Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

"White People"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Culture is predicated by environment and circumstance (which can amount to accidents of discovery and/or gee - look what our neighbors are doing thats really cool and useful etc). Nothing to do with "race"

    Likewise - just because people have chosen easy distinguishers - based on skin color, hair, particualr predominant facial features, and so on and so forth - does not mean that these distinctions are scientifically valid as they are only a handful of the larger set of characteristics that make up people - obvious and otherwise...and here is where the categorizations start to fall apart. For evey attempt at binning people to fall within one "race" or another - the list of exceptions or the potential to bin in other ways becomes greater then the (perhaps more obvious but not necissarily more important/distinguishing) commonalities...and of course - at the genetic level these sets of commonalities and diversities become so great to entirely obviate the makeing of such genetic/racial distinctions altogether.

    Fundementally we differ by color (lots of variation here) and perhaps some physical traits that can be more or less isolated (though not entirely cleanly - more so in an on average manner) - that can be used to differentiate smaller groups (though again one must take into account the culture - physical differences alone are insufficient IMO).

    Additionally, similar cultures or cultural elements can be found in populations consisting of different tribal peoples that are widely geographically seperated and who have had apparently little or no contact. What leads to this is similarity of environment that suggested certain solutions regarding how to survive and get along. (and what distinguishes modern humans is their ability to think and adapt - not just physically - but in terms of behavior - the ability to reason and make major shifts if solutions lend themselves). Of course societies in proximity or who have established contact - even if over a distance - will naturally incorporate more similar elements (process is called cultural diffusion). Likewise - the environment effects people in a physical sense - skin pigmentation to combat UV, nostrils that are better able to deal with humid or arid air, hair or lack thereof dependent on temperature and so on and so forth. So yes, given enough time (hundreds of generations...thousands...don't know), a group of Africans (or other people) from the tropics who might migrate to Norway and be forced to survive there (without modern technology that seperates people from the natural environment) would likely indeed grow paler and show other physical adaptations to better enable them to live in such an environment (and it seems that this is in fact what may have happened)...

    Sorry Barbi - but this discussion is much more interesting then the one you started anyway....

    And Nune - good post above...

    Comment


    • #62
      There are many topics that interest me more than the topic of my thread. It doesnt mean that I can just switch to that topic.

      Eh. Continue if you wish. Ill come back if I feel like participating any more.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ArmoBarbi
        There are many topics that interest me more than the topic of my thread. It doesnt mean that I can just switch to that topic.

        Eh. Continue if you wish. Ill come back if I feel like participating any more.
        Thats a good girl - thanks for understanding...

        Actually I'm really not sure what else needs to be said i this thread anyway.....oh and as far as I'm concerned all of my comments were entirely on topic with the thread as you started it...all a matter of perspective (and isn't this just the point you were making?)

        Comment


        • #64
          Generally, when I call someone "white" I mean they're white trash...and I don't think armenians fit into that catagory

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mags
            Generally, when I call someone "white" I mean they're white trash...and I don't think armenians fit into that catagory
            yes it is such a relative term...and again this is the point - its an arbitrary - largely meaningless term (as its meaning cannot be agreed upon...except once again in the case of Michael Jackson and I suppose Anyrat - but only because of association...)...yes...are we "in" or are we "out" - this is the question...and it depends on your point of view and the point your trying to make concerning others and yourself (meangful/valid or not). The reason it gets my goat so is that those who most shrilly insist that we are "white" are ussually the ones who are attempting to denigrate others for not being such....heil Hitler!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by winoman
              Culture is predicated by environment and circumstance (which can amount to accidents of discovery and/or gee - look what our neighbors are doing thats really cool and useful etc). Nothing to do with "race"

              Likewise - just because people have chosen easy distinguishers - based on skin color, hair, particualr predominant facial features, and so on and so forth - does not mean that these distinctions are scientifically valid as they are only a handful of the larger set of characteristics that make up people - obvious and otherwise...and here is where the categorizations start to fall apart. For evey attempt at binning people to fall within one "race" or another - the list of exceptions or the potential to bin in other ways becomes greater then the (perhaps more obvious but not necissarily more important/distinguishing) commonalities...and of course - at the genetic level these sets of commonalities and diversities become so great to entirely obviate the makeing of such genetic/racial distinctions altogether.

              Fundementally we differ by color (lots of variation here) and perhaps some physical traits that can be more or less isolated (though not entirely cleanly - more so in an on average manner) - that can be used to differentiate smaller groups (though again one must take into account the culture - physical differences alone are insufficient IMO).

              Additionally, similar cultures or cultural elements can be found in populations consisting of different tribal peoples that are widely geographically seperated and who have had apparently little or no contact. What leads to this is similarity of environment that suggested certain solutions regarding how to survive and get along. (and what distinguishes modern humans is their ability to think and adapt - not just physically - but in terms of behavior - the ability to reason and make major shifts if solutions lend themselves). Of course societies in proximity or who have established contact - even if over a distance - will naturally incorporate more similar elements (process is called cultural diffusion). Likewise - the environment effects people in a physical sense - skin pigmentation to combat UV, nostrils that are better able to deal with humid or arid air, hair or lack thereof dependent on temperature and so on and so forth. So yes, given enough time (hundreds of generations...thousands...don't know), a group of Africans (or other people) from the tropics who might migrate to Norway and be forced to survive there (without modern technology that seperates people from the natural environment) would likely indeed grow paler and show other physical adaptations to better enable them to live in such an environment (and it seems that this is in fact what may have happened)...

              Sorry Barbi - but this discussion is much more interesting then the one you started anyway....

              And Nune - good post above...
              Culture would not exist if certain people were not there to create it. That is the way it goes. Until you can prove otherwise, my explanation stands, for how can culture, which is human expression, come out of environment or circumstance, and not people, begs the question. Do you know what the word culture is?

              The fact that different races of peoples have produced different cultures is evident in history and civilization. To quote John Ruskin, "There is however, a marked distinction between the imaginations of the Western and Eastern races, even when both are left free; the Western, or Gothic, delighting most in the representation of facts, and the Eastern in the harmony of colours and forms." When we look at architecture of the orient, they are far more similar to each other (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc.), than they are to the occident (France, England, Germany, etc.). Even the characters of the writing script show marked distinctions. These cultural markers have come from the different imaginations of different racial groups. No egalitarian will admit this.

              So yes, given enough time (hundreds of generations...thousands...don't know), a group of Africans (or other people) from the tropics who might migrate to Norway and be forced to survive there (without modern technology that seperates people from the natural environment) would likely indeed grow paler and show other physical adaptations to better enable them to live in such an environment (and it seems that this is in fact what may have happened)...
              This is false. It has never been proven and there is absolutely no evidence that this would happen. It is based on erroneous assumptions. The idea that environment determined pigmentation is silly and absurd and rests on the unhallowed belief that evolution is somehow true. All it is is a belief, nothing more, and in my opinion, a terribly flawed belief. In order to not concede in the argument, you will adopt this fallacious belief to suit your argument. There is zero evidence of this. How does one explain the particular physiological, and morphological features of the Mongoloid races, if somehow the "cold north" changes pigmentation? To counter this the egalitarians have come up with another silly excuse as "diet", again another unsubstantiated belief. The evolutionary assumption does not hold.

              The surest guide to how races differ is history itself, for only through the study of the history of different parts of the world we have come to see the different creative powers, imaginations, and potential of peoples.
              Last edited by Anonymouse; 02-28-2005, 06:28 PM.
              Achkerov kute.

              Comment


              • #67
                People in culture - how can that be? Give me a break...no we're talking orangatangs...save me Dr Zaus!

                The distinctions between Eastern and Western culture, art and philosophy and cultural indicators such as writing and language have to do with geographic seperation where each developed reletively independently. Its silly (and incorrect) to believe that some genetic difference is responsible for the different cultural paths taken - its all about proximity and contact and all of the (environmental derived) factors (incl random) that cause things (elements of societies) to occur and evolve.

                And again you show your true (anti intellectual) stripes in rejecting the fundemental precipts of evolution...what else can I say...if you reject evolution then you might as well reject all science as the theory of evolution and its assocated precipts is fully accepted within the scientific community because it is good science - and it is based on observation and analysis.

                Comment


                • #68
                  this thread is getting as boring as the title itself

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by winoman
                    People in culture - how can that be? Give me a break...no we're talking orangatangs...save me Dr Zaus!

                    The distinctions between Eastern and Western culture, art and philosophy and cultural indicators such as writing and language have to do with geographic seperation where each developed reletively independently. Its silly (and incorrect) to believe that some genetic difference is responsible for the different cultural paths taken - its all about proximity and contact and all of the (environmental derived) factors (incl random) that cause things (elements of societies) to occur and evolve.
                    The reason why race determines culture is precisely what I highlighted - namely, that the cultural marks are specific to given population or racial types. It is not because of environment that all oriental architecture and language characters are similar to each other. It is because of the stock of that people. If you state the environment shapes people such as Europe and the cold north, then why is it that the Mongolian races, in a similar northern climate have different features, skull shape, eye shape, and culture. Both the environments in Europe and Asia include cold and snow, yet both are different physiological, morphologically, and culturally. The evolutionary explanation again doesn't answer this aside from worth conjectures.

                    Originally posted by winoman
                    And again you show your true (anti intellectual) stripes in rejecting the fundemental precipts of evolution...what else can I say...if you reject evolution then you might as well reject all science as the theory of evolution and its assocated precipts is fully accepted within the scientific community because it is good science - and it is based on observation and analysis.
                    Evolution is a theory, therefore a belief. You speak as if rejecting your cherished belief is somehow a crime. Your unhallowed and fanatical belief in evolution, and egalitarianism is akin to the height of the Inquisition when the official dogma of the Church could not be questioned. I have stated that science is limited. Science is about observation of the natural world. Evolution is not observed. It is simply assumed.
                    Achkerov kute.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      you are too funny, i mention you because you keep blabbing on and on about your nazi like race theories you read in some internet forum... my dear anony, #1 you do need to have some sort of social science degree to push your perspective... that is because if you did then you would've read many books writen by people who study indigenous cultures.

                      and race was theorized in the last century (meaning the 19th century) (as far as the books can date back to the dead white men who wrote them).

                      so you dont believe that we have evolved? or that there is evolution constantly?

                      many scholars of today, in both sociology, anthro, etc... all agree that the word "race" should never be used, and should be thrown out of intelligent discussions in academia...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X