Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
June 30, 2011
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
4,664
Favourites
3 (who?)
Comments
263
×

Atheism is Racist 101

Journal Entry: Thu Jun 30, 2011, 4:33 AM
Links

Art Status
Requests
Never

Trades
Open

Collaborations
Open

Stamps
- 5 - by Future-Blitzkrieg :thumb175694662: :thumb101102976: Stamp - Second Amendment by MauserGirl
:thumb47507256: Love Gasmasks Stamp by junkpile Warning....barbed wire by Big-Argonian
Combichrist by Hitmontop :thumb123004417: EBM addicted by RideFire
:thumb85682633: Violence? Yesplz by Weeniemann Sarcasm is my native language by Frostpebble
Comment Before You Favourite by BoffinbraiN :thumb63442304:



Or "Why "universal human values" don't belong in a scientific worldview".

Though I've veered into the topic for a few times, I decided to extrapolate on the innate hypocrisy of most self-proclaimed atheistic thinkers.

Problem with atheism, is that in most cases it tends to come with a flourishing bouquet of naive liberal ideas, that are more emotionally fuelled and based upon vague philosophical concepts of morality, humanity and so forth, than cold and hard scientific fact.
The uncomfortable truth that the militant atheistic icons such as Dawkins and the rest of the gang, tend to glaze over, is that a pure, science-oriented, disillusioned mindset is far harsher than any religious or "bigoted" ideology when it's applied to the state of humanity, and races, today.

Let's not even delve into such slogans and thesis like "everyone is equal" and "human rights are universal", since they are anything, but related to science.
Let's just look at the evolutionary theory to uncover how atheism is really racist. And we won't even delve into the intricate and debateble anthropological issues - just apply the so favoured by atheists, logic.

To be short, it boils down to the evolutionary theory, which postulates that organisms adapt to their environment in order to benefit from it as much as they can and ensure reproduction of the specie. Any specie would seek to fill the environmental niche through battle with their competitors, or reach a balance that again, is benefactory.
The successful specie would flourish. The unsuccessful would perish, inevitably.

Australia, as a continent, is a good example how that works. When Europeans brought common animals on the soil of the continent, what happened was that the species that had been in a rather anxious struggle back at their homeland, found a fertile soil where that competition was absent. Cane toads, cats, dogs and so forth, had no natural competitors on a continent inhabited by primitive marsupials and birds. So what happened, is that they had begun rapidly reproducing and wiping out the native, endemic animals, taking advantage of their physiological makeup and circumstance.

However, would we call cats and cane toads evil racist invaders? Can we demand them to justify their actions of preying upon the disadvantaged animals? Nope. Even though environmentalists try to undo the "harm" the introduction of the species had done to the Australian system, it's more or less a done fact. The marsupials and birds can either adapt - or die out. Such things happened many times in earth history. Man or no man influence, it had happened.

If we apply this example unto human history, we might notice the similairity, almost astonishing. Wherever white europeans where introducted to an endemic nation - be it north american indians, stagnating mezo-american and south american indians, black african tribes, stagnating asian nations, the scenario was the same: they completely dominated them due to technological and cultural advancement. The former were no competitors, and they were forced out of their environmental niche. That's a cold hard fact, and the basis for all the ruminations about "evil whitey oppressing everyone"

But whitey oppressed everyone not because of inherite evilness, but because of superiority, the kind of superiority a cat has before a marsupial rat. It's a scientific fact. If races were equal, then what would happen would be a prologned and painful struggle, not complete domination and whipeout. However, as we observed, it's not the case. What is the case, is that the more adapted specie utilizes the disadvantage of the less developed one. The strongest survive. Hello, Darwin.

You can say: "But hey, it's due to environment! It's because whites had better natural resources/startup points, you can't extrapolate this to a biological level!". But we can, really. The same factors that create subtle differences in the species and sub-species had shaped different races. European timber wolves are bigger and stronger than say, steppe wolves due to natural selective factors, but they both belong to the Canis Lupus genus. Water, amount of sunlight, available food and climate, all which had formed the biological diversity of the animal kingdom, worked over man too. It takes a very uneducated person to deny that. Findings from even decades ago uncovered just how many attempts nature went through before creating homo sapiens sapiens, just how huge the variety of hominids was before they all died out.

Why did they?

Competition. Our ancestors wiped out Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They were fit better. They were racist. They secured their position in their niche, while expanding and conquering the much needed resources. That hadn't changed. It will not ever.

So, the main point is, that if we take science, natural science unabashedly, unabridgedly and for it's face value, we'll see that it doesn't favor loosers. Paleonthologists uncover bones of the who hadn't won the evolutionary race. In science, there is no place for emotions or abstract concepts and moralisation. Observe, report, research and conclude.

If we reverse-guess a theory, we'll get the next picture: the fact that whites - meaning, indo-europeans, caucasians, from the ancient times, had met no competition among fellow races, and instead, subjugated them whenever they encountered each other, it speaks that they are more advanced. The fact that the modern world is shaped according to caucasian design - not even Hun/Han design - speakes about the race dominating their niche.

And that is racist.

For some weird reason, pointing the UNARGUABLE fact that without white people the world we know would never be as advanced and globalized, is considered racist. But declaring stuff like "race is a social construct", for the same reason, is considered scientific. I wonder how atheists would look if someone declared a neutron to be a "mathematical construct", rather than a physical particle.


However, for an atheist to abandon the liberalistic, humanistic mindset is akin to moral castration. But, as we see, it's impossible to preach the supremacy of science, logic and reason without accepting the core facts about humanity. Whenever an atheist is confronted with the aforementioned facts, they drop all the pretense of reason, and begin foaming from their mouths and bringing fallacious, un-scientific arguments that would make a religious zealot proud.

Race is a matter of much emotion, and it is so because it's a very IMPORTANT matter, a matter of survival. You can declare a "post racial" era and unification of all humans as much as you want, but the real world tends to disagree, with the wars, riots, emerging atharkias and new tribalism. It's all about race, because race is the foundation to the evolutionary RACE. Every one of us, except for a few defective human beings brainwashed by the whole "multiculturalism" mythology, subconciously know that, and works in favor of spurring it. We know what race we are, we identify with it, and we want to contribute to it's success. Even if we don't conciously realize it.

Therefore, if one declares themselves an atheist, a supporter of science and reason, they have to accept that they are racist. Science is racist, atheism is racist. When there is no God to dictate morality and ethos, give universal values and assess human existence, only biological reality exists.

And biological reality doesn't really favor, historically, all those who now demand reparations for slavery and genocide. In the end, it's only natural. Afterall, would dinousaurs be offended for being called "pea-brains"?

And, just how scientifical and reasonable is the idea that humanity would one day unite in a cosmic and extactic orgy of coffee-colored mestizos freed from hate, gender, class, and any identifier, and then get wiffed away in the nirvana of an impossible utopia?
Sounds like religion to me, bros.

  • Listening to: Daft Punk - "End of Line"
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsyndicaidramon:
Jesus fucking Christ this was stupid.
"Atheism, social darwinism and racial supremacist ideology are all the same thing, derp."
Reply
:iconmr-wistan:
mr-wistan Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2012
So many problems with this.
For one, atheism is nothing to do with evolution. I have no doubt that most atheists accept evolution - but then most religious people do as well, for that matter. But either way, there is no causal link between the two. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and think evolution is nonsense, just as it is perfectly possible to be a theist and think evolution is obviously true.
For another, you are pretty freely conflating "fitter for survival" with "better" or "superior". One is a scientific judgment, the other is a value judgment, and it's poor thinking to simply equate one with the other - what you have done here is absolutely no different to saying "in capitalism profit is good, therefore Avatar is the best movie ever made". You can make the case that "white people" are fitter for survival than "black people", but this really says nothing about one group being better or superior to the other.
For another, the advantages caucasians have enjoyed in terms of civilisation are largely external to themselves. We rose to prominence largely because we lived in a climate suited for agriculture and stocked with excellent food plants and a wide variety of easily domesticated and highly useful animals. You claim that this simply translates into us being better because those advantages translate to biological ones, but this is mere assertion. It's true that the advantages I mentioned earlier did translate into western/caucasian culture creating ever larger and more efficiently organised cultures in an expanding spiral, yes. But it's unproven at best to claim that caucasian people must therefore have evolved some sort of biological drive to be better. But look around you - those organising systems have been adopted by all sorts of non caucasian groups with considerable success. China and Japan and India all run cultures that work as well as ours in most ways and better in some.

Nice try, but all in all... no. Racial superiority really isn't supported by evolution, and certainly has absolutely no connection to atheism.
Reply
:iconplaguejester:
PlagueJester Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2011
You know, I /really/ love your blogs.
Reply
:iconirenelangholm:
IreneLangholm Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2011  Professional Digital Artist
Atheism has nothing to do with racism: they reject eastern and western religions equally. Including white Christianity. So your statement makes no sense.
Reply
:iconearlgrayfascist:
earlgrayfascist Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2011
"Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.” — Charles Darwin
Reply
:iconjflaxman:
jflaxman Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2011
There's every chance you've heard about this, but if you haven't, you might find it intriguing. It ties in with some of the claims you've made.

[link]

If the above link doesn't work, look up James Watson's career - he was one of the greatest geneticists of all times, but had some controversial views.

For an intelligent disclaimer, get hold of Malik's "Strange Fruit." It's upset people on both sides of the debate.

I've come to believe rational discourse is a lost art in the Western world - in its place we have an ongoing contest in which every participant tries to cast themselves as the most tolerant.

Maintain the rage,

JF
Reply
:iconredfoxbennaton:
Redfoxbennaton Featured By Owner Jul 15, 2011  Student Traditional Artist
We are not racist. Just because race exist does not mean we hate and think we are superior. We just know there are different races.
Reply
:iconhelbrecht123:
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
I wonder if you have ever read about memetics because it takes evolution to the social aspects of humanity (culture, beliefs, religion). And it is these aspects that influence the relative "success" of different social groups, which include races. The race in itself is purely biological aspect - it only determines biological parameters and intellect isn't included in them (or, well, it is, but we don't yet know exactly how). An example: What if you take a black, that was born in European family (for simplicity's sake we'll take that the black parent was already assimilated - and not of African origin)? Will he demonstrate the same flaws that commonly seen blacks do, if he was rised exactly like whites? What I want to say is that it is not blacks themselves that may be inferior but their culture and memes and you shouldn't judge a human just by his skin color but by his actual merit, even if they are correlated.
Reply
:iconhelbrecht123:
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
Unfortunately, the existence of Backfire effect ([link]) and generally untrustworthy nature of data in the Internet and mass-media makes it impossible to actually change opinion of people whose point of views are constantly challenged, especially by dumb people, because of a tendency of human brain to ignore facts that contradict present beliefs, so Internet discussions are pretty pointless. One must experience multiple situations when his beliefs are proven false in order to see that they are.
Reply
:iconhelbrecht123:
helbrecht123 Featured By Owner Jul 12, 2011
To clarify, I'm not an American and not a liberalist, I'm more a sympathizer of meritocracy, and so I am not an "atheist" you may regularly troll in your internets.
Reply
:iconjflaxman:
jflaxman Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2011
It's a contentious issue! Race issues aside, you might appreciate this: [link]

(meat tray)

I hope you see some merit in it.
Reply
:iconnightbringer24:
Nightbringer24 Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2011
You sir. Are a master at the mind fuck. I got lost about halfway through, thinking to myself, 'So cat's and european timber wolves are racist?' then it came back to be and I went, 'oh.'

Also, on you're bit about the smart africans or whatever being unable to get together and make a better country, it's because they keep getting killed off. Simples.
Reply
:iconskrakar:
Skrakar Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2011
I like when you bash pseudo-atheism.

On the point of Neanderthals, some scientists reverted back to the old depictions of them as much more ape-like creatures than what we're being served today in documentaries. Some speculate that they were physically superior in most things, raped homo sapiens women and were more animalistic and the only thing that gave opportunity to survival of the first humans in Europe was smarter pack mentality.
Reply
:iconmarsuwai:
Marsuwai Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2011
Racial diversity, or more precisely a diversity in niche adaptions has advantages when you take into account mankind as a whole and it's eventual competition with other intelligent species. Considering the sheer size of the universe it seems very unlikely that we are the only ones. The key is to genetically and memetically engineer the different races of mankind into niche functions comparable to the organs of a body, with the dominant race functioning as part of the brain. A higher number of different viewpoints also increases the chance that somebody finds a solution to whatever the problem is at the given time and the chance that somebody sees a new opportinuity which becomes usable for the entirety of mankind. Also take into account that a certain ideology may work better for one species than for another simply as a result of the built of their brain and allowing a multitude of ideologies to continue to exist may make it easier to adapt and survive if the other species turns out to be stronger.
Reply
:iconbloodcri:
BloodCri Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2011
Dammit i've been saying this for years but could never articulate it worth shit. thank you. I'm going to steal and use this.
Reply
:iconarinoco:
Arinoco Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2011
For those who thought TL;DR:
Cane Toads and cats are racist.
Reply
:icongryphon2001:
Gryphon2001 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2011
Another Incredible piece of logic to destroy the liberal's concept of 'cultural equivalency'. I have for Years proudly
said, "Yep, I'm a White European, member of the Master
Race, My People put the Footprints on the Moon." and watch their heads explode. Technological Superiority is
due to simple Darwinism; We are Smarter than the rest,
and have Advanced More because of it. My own belief as
to Why this happened is Environmental- In the Cold Climate of Northern Europe, you must be Stronger and
Smarter to Survive and Prosper. Food doesn't grow on
trees Year-Round for the Picking, and Cold Weather
doesn't allow you to live in a Mud Hut beside the River.
Scarcity of Resources forces Competition, Competition is War, and Nothing focuses the Mind like thinking about
avoiding your own Demise. All of this combined to create
the Culture of Technology that fills the World today.
Don't give me that Crap about 'well, the Chinese spend more on Scientific Research then the U.S. does'
because they didn't invent any of that Science in the first place; they are playing catch-up and copycat, and if they do come up with 'original ideas' keep in Mind that all of
Asia (and the rest of the World) was Behind from the start of the Industrial Revolution, that was based on the Sciences developed AND APPLIED in Europe over the last 400 Years or so.
To Claim that 'all races are equal' Denies the Facts on the Ground, meaning you didn't see Africans Invade Europe and take it over.
Good Work, TD, keep 'em coming!
Reply
:iconbumsy:
Bumsy Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
"Competition. Our ancestors wiped out Homo sapiens neanderthalensis."

Shagged them too, apparently.
Reply
:iconskrakar:
Skrakar Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2011
By reckoning of one scientist whose book I saw in a commercial, it's more likely that they shagged us.
Reply
:iconbumsy:
Bumsy Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2011
I was watching this documentary once that said that we may have been able to hybridize. They'd dug up fossils that shared human and neanderthal bone structures. They also suspect that there's people walking around with Neanderthal ancestry. Although, hybrids are usually sterile... :confused:
Reply
:iconskrakar:
Skrakar Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2011
Who knows for sure? Until a time machine is invented, everything in archeology and paleontology is wild guesses based on too little evidence.
Reply
:iconbackuppanic:
BackupPanic Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2011
YAY, a journal that recognizes the uniqueness that is me, non-liberal atheist.
Reply
:iconalexanderventuri:
AlexanderVenturi Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2011
I'm with you on the bulk of this. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion of one race being inherently "better" than another (inb4 shitstorm) I'm in full agreement of your notion of dominance established through competition. Frankly, I've beaten my fair share of Whites, Blacks and Asians in both physical and academic circles, and been roundly beaten by several in turn - and that I can accept because it was a competitive environment, in which I was beaten by someone of equivalent or superior skill. If I lost, it was because I didn't work as hard, not because of my skin color or because the adjudicators were hurrdurr racist.

The way I see it, no race started off with an advantage or disadvantage, but it's the degree to which they competed with themselves that affected their success in history. Nations that became complacent became stagnant because they had no reason to keep their fighting muscles strong and their minds sharp. Once dynasties establish their permanence, they become fat and lazy unless they have someone to fight against. We all know the accelerating effect that war has on technological development. And war ensures that the strong survive - both on an individual-social and national level. Just look at the Spanish: fighting against the British, French, Moors, and the inhabitants of the new world. Look at the British: conquered the bulk of the world because they knew how to compete, and they got that knowledge by cutting their teeth in a series of wars and conquests. And when you line up hardened redcoats under an experienced general against outdated troops on horseback led by an incompetent Shah, there is only one way the dice can fall.

I support this notion of superiority by competition, as long as everyone can compete! The field needs to be open to people of all races. Let the perceived social disparity of today be solved once and for all in the crucible of challenge. Those who rise above are superior, those who do not, are not. At least that's what I think, and that's what I see here. In Australia I can see cases where immigrant families struggle hard for five years or so, and then come out swinging harder and faster than people who've had bloodlines established here. There's more I can say on that, but that'd be narcissistic of me.

TL;DR Competition decides who's on top of the pile. That is all.
Reply
:iconvellova:
Vellova Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2011
Isn't it usually the blacks who get beaten by others in academic circles? Or so I've heard.
Reply
:iconthezebu:
TheZebu Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
Atheism is a null hypothesis; it carries with it no logical implication other than an ostensibly agnostic ignorance of the existence of "God". Therefore, it seems to be a mistake to equate Atheism with the "New Atheist" school of thought, which is little more than a vitriolically anti-theistic worship of materialistic reason.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. There certainly is a scientific way to approach "racism" and genetic differences between ethnicities. However, the problem lies in interpreting the data. (For instance, most are blinded by a "white pride" confirmation bias, which leads them to fall back on cultural stereotypes rather than objective data) You can say some races are "better" than others-- but by what standard? Anthropocentric ideals are useless, as the only objective way "natural selection" can be judged is by survival and the passing on of genetic information. That is, who survives longest to reproduce the most and make the largest contribution to the greater gene pool.

The results? The three top countries booming in generational population growth are Asia, Africa, and South America, respectively. That is, as far as the raw scientific standard goes, asians, blacks, and latinos are outperforming the white eurasian races. The highest fertility rates are found in central Africa alone.

This is "survival of the fittest". Technology and political domination mean nothing if your "undeveloped" neighbors are pumping out more babies than you. So-called "racists" conveniently ignore this, because they like to hang on to 19th-century "White Man's Burden" theories that make them feel superior and entitled.

"But the point is, that all of the third world can be whiped out in an instant, should the need arise, so quantity doesn't really equal quality."

The need would never arise. The white races obliterated the Native Americans because they were in the way of a giant, fertile, temperate-zone continent, but we pretty much stopped at that. Nobody in their right mind would want to start the wholesale colonization of the third world. The most we can manage is a half-assed military occupation that might look good on a map, but vanishes at the slightest political tremor, leaving the indigenous makeup largely unchanged (Africa and the Middle East are excellent examples of this).

So in all probability, the African, Asian, and South-American races will keep on growing and continue seeping into the "developed" world.
Reply
:iconritualist:
Ritualist Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Rarely I would think atheism would made me racists, I for one found astonishingly wonderful the idea that there is no God, that I can be happy and moral without it. Science is not racist or anything, just bunch of facts that we can put to use as we see fit. As with most things humans do.

But - I do have my moments of thinking "racist". Maybe not in terms of race, but in term of nation. Guess this is handicap due to playing Civilization games a lot. I do feel somewhat bad, but also highly amused thinking/fantasizing about "we win, we rule over all others MWAHAHAHA" and that shit. Of course, at the end of the day, I realize it is just in my head. Didn't acted racist so far out to anyone. I mean - when I met other people I always judge them as individuals. Some I fancy, some I don't, same as white people. You can say white people mostly hang out with white people, blacks with blacks etc, just the way things are, that doesn't make them racist. Fat lazy bastards who won't go to meet different folks - yes.

Maybe I'll discuss human evolution in full some other time, this is just little thinking I did. Evolution is survival of the fittest, no? Who will be more likely to survive in modern day world: filthy little liberal who accepts other races and tends to live together, or glorious great racists who will try to kill everyone else? If he succeeds, yay for him, but I think other will tend to kill him first the moment he starts doing that. Same goes for filthy liberal: if someone tries to kill him -oh- he'll kill back alright.

Most humans aren't just hardwired to be around with people full of hate. There is, if I recall, four types of animal altruism: sharing food (and getting some food back later), attracting attention of predators (and getting laid for that) and fighting as group (you may die, but there is chance you'll survive also) and one more which I forgot. Primitive humans had all of these. Animals have 1 or 2 at most. Humans evolved to care for his fellow men/women. Even if it was only for preserving his selfish gene. XD

P.S.
"Therefore, if one declares themselves an atheist, a supporter of science and reason, they have to accept that they are racist." Lol, no. But nice try of troll. :lol:
Reply
:iconroflmao9000:
roflmao9000 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
"Australia, as a country"

The word you are looking for is Oceania.
Reply
:iconflammenverferotto:
FlammenverferOtto Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
Аминь!:)
Reply
:iconearlgrayfascist:
earlgrayfascist Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
NO YOU ARE WRONG. The reasons for human inequality as when analysing ANY form of inequality in the world is due to white priveledge (which ges back 10,000 BC).

The blacks built the pyramids and invented speech and science before the white man opressed him and took his magic powers away. whites are basically like this forest gump in history making all these accdental advances with the wealth of reasources at his disposal. other groups did not advance bacause they didn't have the right livestock and raw materials.

I read guns, germs, and steel by a nice jewish professor which is a flawless scientific analysis of race development and inequality.
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hahaha, yeah, Forrest Gump, while the advanced and magical other people struggles hard to maintain a mud hut.

Hey, I read that book! Isn't it just full of well, germs?
Reply
:iconblackrocked:
Blackrocked Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
I have yet to encounter an atheist who denies that humans are indeed animals. That's more of a stance that an overtly religious person would take. But not all atheists follow the exact same set of beliefs, so let it be.

If you were wondering, there's a difference between oppression and survival. A cat doesn't eat a mouse out of spite, or some backwater desire to erase all rodents from the face of the planet. If a white man and a black man were trapped in a mineshaft without food, water, limited oxygen and no way to escape, we would not say that the black man killed the white man out of some desire to realize an idea of racial superiority, or the white man killed the black man out of spite.

The "oppression" you speak of is when individuals are treated as subhuman for superficial reasons, instead of being utilized. For example, Aztec technology was mindlessly razed by the Spaniards out of fear and ignorance, only to be found centuries later. A waste. Understandable, as there was a language and culture barrier, but still a waste, considering that one would want to become well acquainted with the agricultural techniques already tailored to a region. And the Aztecs had canals, not full-blown aqueducts; their farms were never too far from a water source. You don't build cities otherwise. But I digress...

You also seem to have your definitions confused. You say that science is racist- if that were the case, then every single study and event would favor one singular race, wouldn't it? You're looking for the term racialist- that differences exist, these differences came about as humans struggled and died in different conditions, and thus certain humans are better in certain conditions. Obvious.

"For some weird reason, pointing the UNARGUABLE fact that without white people the world we know would never be as advanced and globalized"

... A world without white people would be so bizarrely different that this is a terrible statement. For white people to not exist at all, Earth would have to have a much hotter climate. For that to be the case, the atmosphere would need to be thinner, full of convection-causing gases, or the planet would need to be closer to the sun.

Let's not even bother.

"We know what race we are, we identify with it, and we want to contribute to it's success."

You assume too much. Such a blanket statement. Race is but one identifier among many, and does not always take precedence. Gender, nationality, religion, moral composition. The list goes on, and it's different for every situation.

Again, you seem bent on using every example possible to justify damning anyone who isn't within your arm's reach. You accuse this caricature of "naive liberal middle-class intellectuals" of attaching ideology to their science, yet you do the very same thing- only from the opposite side. Considering that we are no longer murdering our extended family over whatever migrating food sources we would be tracking, it'd be more profitable to spend less time trying to defeat imaginary cultural enemies and more time to work together toward a less wasteful future.

We may be animals, but we need not act like the lowest of them. Do not be a slave to your biology.

Be your own man.
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nope, it's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that if individuals, as a mass, cannot oppose the oppression, it's a result not of some evilness of the oppressor or anything irrational, but the weakness of the oppressed, and it's rooted in the fact that the oppressed is less advanced since it cannot fight back. Which happens to species all the time.

Science is racialist AND racist, because, yet again, when we turn to the facts we see that it uncovers what nature favored most, isn't it?

I'm not attaching ideology to science. I'm not making projections, either. I'm just saying that science, as a whole, explains and shows the fact that racial differences are a reality and the outcome of these differences are easily observed. No more, and no less.
Reply
:iconblackrocked:
Blackrocked Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
Fair enough, from a purely biological perspective, if we equate "oppression" with "survival". Yet some would argue that a desire to oppress is immoral in itself.

Racialist more than it is racist, given that African decline began in the Middle Ages- about the same time northern Europeans got their act together and decided to take a few pointers from their Mediterranean neighbors. If nature were racist, a singular branch of humanity would have outstripped the rest from day one. It's all about the conditions each organism needs to survive, and those conditions have been changing.

Biological differences in humans? Of course. The outcomes of this, however, are ambiguous at best. Until we can somehow perfectly isolate DNA and conduct tests on humans without ANY outside interference, all of this is speculation- tinged with a desire to fulfill a lingering preconceived notion.
Reply
:iconthatsmrdouchetoyou:
ThatsMrDoucheToyou Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2011  Professional Traditional Artist
"one part fuhrer, one part the pope." yeah, real consistent.
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's actually a quote from a song.
Reply
:iconsgt-nelson:
Sgt-Nelson Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I wonder, if you were black, would you feel the same way?
Reply
:iconjackshow:
jackshow Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2011
Yes, yes he would, But in black panther from.
Reply
:iconsgt-nelson:
Sgt-Nelson Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Haha
Reply
:iconjackshow:
jackshow Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2011
Yes, yes he would...
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's idle theortization. I'm NOT black. End of it.

But if I WAS black, I think I wouldn't even think about it at all.
Reply
:iconsgt-nelson:
Sgt-Nelson Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wouldn't a race be just as advanced if they were smart enough to join forces with another race? Why does brutality equal superiority in all aspects to you? Military superiority hardly makes a race, country, or culture superior in general.
Reply
:iconjackshow:
jackshow Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
Race does not equal power. Knowledge and Superior weapons equal power. Some causes you don't have to war to win, The fact the christian outlived the Vikings by having the power of well writing history down, kind of proves something about the ideal of "weapons=power" Cause lets face it, Every culture in the pre gun era, Had a from of warrior, Each trained Differently with different tools. People yelled "Spartans" But, The spartan army was mainly slaves....Hows that for a shocker.

Race does not equal power, nor does weapons, Thou This will sound cheesie It is the will of the individual.
Reply
:iconsgt-nelson:
Sgt-Nelson Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I essentially agree. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and environment. Military superiority does not equal complete superiority. It does not guarantee happy people, it doesn't guarantee scientific advancements that HELP people and doesn't KILL them, it doesn't guarantee anything other than being able to go to war.
Reply
:iconjackshow:
jackshow Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2011
Agreed, But It's better to have a army, then none at all.
Reply
:iconblackrocked:
Blackrocked Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011
Oh, how I expected this response.
Reply
:iconagrifex:
Agrifex Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2011  Student General Artist
Dear GOD, but this is AWESOME.
Amazing. brilliant. I APPROVE.
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well thanks.
Reply
:iconagrifex:
Agrifex Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Student General Artist
No, thank YOU.
Reply
:iconmisternobodyy99:
MisterNobodyY99 Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2011
I agree that humans are naturally racist, and we're not the only ones, just look at chimps. Evolution is a bit tricky when it comes to humans though because we don't evolve, but our technology does and that can be taken away. If you take a white baby and a baby from a small tribe and put them in a first world country, who would be smarter? So it's less "I'm better than you" and more "my gun's better than yours". I find racism to be an old instinct we need to throw away since race really doesn't make a difference.

Though I come from Canada, and that might influence my view on races.
Reply
:icontd-vice:
TD-Vice Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"If you take a white baby and a baby from a small tribe and put them in a first world country, who would be smarter?"

America is the field of such experiments. More so, black children that live in US for the 10th generation, tend to statistically achieve lower scores and academic results than white and asian children. It's called the "achievement gap". And research shows that it's not actually tied to family income or stuff.

That answers your question? It's not only the environment that shapes this shit.
Reply
Add a Comment: