Thread: Racism

You can't let people live in your house who are incompatible with your families values. Everyone agrees on this! This is not racism.
Why can't you see that it is the same for everything..... including countries?
Ask the Maoris or the American Indians what their ancestors thought of the arrival of "the White Man."

If you want to keep your country you must be careful of who you let in.

Just look at what has been happening in Australia now. Our culture has always been one that has had low crime and race issues. Since Australians live mostly along the coasts, they also love to wear small swimming suits and spend time on the beach.
Recently we have allowed the arrival of thousands of Muslims into Australia who have not adapted to Australian lifestyle. The Australian Federal Police have been finding Terrorist Cells amongst their populations. We have never had that before!
Lately, these Muslims have been coming to the beach but instead of swimming like the rest of the Australians they wait at the entrances for girls to walk onto the beach in their bikinis so they can spit on them and call them sluts and whores for wearing a bikini. They have no respect for the locals. They want to change our ways.
As a result we have had riots along the beaches between the people who hold real Australian values who are trying to defend their girls their culture, and Muslims who are trying to spit on them and make them put more clothes on. In one year there were over 50 incidents of Australian girls being gang raped by Muslim Lebanese gangs in one state alone. Only 5 were reported in the media.
I have seen the difference in Australia. I have watched it change to the point that I now know that the Australia that I grew up in, no longer exists. It exists now, only in my memory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1qMD2FN9Hk
documentary on the media
If you Russians here at MR want to keep the Russia you love then you had better pay attention.....or you will soon have the problems that the West is facing now! Your Russia will disappear and be replaced with Mac-Russia.
Diversity does not work. It is a sick joke played on you all by people that took too many drugs in the 1960's. What works is the collection of people of similar language, culture and beliefs.

The only thing that is able to save Russia from losing herself is some monstrous disaster that will shake the very foundations of the current system (like the WWII did). It's doomed to follow the rest of the world unless something ground-breaking happens, and it will. The outcome will be either complete destruction or purification. Time will tell, anyway.

I guess we now know what it was and is like for the Aboriginies. The ancestors of today's Australians didn't see any need to adapt to the values of the Aboriginies and decided to treat them like rubbish instead. It seems the same thing is happening today, except today it is state-sponsored in the name of PC

A few random observations. Some support the Russians are racist side, but b no means all. Just observations. To introduce myself: I am a Brit, who has visited Russia several times, in Moscow, St Petersburg and a provincial city to the south, spending some weeks in each at different times this century.

I chatted with a black African Moscow resident. He reckoned about 30% of Russians were hostile to him.

We get reports of racially motivated murders and assaults in Moscow, St P and Voronezh. In the last of these, university students e.g. from South America, are particularly the targets.

Don't just accept the argument that Aussies are just fired up by muslims. They have had a big thing over their aborigines (i.e. native) blacks for years and have behaved appallingly over the decades (the word 'orphans' should ring a bell with many of them). Race is a stain on the Australian reputation. They are worsening it with their attitude to would-be refugees.

Nigger has been a rude word for a long long time. Maybe you mean the word negro was once acceptable (e.g. in the middle of the last century).

We get lots of knife and gun crime from young black men in London. Almost no debate about that.

I know people out in the Russian countryside who have never met black people, but think it's terrible to hear that England has a lot of black people. But then there are people in the rural county of Norfolk, in England, who think the same.

An Indian guy I know, a very experienced teacher of English with very good English, used his cv and a telephone call to get himself an interview for a job in a language school in Moscow. The moment his face appeared at the interview (on a video link), the boss terminated the interview.

An English Asian who finished his degree in Russian in Russia was only too pleased to return to London as he didn't feel safe going out by himself in the evenings.

Russian people that I know look at people from the caucasus (e.g. azeris, georgians, armenians) with suspicion. Russian people who study English in London become a little more relaxed with them.

Can I sum up. Not really, these were just random observations. My general thoughts: yes of course other nations are pretty bad about race, but then racial mixing is often a problem. On the other hand, I do find Russians to be the least thoughtful, or maybe the most likely to use the 'well other people are bad too' argument, rather than think about improving things in a positive way. I do like Russian people, but this isn't one of their strong points.

The autoswear was working. I wasn't swearing, just using the word n*gg*r in context.

Well, the situation in Russia differs from the situation in many western countries. Due to some reasons (the absence of black slaves back in the days and an iron curtain are among them) there were no major communities of "black" russians, "asian" russians, etc., i.e. the person of another race in 99% of cases was and IS a foreigner with a different culture and/or religion, and almost always a bad knowledge of Russian, which hinders communication.

So often that's not pure racism, that's just good old xenophobia and a suspicion toward 'intruders'. It's not smth uncommon, Japanese, who live in the pretty much monoracial country are quite the 'racists' too. The situation will change in a decade at best, or maybe never, because the only way to change it fast is to have a large number of black/asian/etc. Russian citizens, i.e. people, who are not percieved as foreigners (not international students or illegal immigrants). And I don't see how it could happen.

I also may add that 'Afro-Russians' I've met (only two, actually) told me they never had any 'racial' problems, as they are percived by others as 'Russians', not 'blacks'. So, again, it's xenophobia of the community, which for decades had no prolonged contact with the foreigners and thought of them as of space aliens.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

I also may add that 'Afro-Russians' I've met (only two, actually) told me they never had any 'racial' problems, as they are percived by others as 'Russians', not 'blacks'.

The Afro-Russian you've met was probably Пьер Нарцисс ?

Seriously, Russians' xenophobia is the most contradictory notion ever. Here you have an Empire that includes hundreds of races and spans from the Baltic to the Pacific, from the Arctic to the Black sea, and Russians complain about too many "foreigners" because they don't share the outward appearance. Well, maybe you shouldn't have been invading all these countries the last 400 years, then?
Russians should be happy with seeing Georgians, Afghans, Tartars, Chinese, Armenians, Balts, Finns, Japanese, etc. It shows how powerful their nation is/has been!

This is what the experts say in response to a geneticists recent assettion that a gene for stupidity should be looked for amongst blacks to show they are actually more stupid than whites.

Watson isnt the only great scientist and Nobel winner who has made a foolish statement concerning race. William Shockley won a prise for his work on transistors, but spent the latter years of his career making racist comments, even writing about the mental inferiority of black Africans.

But what of the research in this area? Does the condemnation of Watsons words stem from solid science or political correctness?
One of the key issues is the nature of intelligence, a topic studied together with race by Robert Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko (Yale) and geneticist Kenneth Kidd (Yale).
Its generally agreed by those who study intelligence that it comprises the set of abilities needed to learn effectively and adapt to ones environment. But the results of the narrow standard IQ tests are unlikely to reflect all the skills neccessary for learning and environmental adaptation.
Psychologist John Carrol (University of North Carolina) proposed that auditory and visual perception and processing speed may also be inportant. Robert Sternberg emphasises the importance of creative and practical intelligence. The psychologist Howard Gardner (Harvard) includes other types of intelligences, including musical and interpersonal skills.
The size of the differences and what groups do best in the tests depend on what is being tested.
A further hugely complicating factor is what do we mean by 'race'. Populations in different parts of the world have clearly adapted to their environment in different ways. A trait that is beneficial in one environment may work against people in another.

Stratification - classifying people into catergorys of higher and lower status in a society - occurs on the basis of weight, for example, just as it does on the basis of intelligence test scores.
But there is nothing special about skin colour that serves as a basis for differentiating humans into so-called races. Skin color correlates only weakly with genetic differentiations.
Sarak Tishkoff (Geneticist at the University of Maryland) and Kenneth Kidd have found that the genetic differences among black Africans are often greater than those between blacks and whites.
The significance of those labels stems only from the fact that society has found it conveniant to label races on the basis of skin colour.

Curiously we do not apply the concept of 'race' to colours of dogs or cats, or moths for that matter. For some of these colour can be important. Being a black moth conferes camoflage advantages in polluted environments and disadvantages in clean environments - vice versa for white moths.
Our ancestors in Africa were almost certanly dark skinned because it proved better protection against the particular challenges of the environment, such as ultraviolet light.

We could of course refer to moths as being of different 'races'. We do not, presumably because we are less interested in creating social classes for moths than for people.

The problems with our understanding of intelligence and race show that the criticism being levelled at Watson is based on science rather than political correctness.

Intelligence is clearly a far more complicated issue than standard testing allows. And race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify.

Whether people with a genetic predisposition towards, say, fatness will be classified as a seperate race remains to be seen.

Potted version of an article written by Robert J. Sternberg for New Scientist Oct 2007. He is dean of the school of Arts and Sciences and professor of psychology at Tufts University in Medford Massachusetts.

This kind of robust science may tell some here that there are just a lot of PC people in the world of science. But perhaps others may get the idea why some of us reject the idea of science ever supporting racism.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

The Afro-Russian you've met was probably Пьер Нарцисс ?

Nope. Anyway he's not Russian.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Seriously, Russians' xenophobia is the most contradictory notion ever. Here you have an Empire that includes hundreds of races and spans from the Baltic to the Pacific, from the Arctic to the Black sea, and Russians complain about too many "foreigners" because they don't share the outward appearance.

But seriously, these 'hundreds of races' are not foreigners! They were born and lived all their life in Russia/Russian Empire/USSR, unlike some black or asian person who came from God knows where for couple of years. You can't be actually xenophobic to your own compatriots, can you? And their appearance and race doesn't actually matter. That's why I said that the 'racist' Russians are more xenophobes (to REAL foreigners ) than racists.

Anyway, it's an elusive topic, and what I've said is a huge generalisation. Don't be too serious about it.

Originally Posted by Ezri

Curiously we do not apply the concept of 'race' to colours of dogs or cats, or moths for that matter. For some of these colour can be important.

But we do apply these concepts. A springer spaniel has brown spots, a cocker spanial has black spots... that is the defintion of the different races!

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

But seriously, these 'hundreds of races' are not foreigners! They were born and lived all their life in Russia/Russian Empire/USSR, unlike some black or asian person who came from God knows where for couple of years. You can't be actually xenophobic to your own compatriots, can you? And their appearance and race doesn't actually matter. That's why I said that the 'racist' Russians are more xenophobes (to REAL foreigners ) than racists.

You can be xenophobic to your own compatriots, sure you can. I am sure you are familiar with the word POGROM and from where it came from I am of course not saying that all Russians are suspicious of non-Russians, but those who are seem to me to be very hypocritical.

But no, someone born and lived all their life in the USSR shouldn't be treated any differently than a Russian native! Same goes for black in America and Samis in Norway!

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Anyway, it's an elusive topic, and what I've said is a huge generalisation. Don't be too serious about it.

Of course you are right, but it is sooo much fun this way!

On the subject of race and intelligence: in my view this is a matter of averages. Taking the commonsense approach. It's easy to find a really unintelligent white man in the street and then run into a bright black man. The point made by those scientists who appear to have taken an interest is that - putting statistics very crudely - there tend to be more cleverish white people (or less thick ones) than is the case for black people. Now I haven't seen the figures so can't be sure, but in any case this doesn't fully support Professor Genome's assertion that society is currently poorly structured because of an assumption of inequality. As I say, you can walk into the street and your black man can be the most intelligent man there; statistically unlikely, but also nevertheless quite possible. (I speak as a man who once practised as a psychologist and still works regularly with statistics.)

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

But we do apply these concepts. A springer spaniel has brown spots, a cocker spanial has black spots... that is the defintion of the different races!

Please tell me your joking!

er, not helpful. if you tell me which bit you think is the joke, then I can explain a bit more.

Originally Posted by coledavis

On the subject of race and intelligence: in my view this is a matter of averages. Taking the commonsense approach. It's easy to find a really unintelligent white man in the street and then run into a bright black man. The point made by those scientists who appear to have taken an interest is that - putting statistics very crudely - there tend to be more cleverish white people (or less thick ones) than is the case for black people. Now I haven't seen the figures so can't be sure, but in any case this doesn't fully support Professor Genome's assertion that society is currently poorly structured because of an assumption of inequality. As I say, you can walk into the street and your black man can be the most intelligent man there; statistically unlikely, but also nevertheless quite possible. (I speak as a man who once practised as a psychologist and still works regularly with statistics.)

Then as a psychologist you will be aware that the IQ test does not give the whole picture of an individuals intelligence. An often overlooked point when people talk about 'clever and dumb'.
As for walking into the street, I hear you and though I'm not very good at stats (numbers in general) it would depend on which street your referring to wouldnt it?

Originally Posted by coledavis

er, not helpful. if you tell me which bit you think is the joke, then I can explain a bit more.

I was commenting on Kalinkas post. You should be able to see her quote above mine.

Thank you Ezri.

The point about the word 'pogrom' isn't one you should dismiss out of hand. A little bit of history. For a long period of time, Russia had few or no jews; they just wouldn't allow jewish immigrants. Then in the late 18th century, Russia - along with Prussia (the eastern german power) and to a lesser extent the Austro-Hungarian empire - swallowed up Poland in three successive partitions. This meant that Russia suddenly acquired a lot of jews, many of whom were forced to emigrate east into Russia proper. The conditions of the jew were very harsh, allowing them only to work in restricted ways, including money-lending and acting as landowner's middlemen. Because of these enforced roles, they became hated and, with governmental collusion at minimum and possible encouragement (think of the czarist secret service's forgery of the so-called Protocols of Zion), the jews were persecuted terribly. The pogroms were usually massacres. Why do you think so many people emigrated to UK and USA in the late 19th century?

Ok, let's move to my point. You said:
"
Then as a psychologist you will be aware that the IQ test does not give the whole picture of an individuals intelligence. An often overlooked point when people talk about 'clever and dumb'.
As for walking into the street, I hear you and though I'm not very good at stats (numbers in general) it would depend on which street your referring to wouldnt it?
"

First paragraph: This does of course depend upon what you believe intelligence to be. There's the idea of 'g', i.e. that there is a general intelligence. There is the idea of three core features: linguistic (own language, note, not the ability to learn new ones), numerical and spatial. And, as is suggested by your comments, the idea of multiple intelligence (e.g. sporting, musical, etc as well as the three I've mentioned). As far as real evidence is concerned, there is support for 'g' and also the 3-factor theory, but very little for 'multiple intelligence'. Multiple Intelligence is fashionable in schools these days (you can tell dull kids, well, you've got sporting intelligence or music intelligence - it's good, in that they'll feel better about themselves, but it ain't good science).

Second paragraph: we're talking empirical here - i.e. what you're likely to see - not experimental. Of course you'll see different on Wall Street than on the Bronx (ok, pick your city and pick different names). This is not the point. The point is that IN EVERY RACE and most communities, there is a SPREAD of intellectual abilities. So, returning to my point, the differences between races, should they exist, are only averages covering a whole lot of individual people. Once again, at the risk of being boring, it does not make sense to say 'this race is better than that race' as you will always find very dull members of the so-called superior race and very bright members of the so-called inferior race. So, the whole argument of 'racial intelligence' for the sake of a better name, is of very limited use to anybody. Leaving aside the black people that the professor refers to. What about the evidence that Chinese people perform better than white people. Does that mean that all white people are stupid and none of them geniuses? Of course not. It's a matter of averages, isn't it? So again, the argument about comparative racial intelligences isn't a very productive one.

Enough typing for one night. All the best.

Originally Posted by coledavis

Thank you Ezri.

The point about the word 'pogrom' isn't one you should dismiss out of hand.

I wasnt, in fact I hadnt commented on this subject at all. I'm very interested in history, particularly WWII which obviously lead me to other historical facts, including the treatment of the Jews in many countries. But thanks for your time typing that out, it's appreciated.


First paragraph: This does of course depend upon what you believe intelligence to be. There's the idea of 'g', i.e. that there is a general intelligence. There is the idea of three core features: linguistic (own language, note, not the ability to learn new ones), numerical and spatial. And, as is suggested by your comments, the idea of multiple intelligence (e.g. sporting, musical, etc as well as the three I've mentioned). As far as real evidence is concerned, there is support for 'g' and also the 3-factor theory, but very little for 'multiple intelligence'. Multiple Intelligence is fashionable in schools these days (you can tell dull kids, well, you've got sporting intelligence or music intelligence - it's good, in that they'll feel better about themselves, but it ain't good science).

I'm suprised you say there is little support for 'multiple intelligence' considering the huge amount of data out there! Creativity was not considered to be an important intelligence (for example) many years ago, until it was pointed out how society is built on creativity. But we have moved on since then and many are fully aware how narrow the 'official' IQ test is as well as how important and actually very good science to concentrate on wider aspects of intelligence.
Perhaps we are from different schools of thought (which is always interesting) and may have to agree to differ.

Second paragraph: we're talking empirical here - i.e. what you're likely to see - not experimental. Of course you'll see different on Wall Street than on the Bronx (ok, pick your city and pick different names). This is not the point. The point is that IN EVERY RACE and most communities, there is a SPREAD of intellectual abilities. So, returning to my point, the differences between races, should they exist, are only averages covering a whole lot of individual people. Once again, at the risk of being boring, it does not make sense to say 'this race is better than that race' as you will always find very dull members of the so-called superior race and very bright members of the so-called inferior race. So, the whole argument of 'racial intelligence' for the sake of a better name, is of very limited use to anybody. Leaving aside the black people that the professor refers to. What about the evidence that Chinese people perform better than white people. Does that mean that all white people are stupid and none of them geniuses? Of course not. It's a matter of averages, isn't it? So again, the argument about comparative racial intelligences isn't a very productive one.

100% agreed! If a person wants to advertise to the world that he is of low intelligence then he only needs to suggest one race is superior to another, that, in my book, is barrel scrapingly dumb!

Enough typing for one night. All the best.

I put all my answers in bold above, hope thats ok.
Cheers.

Originally Posted by Ezri

Originally Posted by coledavis

er, not helpful. if you tell me which bit you think is the joke, then I can explain a bit more.

I was commenting on Kalinkas post. You should be able to see her quote above mine.

Kalinka is da man.

"I'm suprised you say there is little support for 'multiple intelligence' considering the huge amount of data out there! Creativity was not considered to be an important intelligence (for example) many years ago, until it was pointed out how society is built on creativity. But we have moved on since then and many are fully aware how narrow the 'official' IQ test is as well as how important and actually very good science to concentrate on wider aspects of intelligence.
Perhaps we are from different schools of thought (which is always interesting) and may have to agree to differ. "

No, this is not to do with schools of thought, unless you're of the school of thought that opposes experimental research. Perhaps I should have been clearer and said that there is not a lot of experimental support for 'multiple intelligence'. There is plenty of support amongst the educational community but that is not the same as saying that empirical research underlies the support. What is the evidence? Sorry, but cries of 'old hat' and vague claims that society is built of creativity/capitalism/cream cheese are not scientifically falsifiable (i.e. you can't demonstrate if they're right or wrong). Sorry, I think that the main support for MI is fad support; education does go through several fads over a few decades.