Talk:Classical definition of racism

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

You include the quote: "Shto russkomu zdorovo, to nyemtsomu smert", ("What is healthy for a Russian is deadly for a German".)�Russian proverb

But Germans and Russians are more or less the same race. You are getting at something very different from race, culture, perhaps, although even there, the differences are very superficial. Fred 14:51, 25 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Ethnologists, as well as Germans and Russians themselves, would take issue with that claim. ;) neo 19:37, 25 Oct 2006 (EDT)

I think they would say, as I would, that they are a different ethnic group. Perhaps the quotation makes sense in those terms. Fred 19:49, 25 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Russians and Germans are all descended from Japtheh as a general race but the Russians are a Slavic people and the Germans are a Indo-European group. Very different people. Racial characteristics have nothing to do with color! Not even the Germans and the French are the same! Not only have I been around the world, I lived in Europe for 3 and half years. Nor did I live the tourist thing either. I lived in the heart at the bottom of a lot of European countries. Every country was different. Swedes and Danes don't get along together. It seems that Americans have myopic vision. They see only themselves and it is a warped sense of reality. In general, Americans don't live in Europe, have no experience of the world. Everything Americans conceptualize is based on America as if it was the world. America is NOT the center of the world. Nor is America the definer of what is right or wrong. America is essentially on large island. It is a plastic country, it is NOT an organic country. It is a credal nation, not a racial nation as all the other nations of the world are. Americans define things around what happens in America and think their situation is the paradigm. NO. WHEELER 19:00, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Who in the world is Japtheh? The Kivian Rus was a Viking kingdom. It is not at all unusual to see Ukrainians who are pretty much the same as Norwegians. Fred 19:49, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Well, the Wikipedia article, which is pretty accurate, basically illustrates that the Scandanavian theory is just that, a theory, and also that it's ultimately speculative how much of an influence the Rus had on the Slavic peoples as a whole. I don't think there are any genetic distance comparisons to back up the idea that Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians are close to Germanic peoples. Whatever genetic imprint the Rus had was likely to have been small, especially considering the high level of Mongol and Tatar blood in the Slavic "gene pool." There certainly are pockets of predominantly Germanic peoples in Russia and the Ukraine, but they are in the minority. neo 20:09, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Check out the Wikipedian article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japheth and look below where it has:
Japheth is the father of the Japhetic race
On one page, they debate race. Or say race does NOT exist. On another page of the their encylopaedia is the above!!! Do races exist or not? If NOT, then the Japheth page needs to be erased.
Now, what you won't see in Wikipedia, is that Japheth means "beautifull" in Hebrew. The Greeks are the descendants of Japheth. Now, go to Hesoid. Hesoid writes, "The Greeks are Lovers of the Beautiful". Coincidence? Hardly. By chance, Hesoid manages to write a parallel to something in Hebrew writings?! See, there is a major disconnect somewhere to write an article on Japheth and mention the races that descended from him and another to write an ariticle that says Races do not exist. Harmony. As Cicero said, there has got to be consistency and coherence in thought. Harmony? I am all about Harmony, coherence, and consistency.WHEELER 20:15, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)


When one studies WWII, the difference between the Germans and the Russians stand out militarily. Germans would never do human wave tactics. The Russians did it very often. On the battlefield, Russians didn't care about human life, they just kept sending their men into the grinder, over and over again. Casaulties made NO effect on them. German Generals constantly retreated or wanted to retreat. It was only Hitler's personal orders that kept German units in way past their limits. The war was conducted very differently on both these sides. There is a big difference between the Slav and the European.

Not that I ever noticed. Fred 19:49, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
"To observe" is the first quality of a philosopher. Read Plato and Aristotle. All they did was "observe" nature. Aristotle wrote a great many books on nature and did Philosophy. Greek philosophy is based on Nature. I am a student of nature. All trees are trees. Not only do certain groups look different from others, groups of trees ACT differently. Not all wood is good for furniture. Not all wood is good for firewood. Each species of tree has different qualities. Oak is good for furniture and firewood. The cottonwood is good for nothing. If my life depended on living in nature, I definitely need to know what is good for what.WHEELER 20:15, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Here is a good talk on Race and alchol: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/ira-hayes-indians-and-alcohol.html

Contents

Is Racism a good?

This was the question asked on another page. Is Racism good?

The answer is God created it. If it comes from God it is a good. Western Culture and Western Civilization rests and is formed by the Bible. For 1600 years that has been the standard: God said....WHEELER 21:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Is Racism in The Natural World

Does it exist?WHEELER 21:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

In the Plant World?WHEELER 21:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

In the Animal World?WHEELER 21:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

Now the Human Reason

Then, after the first proposition is made, "God created it", and it does exist in Nature. Then, Human reason is then employed to UNDERSTAND IT. Human reason is NOT used to negate natural observant things in the natural world. And again, Human reason is not used to negate Divine revelation. Human reasoning is used to UNDERSTAND it and to put it in a moral context. WHEELER 21:11, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

What you're talking about is not exactly "racism" but "racialism." I think you've got the two articles reversed. Modern dictionaries treat the two words as the same, but in reality there is a clear distinction. "Racism" is about discrimination and bigotry, i.e. "I hate this guy because he's black." "Racialism" on the other hand would be the belief that races exist and should remain separate, i.e. "I have a lot of black friends, but I don't think interracial marriage is right."
I have used the Oxford English Dictionary in Twenty Volumes to start these articles. Actually Racism has TWO meanings: (1) That there are racial characteristics (or) differences (2) Bigotry and discrimination. Modern people are propelled along by propaganda. Propaganda doesn't leave itself to intellectual distinctions or definitions. It seeks to cloud things over. This term has specifically a political drive to it. There is a purpose of why it is used. These definitions, ON PURPOSE, are NOT defined in the propaganda way.
You might want to consider adhering to the modern definitions and classifications and start separate articles for the traditional definitions. Because honestly, people aren't going to understand the article without the historical context. neo 21:52, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Secondly, I believe your line of thought is inherently incompatible with Orthodoxy, which does not accept the validity of racial distinctions. However, your beliefs would be perfectly compatible with the pre-Christian Hellenistic religion and/or pantheistic philosophy (i.e. the thought of Socrates and Aristotle). neo 21:21, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Orthodoxy is NOT in Western Culture or in Western Civilization. It did not form or have any MAJOR contributions to Western thought or creation of Western culture. So in this regard, Orthodoxy has NO bearing on this SPOV page. This page is purely for THE TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Racism in Western Culture and Western Civilization. Not colored by modern hype, propaganda, or political correctness. If you want propaganda, modern hype, and political correctness----GO TO WIKIPEDIA, You find it in bunches there.
MY QUESTION IS THIS, Can this subject be discussed according to STRICT RULES OF KNOWLEDGE.' This is the question. What I find funny, is that all sorts of people out of political correctness, want to stifle the knowledge.
Second, Orthodoxy disregards Classical texts and the learning therein. Orthodoxy disregards the Old Testament. Orthodoxy disregards the teaching of Nature. Orthodoxy, in my opinion, is not capable of answering this question because it severly limits itself. It throws out 75% of facts, evidence and wisdom, and then expects to have a true answer. NO. WHEELER 21:40, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Well, considering what you've just written, I'm not exactly sure why you decided to convert to Orthodoxy as your line of thought appears to be more Fundamentalist Christian (traditional Protestant) in character. But that is not the issue here.
To answer your question, providing a historical context is not a problem, as I've said, but you are going to find opposition and confusion from people who are going to disagree with presenting the "classical" definition of "racism" as the standard definition. When people look up the article on racism, they expect to find a modern definition and the history of racism presented through a modern context, what you would consider to be "political correctness."
You should probably consider moving that traditional information to Classical definition of racism as per your other article on the Classical definition of the Republic. neo 21:52, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)
Good point. I just might do that. I have already written Classical definition of effeminacy also. It just so happens that modern Churches have written the word "effeminacy" out of their translations but in older translations it is there. I know what is going on. See, "Modern" is a code word for Marxist; like "modern" architecture, and "modern" literature and "Modern" definitions. What they really mean is "Marxist" architecture and "Marxist" literature and "Marxist" definition of racism. I don't play that game. If you want to look Neo, I did put the Modern definition here: """""The American colloquial meaning of racism is quite different from the natural and realist meaning of the term. (q.v. Racism (American).)"""" in the article is a link. If you are curious here is a link to get you started on what is really going on: revolution within the form.WHEELER 22:01, 26 Oct 2006 (EDT)

I don't like it

The article begins by stating a definition exists that I don't believe is in the source it quotes. It quotes a source that I don't have access to. All of the sources that I do have access to disagree with the definition this article is founded on. i.e. Racism is the .. knowledge that distinctive human .. abilities are determined by race. That is false datum. There is no such knowledge common to mankind. An individual might know that with great certainty, but mankind does not know that. And I don't belive any dictionary printed today, states that. Terryeo 22:03, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Go to the little number "1". It reads Oxford English Dictionary. It is in 20 Volumes! It is pretty authoritative. It is not "American" usage, but it is British/European meaning. Let's face it, this was pretty common in classical antiquity. I don't believe in Cultural marxism or the liberalism of some sects of Christianity. There are differences of race that are inherent; they are attached in the soul. Some races are more gifted than others. This was all very common knowledge until the advent of Socialism/Marxism/Liberalism. I don't subscribe to these heresies. You may not "like" it, But reality is not dependent upon one's liking it.WHEELER 22:10, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Talk:Classical_definition_of_racism"
Personal tools