Peculiar Question: How Do You Feel About Multiracial People?

[Immaculata001]

I don't recall Inquisitor telling us he was "struggling" with anything.....

 

 

Clearly, he seems to be.

 

I would hate to be in the position of having an idea of what identity people will conform to before I know anything about them, or have to admit that my social rules don't fit every individual I met and consequently, have to reform them.  It must make life anxiety-ridden, limiting, and alienating, outside of one's own ethnic group, although it would seem to make reality tidy.

 

Again, I think people who believe in sterotypes have a profound need to -- it keeps them psychologically safe and keeps their own identities intact (essentially, their own identities can be based on sterotypes).  I think it's a personal flaw or deficit.

 

Some of us do not need to.

[InquisitorGeneralis]

First  of all, it's a fact that the enemies of the Catholic Faith wish to  dominate the formerly Catholic countries by creating a "one world  government" -- and to do that, they need to destroy all bonds of  nationality and race. By encouraging intermarriage, they have achieved  this to a large degree.

Intermarriage  is not a modern phenomenon but a human one that's been going on for  millenia. There are entire subgroups that are the result of  intermarriage (North Africans=Arabs + Subsaharan Africans; Seychellois=  French+African; Tahitian= French, Native Polynesian, and Asian  subgroups; Madagascan=African+Southeast Asian).

People  who have dominated have never encouraged intermarriage, and ironically,  neither have people who have been subversives. It is something that  just happens because when people get into contact with other people  they stop perceiving them as "others" but as human beings. Stereotypes  always erode in those environments, and people have diminished anxiety  about what there proper social role is, or what limitations can be  place on them by race or ethnicity.

The  perspective that you've just offered (that intermarriage is a plot to  destroy family structures and transmission of cultural values) isn't a  side point or insignificant -- essentially, you are implying that  intermarriage is a threat to every society's framework and that mixed  race people should be treated with suspicion, or perceived as  anomalies. Someone else also pointed out that this is a very  English/Anglo perspective.

What  group do YOU feel that you "belong" to and can identify with? Guess  what, we are SUPPOSED to have a culture that we feel is part of us. God  intended the differences in the races and peoples.

I  disagree. I'm beginning to believe that the early apostles, and Jesus  himself, were challenging the social orders they were moving through,  especially as it concerned race, ethnicity, and cultural allegiance.  Some of the heroes in Jesus parables' were known in their regions as  mixed race people (Egs:Samaritans) -- it's very interesting that people  in dominant groups perceived those people as threat to the social  fabric and questioned the legitimacy of their cultural expressions, and  that those mixed race people were also the result of interrelationships  between colonizers and the colonized.

 

 

  First of all, before going into this, why are you quoting someone else's post in a post that you've addressed to me?
 
 

 

Inquister Generalis:

You strike me as someone who deeply needs  to believe certain things because it helps you negotiate reality (Ie:  at the root of what you are saying is that you need to believe in  stereotypes).

 
 And  you strike me as someone who needs to psychoanalyze everyone who merely  disagrees with you. Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, it  really doesn't matter what my "needs" are.  It only matters whether or not what I'm saying is true.
 
 

 That is your choice, and has no significance to me.

 

 

  That's interesting, from reading your posts on this thread, it seems very significant to you.
 
 

 

Of course stereotypes can be proven untrue -- if the facts don't gel, it isn't true.

 

 

  Then I suppose some of them can be proven true, as well?  It's a two-way street here...
 

 

 

A thread of truth or relevance still doesn't make something true (real, factual, relevant).

 

 

 

 

Yes,  but at least they will have a grain of truth, which is a lot more than  you've been willing to acknowledge so far in this conversation.
 
 

 

The "good stereotypes" you listed were still routed in the bad:

 

 

 

 

What they're "routed" in has nothing to do with whether they're true or false.
 
   

 

Black people are good at sports.

This  is routed in the idea that while intellectually inferior, Blacks can  excel in physical pursuits (being closer to animals or savages). No,  this is not positive, benign, or complementary.

 
 Ok.  But, benign or not, are they or are they not good at sports (or at  least some sports)? Also, the root of the stereotype may not be so  great, but the simple idea that blacks are good at sports would be a  positive stereotype, regardless of its roots.
 
 

Asians are good at Math.

This  is routed in the idea that Asians are naturally calculating or very  cunning ("inscrutable" is the word commonly used). No, this is not  positive, benign, or complementary.

 
 Again,  we have the same issues. Are Asians good at Math, or aren't they? And,  who cares where the stereotype is rooted (focusing on that would be the  genetic fallacy, anyway)? Ultimately, the idea that Asians are good at  Math is a positive stereotype.
 
 

Indigenous people are good at bargaining.

So why not set them up to sell themselves, their land, etc? Another baddie.

 
 I've  never even heard of this one. But, again, is it true or not? And,  regardless of where it's rooted, it's still a positive stereotype.
 
 

 

Anyways, God bless you in your struggle...

 
  Um, ok.  Same to you, I guess.

[InquisitorGeneralis]

Clearly, he seems to be.

 
  Well, it didn't seem to be clear to Jenn.  Do you have some psychological insights or expertise that she doesn't?
 
   

I would hate to be in the position of having an idea of what identity people will conform to before I know anything about them...

 

 

  Hmmm, that's interesting.  I'd hate to have absolutely no ideas  about the people I meet.  But, that's just my preference...
 

 
 

 I think it's a personal flaw or deficit.

Some of us do not need to.

 
 So now I have a personal flaw or deficit.  Thanks.  Thanks a lot.
 

[Paul]

Nationality might be the better word, as strictly speaking there are only three "races" -- those which sprang from Sem (asian), Cham (african), and Japeth (european). All others are pretty much a mix of those three.

What about the rest of Noe's/Noah's family?

I've heard that this idea is actually from the Talmud - it's certainly not specified anywhere in the Bible.

[QuisUtDeus]

Nationality might be the better word, as strictly speaking there are only three "races" -- those which sprang from Sem (asian), Cham (african), and Japeth (european). All others are pretty much a mix of those three.

What about the rest of Noe's/Noah's family?

I've heard that this idea is actually from the Talmud - it's certainly not specified anywhere in the Bible.

 

It's derived from the Bible based on a telling of where Noah's sons went.  It is popular with Idenity Christians and Noahites for reasons we probably shouldn't discuss here, but I don't think it was ever part of Catholic tradition.  The Talmudists would certainly not subscribe to it because their view is Jewish and non-Jewish and has nothing to do with race as we are referring to it.

 

Anthropologically there are more than three races - caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid (West Asian), australoid (East Asian), capoid (Central Asian).  But for PC reasons those terms tend not to be used anymore.  Also, they were coined before DNA testing existed and based on appearance, skull size, etc., so in truth they may not be really accurate.

[VoxClamantis]

It's derived from the Bible based on a telling of where Noah's sons went.  It is popular with Idenity Christians and Noahites for reasons we probably shouldn't discuss here, but I don't think it was ever part of Catholic tradition.  The Talmudists would certainly not subscribe to it because their view is Jewish and non-Jewish and has nothing to do with race as we are referring to it.

 

Whether it is in the Talmud or not, the Venerable Bede (among others) speaks of the tradition that the three "racial types" stem from Noe's sons -- which is a fact given that everyone on earth comes from them.

 

The Talmud, however, goes on about the curse of Cham being a curse on people with "black" skin -- which is most definitely not a Catholic way of thinking.

[JLeigh]

 

Again, I think people who believe in sterotypes have a profound need to -- it keeps them psychologically safe and keeps their own identities intact (essentially, their own identities can be based on sterotypes).  I think it's a personal flaw or deficit.

 

Some of us do not need to.

I hate to rehash old news, but I might remind you that some time ago, in the "World Cup" thread (which has apparently now been deleted), you made statements regarding certain ethnic groups that sounded pretty stereotypical. You stated that Italians were a bunch of "arrogant pompous mafiosos", and further commented that "all Portuguese are crazy". Stereotypical, no?

[CampeadorShin]

Actually I was talking about the child produced from the incident of the tent and Noah's nakedness.

[InquisitorGeneralis]

I hate to rehash old news, but I might remind you that some time ago, in the "World Cup" thread (which has apparently now been deleted), you made statements regarding certain ethnic groups that sounded pretty stereotypical. You stated that Italians were a bunch of "arrogant pompous mafiosos", and further commented that "all Portuguese are crazy". Stereotypical, no?

Hmmm, Immaculata seems to have become awfully silent after this one....

[QuisUtDeus]

 

I hate to rehash old news, but I might remind you that some time ago, in the "World Cup" thread (which has apparently now been deleted), you made statements regarding certain ethnic groups that sounded pretty stereotypical. You stated that Italians were a bunch of "arrogant pompous mafiosos", and further commented that "all Portuguese are crazy". Stereotypical, no?

Hmmm, Immaculata seems to have become awfully silent after this one....

That's because it is evidence that stereotypes have no useful purpose. I use them too, but that doesn't mean it's right.  I do lots of stupid things.

 

And Italians aren't a bunch of "arrogant popous mafiosos", we Sicilians are.  Everyone knows that everything north of Rome is French anyhow - they're mangiapolenta.

 

Um, Vox, your family is from Southern Italy, right?

 

Of course, we Sicilians are known as "Black Italians", but I think that's just because we're good at basketball.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with the French.  Gen. Schwartzkopf likes them.  He said going into war allied with France is like going hunting with your accordian, and we know how much Germans like accordian music - it's great for dancing to in lederhosen, so he must like the French.

 

The French soldiers are easy to identify, too.  They're the ones dropping their rifles and running in the opposite direction.  You can tell the Poles because they're the ones shooting themselves trying to figure out their rifles, and the Brits are the ones with their rifles up their keisters - oh, wait, that's how Brits normally act.

 

The Irish are the ones who will fight 800 more years to get the Brits out of Ireland, or until the beer runs out.  Whichever comes first.

 

I'm here all week, folks, with the comedy stylings of insipid stereotypism.

 

See, it's ridiculous.  Some of it is funny because it is ridiculous, but some of it is just mean and idiotic.