outside of the West where race still plays a huge social role and function even somewhat political in some nations.)

( Examples of this within other animal species would be visual colors used in social interaction of birds and fish. Visual symbols of skin race within people amongst our own social interaction is not very different when added within the context of culture.)

I believe that the West, epitomized by the non-culture of the Amerikan Empire, is forced into a hypocritical dilemma. Here, we must merely pretend not to hate one another on one hand (based on racial discrimination and actual difference), and pretend to love one another on the other. These are big problems, because when I view a black man, I immediately discern (to myself) that he is black. That difference (aside from gender) are one of the first distinctions I make. I am compelled to make these distinctions biologically (and socially, for social reasons).

Now, this may be "bad" or "good" to the politically-correct, the politically-inclined. I will be labeled a racist and ganged-up on immediately. In fact, wherever & whenever I go in my daily life, I must be careful about this. The pained-effects/affects of slavery are all-to-real. They exist. If I remind another of this, then they will either react emasculated or "irrationally" violent. Either way, it would prove my point: civility ... at what cost??? The truth then compels me to lie to myself or lie to myself in order to stay 'civil'.

As such, I conclude that 'civility' is predicated around the Lie. -- never the Truth. The Truth hurts; it is ugly.

From a metaphysical perspective, all that differentiates must be eliminated so as to facilitate uniformity and unity.

Therefore all that was used to discriminate, to exclude and to find identity, is eradicated and replaced by a social identity, derived though how one is assessed by the community as either pious or productive or loyal, depending on the system's ideals.

All that makes us feel different is forbidden as being "evil' or "ill".

One of these things is the ego and consciousness.
The one being a product of the organism's awareness and the other being this awareness that differentiates, categorized and discriminates.

We can then see how in eastern philosophies and in western humanitarianism it is these that are mostly discredited as being illusions or the roots of suffering or unwanted elements that prevent the individual from surrendering to the communal ego and consciousness.

Some go as far as to claim that consciousness is somewhere out there in the beyond - beyond the flesh - which is another way of believing in God.

So, it's not a question of valuation based on skin color alone?

No, it is not based on skin-color alone. It is based on nationality, history, and 'race', as described above.

nationality, history, and 'race'?

What 'race' are Americans, then? Be difficult to pin down a specific history to any particular group of Americans, unless you want to pin the history of America on them...

misterhamtastic wrote:

nationality, history, and 'race'?

What 'race' are Americans, then? Be difficult to pin down a specific history to any particular group of Americans, unless you want to pin the history of America on them...

Do you have a point, or do you only have insinuations? Do you type only because you enjoy to see the sight of your letters splashed upon the screen?

I am siding toward the latter. Perhaps this forum is not for your kind, whichever 'race' you are.

I'm sorry, I thought my questions were fair, and simple enough for most people of above average intellect... I have misjudged, apparently, could you guide me as to wherein my misjudgment lies?

misterhamtastic wrote:

I'm sorry, I thought my questions were fair, and simple enough for most people of above average intellect... I have misjudged, apparently, could you guide me as to wherein my misjudgment lies?

Your misjudgment lies in your inability to determine the 'race' of Americans for yourself.

Is this grade school?

Americans appear to be multi-cultured and multi-raced, but I knew what my perception was. You did not want to share yours?

misterhamtastic wrote:

Americans appear to be multi-cultured and multi-raced, but I knew what my perception was. You did not want to share yours?

It should be obvious to anybody that Americans are multi-cultured and multi-racial.

We have all shapes, sizes, and cultures here. -- so what?

Social interaction with those of other races and cultures would be problematic without attempting to overlook those features. If they are not overlooked, you wind up with a country shredded by racial strife and discord. Right now, tolerance is enforced, but it is becoming more embraced as time goes on. Ignorant whites are crackers, now, and ignorant blacks are the niggers...

misterhamtastic wrote:

Social interaction with those of other races and cultures would be problematic without attempting to overlook those features. If they are not overlooked, you wind up with a country shredded by racial strife and discord. Right now, tolerance is enforced, but it is becoming more embraced as time goes on. Ignorant whites are crackers, now, and ignorant blacks are the niggers...

Ok. -- so what?

if the unignorant fail to outnumber the ignorant, violence will come as one race attempts to subjugate all others... I believe an Austrian of Jewish descent with an odd mustache had this idea...

misterhamtastic wrote:

if the unignorant fail to outnumber the ignorant, violence will come as one race attempts to subjugate all others... I believe an Austrian of Jewish descent with an odd mustache had this idea...

So what if one race dominates all the others? Why is this a problem?

It's not, unless I am not a member of the race doing the subjugating...

misterhamtastic wrote:

It's not, unless I am not a member of the race doing the subjugating...

Woah! -- why is that a problem!?

I have never made for a good sheeple...

Quote :

Unreasonable: I believe that the West, epitomized by the non-culture of the Amerikan Empire, is forced into a hypocritical dilemma. Here, we must merely pretend not to hate one another on one hand (based on racial discrimination and actual difference), and pretend to love one another on the other. These are big problems, because when I view a black man, I immediately discern (to myself) that he is black. That difference (aside from gender) are one of the first distinctions I make. I am compelled to make these distinctions biologically (and socially, for social reasons).

Understandable. Alot of social interactions are tied into culture, nationality, kin, tradition,language,history, and collective struggle.

I feel that such distinctions even though they are a form of prejudice or bias are only natural expressions of our social makeup where up to a hundred years ago was common place.

I think the reason why the West has changed focus away from these social instincts of visual symbols and abstract aesthetical articulations of culture such as race is because of the brutality such prejudices lead to during many points in history which has lead to a international moral guilt placed upon the subject that eventually gave birth to cultural relativism. ( Which later created the uniformic movement of multiculturalism.)

Quote :

Now, this may be "bad" or "good" to the politically-correct, the politically-inclined. I will be labeled a racist and ganged-up on immediately.

Of course because the movement of multiculturalism assumes that it itself is righteous guided by objective moral judgements and a higher authority of purpose.

Quote :

In fact, wherever & whenever I go in my daily life, I must be careful about this.

It's especially worse for caucasians as were viewed as the most racist inclined amongst our own nations and countries with our past dealings with other races in history.

Anymore were expected to put aside our culture, national identity, and racial prejudices even when those were putting it aside for still embrace their prejudices in contrast to our own.

(It's perceived as the civil and enlightened thing to do. Both of the those words tied within the context of moral judgements.)

Quote :

The pained-effects/affects of slavery are all-to-real. They exist. If I remind another of this, then they will either react emasculated or "irrationally" violent. Either way, it would prove my point: civility ... at what cost??? The truth then compels me to lie to myself or lie to myself in order to stay 'civil'.

There are many illusions of civility. This example being one of them. As you said: At what cost do embrace civility?

Quote :

As such, I conclude that 'civility' is predicated around the Lie. -- never the Truth. The Truth hurts; it is ugly.

Alot of truth is unpleasant.

Satyr wrote:

From a metaphysical perspective, all that differentiates must be eliminated so as to facilitate uniformity and unity.

Therefore all that was used to discriminate, to exclude and to find identity, is eradicated and replaced by a social identity, derived though how one is assessed by the community as either pious or productive or loyal, depending on the system's ideals.

All that makes us feel different is forbidden as being "evil' or "ill".

One of these things is the ego and consciousness.
The one being a product of the organism's awareness and the other being this awareness that differentiates, categorized and discriminates.

We can then see how in eastern philosophies and in western humanitarianism it is these that are mostly discredited as being illusions or the roots of suffering or unwanted elements that prevent the individual from surrendering to the communal ego and consciousness.

Some go as far as to claim that consciousness is somewhere out there in the beyond - beyond the flesh - which is another way of believing in God.

What you describe here sounds alot like the concept of tyranny by the majority. What is your take on that?

Also if you look at another thread I have made here from my own opinion our entire species seems to be moving in the direction of creating a super-conscious with the aspirations of trying to create a one world super organism that facilitates one hyper culture or race. We know this as globalization.

Any thoughts on that?

misterhamtastic wrote:

So, it's not a question of valuation based on skin color alone?

Skin color under the valuation of culture is a aesthetical identity tied within specific histories, cultures,nations, and historical collective struggles that leads to creating different cultures.

It is the prime aesthetic or symbolism that binds one person with a specific culture,kin, identity,and nation by visual recognition. That is it's function in the context of culture.

Quote :

What 'race' are Americans, then? Be difficult to pin down a specific history to any particular group of Americans, unless you want to pin the history of America on them...

One could very well say the United States was created by various groups of Europeans before the advent of multicultural thinking.

What would you say towards such a reply?

Quote :

I'm sorry, I thought my questions were fair, and simple enough for most people of above average intellect... I have misjudged, apparently, could you guide me as to wherein my misjudgment lies?

You have nothing to be sorry for. This forum needs opposing sides and people who disagree otherwise we would only have everyone agreeing with each other on everything which would be pretty boring.

Conflict is the breeder of creativity the very thing that takes us away from stagnation.

Conflict leads to learning and shared exchanges.

Quote :

Americans appear to be multi-cultured and multi-raced, but I knew what my perception was. You did not want to share yours?

But who were the founders of the United States government that very thing that created the culture and identity of the nation?

To understand the race of a culture we must understand and know what race created it.

Quote :

Right now, tolerance is enforced, but it is becoming more embraced as time goes on. Ignorant whites are crackers, now, and ignorant blacks are the niggers...

Anytime any movement that calls itself one of equality and tolerance which exists only by that of violent enforcement is doomed to complete failure.

The Fool wrote:

As you said: At what cost do *we/I* embrace civility?

I would also like to point out Aidan's philosophies here: at what cost?

Aidan, you are probably one of the most "uncivil" people I have ever seen in my life. Now, I don't have a problem with this, but what happened to make you this way I wonder? I can only assume that it is the same force that drives me to be "uncivil". I can relate.

When I am walking down the street and there is a stout, round, bald, 200+ lb. guy in my way that I'm sure knows how to throw his weight around, I want to walk straight through the mother fucker! I want to do this, because I am a male. I do not want any other man to get in my way. Yet, there are rules of the road so-to-speak. If men were allowed to do whatever we wanted, then we would immediately start fucking-killing each other, ASAP. In fact, this occurs in societies that fall into anarchy. Men start killing each other (based on Injustice), they form into small groups that get larger and larger, and then those largest groups (with the highest quality tactics & strategy) dominate everybody else under a Fascist dictatorship. And men actually ENJOY this way of life. However, women do not...

In case anybody has missed it, us men have to live side-by-side almost the same amount of women as men. And just like men, women too get in our fucking way. Men want to kill, destroy, and annihilate anybody who stands in our way, including women & children. However, our biological imperative prevents us from doing so. It is our Reason that stays the hand and keeps us 'civil', because once we react to the violence of Civilization or Life (as Aidan would put it), then Civilization, God would strike us down without mercy or remorse on the spot. The police SWAT team would arrive and shoot-you-the-fuck dead on the spot! And the world would see your dumb-ass as a failure. And the only notable failures worth talking about was Hitler, because he ALMOST did it. He ALMOST conquered the world. But, in the end, he failed, which is why he is deemed socially weak, pathetic, and most importantly, EVIL. However, he is only "evil", because he failed. If he had won, then the world would ascribe a different name to his tombstone: Father. -- God.

But, this is heresy. Hitler commit suicide, because he failed. He did not even have the honor to stand trial to his Legacy. -- failure.

Satyr wrote:

From a metaphysical perspective, all that differentiates must be eliminated so as to facilitate uniformity and unity.

Therefore all that was used to discriminate, to exclude and to find identity, is eradicated and replaced by a social identity, derived though how one is assessed by the community as either pious or productive or loyal, depending on the system's ideals.

All that makes us feel different is forbidden as being "evil' or "ill".

One of these things is the ego and consciousness.
The one being a product of the organism's awareness and the other being this awareness that differentiates, categorized and discriminates.

We can then see how in eastern philosophies and in western humanitarianism it is these that are mostly discredited as being illusions or the roots of suffering or unwanted elements that prevent the individual from surrendering to the communal ego and consciousness.

Some go as far as to claim that consciousness is somewhere out there in the beyond - beyond the flesh - which is another way of believing in God.

Upon further reflection your post got me thinking.

When you discussed about this era where all differences must be eliminated in order to facilitate uniformity and total unity it got me thinking about Rousseau's general will where individuals alienate their rights or selfhood to the general will of the majority where they are forced to be "free".


Everytime I think of globalization creating a giant superconscious or superorganism of our species by installing the idea of one world filled with one giant hyper culture and race I come to think of Rousseau's general will coming into play in it all.

Quote :

The general will (volonté générale), first enunciated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is a concept in political philosophy referring to the desire or interest of a people as a whole. It is most often associated with socialist traditions in politics.

Rousseau characterized the general will with four characteristics - it is inalienable, infallible, indivisible and absolute. Rousseau's doctrine of the general will was criticized by Israeli historian Jacob Talmon as a Totalitarian Democracy because, Talmon argued, the state subjected its citizens to the supposedly infallible will of the tyranny of the majority.

Quotations:

"AS long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political subtleties. Men who are upright and simple are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; lures and ingenious pretexts fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes. When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?" [1]

When minorities begin to exercise an influence over the majority, the General Will ceases to be the will of all. The General Will then becomes subordinated to other wills. Contradictory views and debates arise and the best advice is not taken without question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will

The Fool wrote:

Satyr wrote:

From a metaphysical perspective, all that differentiates must be eliminated so as to facilitate uniformity and unity.

Therefore all that was used to discriminate, to exclude and to find identity, is eradicated and replaced by a social identity, derived though how one is assessed by the community as either pious or productive or loyal, depending on the system's ideals.

All that makes us feel different is forbidden as being "evil' or "ill".

One of these things is the ego and consciousness.
The one being a product of the organism's awareness and the other being this awareness that differentiates, categorized and discriminates.

We can then see how in eastern philosophies and in western humanitarianism it is these that are mostly discredited as being illusions or the roots of suffering or unwanted elements that prevent the individual from surrendering to the communal ego and consciousness.

Some go as far as to claim that consciousness is somewhere out there in the beyond - beyond the flesh - which is another way of believing in God.

Upon further reflection your post got me thinking.

When you discussed about this era where all differences must be eliminated in order to facilitate uniformity and total unity it got me thinking about Rousseau's general will where individuals alienate their rights or selfhood to the general will of the majority where they are forced to be "free".


Everytime I think of globalization creating a giant superconscious or superorganism of our species by installing the idea of one world filled with one giant hyper culture and race I come to think of Rousseau's general will coming into play in it all.

Quote :

The general will (volonté générale), first enunciated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is a concept in political philosophy referring to the desire or interest of a people as a whole. It is most often associated with socialist traditions in politics.

Rousseau characterized the general will with four characteristics - it is inalienable, infallible, indivisible and absolute. Rousseau's doctrine of the general will was criticized by Israeli historian Jacob Talmon as a Totalitarian Democracy because, Talmon argued, the state subjected its citizens to the supposedly infallible will of the tyranny of the majority.

Quotations:

"AS long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political subtleties. Men who are upright and simple are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; lures and ingenious pretexts fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes. When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?" [1]

When minorities begin to exercise an influence over the majority, the General Will ceases to be the will of all. The General Will then becomes subordinated to other wills. Contradictory views and debates arise and the best advice is not taken without question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will

Yes, in fact all this movement is one of distancing man from nature so as to then more easily repalce it with a manmade cosntruct, such as an ideal.

The meme versus gene analogy.