Change to rules
#21
(05-20-2010, 10:03 PM)alaric Wrote:
(05-20-2010, 05:49 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(05-20-2010, 08:34 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: How does ethnicity relate to race?  Like if I want to talk about an Italian temper or Irish brashness or Canadian kerfufflery, is that on the table?

Ethnicity is different than race, so that's still on the table.
Ethnicity's come from nationalities, nationalities come from nations, nations are usually established from a homogeneous race within a distinct geographical area.

I don't see it that way, and I would argue neither does history, nor does DNA analysis.  The modern concept of "race" came from 17th Century protestants.  Before then familial lineage was more important.  So if you were a different "race" and married in, it didn't matter - you were still of the tribe of X or of the family of X or part of the nation of X.  The Roman Empire, for example, was not a homogenous race.  The Empire stretched over clusters of races, etc.  Most of the modern discussion of race is politically motivated idiocy.

My view of a nation is common language, borders, and culture, and sometimes (hopefully) religion.  That's the only one that makes sense unless one wants to claim France and Spain are different "races".

Quote:Anyway you already have a rule against espousing racism, so why the need to slam the door on a subject that many still feel the need to discuss,debate and find answers about?

The point of this forum is religion, not race relations.  Anything outside of that I will happily jettison if it interferes with the point or brings disrepute on Catholicism, IMO.

Quote:If people can't have simple dialogue about race issues without the slander and name calling then moderate the individuals who lack your acceptable degree of charity.

I always thought that what was unique about this place was it's openness or the ability to be frank on certain issues in an attempt to get to the truth.

So much for that.

I would look into CathInfo as WRC suggests.  Matthew has a different tack than here, and some discussions are allowed there that are not allowed here, and vice versa.  There are many discussions about race, etc., that I bet you would find interesting.  You can always visit both here and CI and pick and choose what you like to discuss.
Reply
#22
(05-20-2010, 08:34 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: How does ethnicity relate to race?  Like if I want to talk about an Italian temper or Irish brashness or Canadian kerfufflery, is that on the table?

...you forgot Cuban canoodling.

:tiphat:
Reply
#23
Does this mean I can't badmouth krauts... er germans anymore?
Reply
#24
I was conducting a quasi-scientific / anthropological / evolutionary discussion with Herr_Mannelig about the stratification of skin tone in relation to the equator. Is that sort of discussion - not about the persons themselves but about the scientific origins of such diversity - permitted here?

[Image: 61759-004-763E8070.gif]


Reply
#25
(05-20-2010, 09:15 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(05-20-2010, 09:07 PM)Arun Wrote: Oh, well. I guess I'll have to find another site to complain about spacemen on, lol...

"I guess I'll have to find another site on which to complain about spacemen, lol".


Master Yoda Wrote:Another site on which to complain, spacemen about, shall I have to find. Mmmmm.

lol cornpuff mcgruff.
Reply
#26
At the risk of breaking you're new rule, I must respectively disagree with you Quis.

The concept of race within or between cultures has been around from time immemorial for right or wrong reasons or noble or base effects.

The ancients were very aware of racial issues and the eventual effects they would have on their respective cultures and I don't mean just in the West. And history also proves that any culture that either didn't deal with the consequences of racial realities, ceased to be a culture, or at least the one that defined them to begin with, the Romans, as the example you give, were the prime example.

It was not an easy or given thing to become or earn the right to be a Roman citizen, that is what made it that much more to be sought after or acquired and yes, race mattered, at last to the organic Italic or Etruscan-descended peoples from the original Latin kingdoms from which the ruling aristocracies came from and ruled Rome at it's peak. Many fought against and had a very difficult time allowing Gauls in and granting citizenship to this "barbaric" race of savages.Over the course of time, ironically, the Gauls became more Roman than the ethnic Romans themselves. But don't fool yourself, race mattered to these people, don't think for a second they would have accepted a East Asian or Subsahara, African as Caesar.

The downfall of Rome is almost tied in exclusively with it's diversity along with it's morality and discipline failings.

Borders,language,culture most definitely defines a nation and compels it to seek it's own sovereignty. But again, mass influx of too many varying races will quickly delude any cohesion of the three eventually. Religion, as you stated, should be the mesh or the fiber that holds a culture together, as it does in many Islamic nations, but race (or ethnicity), historically, or in my opinion, always seems to transcend a culture's worldview.

Also, Europeans have been at loggerheads for centuries with each other over border disputes with the other "races", the Englishman tend to look down on the inferior cultures on the continent as well as the civilised euro's feared and loathed that savage "race" of invaders from the north.Maybe they were incorrect in their usage of the word "race", but use it they did in context of the times.

Having said all this I can understand how discussions on race can quickly get out of hand and spiral downward on the forum and become quite un-Catholic or at least appear so to many who lurk  (or troll)here and we do have to keep in mind that we live in a politically correct police state where thinking or discussing rationally is not a viable option in venues such as these, especially with the anonymous availability of the Internet.

Your point that this is a religious forum is taken, but with topics like "secular issues and politics", the risk is always there for the whole race thing to surface, as a matter of fact, in many instances, it is unavoidable. Unless you want to be intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, that's all I'll say about it from here on out and will respect your rule and try not to cross the line.
Reply
#27
(05-21-2010, 02:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I was conducting a quasi-scientific / anthropological / evolutionary discussion with Herr_Mannelig about the stratification of skin tone in relation to the equator. Is that sort of discussion - not about the persons themselves but about the scientific origins of such diversity - permitted here?

Sure.
Reply
#28
(05-21-2010, 01:29 AM)Walty Wrote: Does this mean I can't badmouth krauts... er germans anymore?

Only if you consider Germans a "race".  Last time I checked, they weren't.
Reply
#29
(05-22-2010, 08:01 AM)alaric Wrote: At the risk of breaking you're new rule, I must respectively disagree with you Quis.

The concept of race within or between cultures has been around from time immemorial for right or wrong reasons or noble or base effects.

The ancients were very aware of racial issues and the eventual effects they would have on their respective cultures and I don't mean just in the West. And history also proves that any culture that either didn't deal with the consequences of racial realities, ceased to be a culture, or at least the one that defined them to begin with, the Romans, as the example you give, were the prime example.

It was not an easy or given thing to become or earn the right to be a Roman citizen, that is what made it that much more to be sought after or acquired and yes, race mattered, at last to the organic Italic or Etruscan-descended peoples from the original Latin kingdoms from which the ruling aristocracies came from and ruled Rome at it's peak. Many fought against and had a very difficult time allowing Gauls in and granting citizenship to this "barbaric" race of savages.Over the course of time, ironically, the Gauls became more Roman than the ethnic Romans themselves. But don't fool yourself, race mattered to these people, don't think for a second they would have accepted a East Asian or Subsahara, African as Caesar.

The downfall of Rome is almost tied in exclusively with it's diversity along with it's morality and discipline failings.

Borders,language,culture most definitely defines a nation and compels it to seek it's own sovereignty. But again, mass influx of too many varying races will quickly delude any cohesion of the three eventually. Religion, as you stated, should be the mesh or the fiber that holds a culture together, as it does in many Islamic nations, but race (or ethnicity), historically, or in my opinion, always seems to transcend a culture's worldview.

Also, Europeans have been at loggerheads for centuries with each other over border disputes with the other "races", the Englishman tend to look down on the inferior cultures on the continent as well as the civilised euro's feared and loathed that savage "race" of invaders from the north.Maybe they were incorrect in their usage of the word "race", but use it they did in context of the times.

OK, well, I'm not going to reply in detail so as to not break my own rule.

Quote:Having said all this I can understand how discussions on race can quickly get out of hand and spiral downward on the forum and become quite un-Catholic or at least appear so to many who lurk  (or troll)here and we do have to keep in mind that we live in a politically correct police state where thinking or discussing rationally is not a viable option in venues such as these, especially with the anonymous availability of the Internet.

Thank you for understanding.

Quote:Your point that this is a religious forum is taken, but with topics like "secular issues and politics", the risk is always there for the whole race thing to surface, as a matter of fact, in many instances, it is unavoidable. Unless you want to be intellectually dishonest.

I disagree that it is intellectually dishonest.  It is a clear statement that topic is not to be had here, just as sedevacantism is not to be discussed here.  Sedevacantism is sometimes unavoidable, then the discussion ends.  It would be dishonest if I were to say race is a non-issue; that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we won't discuss that aspect of things here.

And, just as sedevacantism and race are banned topics, I have no problem closing entire subfora if they become problems.  In fact, it's been done by Vox before - the Eastern Catholic subforum was closed after Orthodox started hanging out there like perverts in a men's room looking for confused and easy prey - and getting it.

A lot of these topics are interesting, but in the final analysis they are not inherently necessary to the Faith or even traditional Catholicism.  If they become problems, they're gone.  This particular topic has been a long-time problem for years, erupting every so often.  Vox and I reached our limit with it.

So, I don't see how it is intellectually dishonest to plainly state: "Don't talk about that here."
Quote:Anyway, that's all I'll say about it from here on out and will respect your rule and try not to cross the line.

Thanks!
Reply
#30
(05-21-2010, 02:03 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [Image: 61759-004-763E8070.gif]
My skin tone looks nothing like any of those.  In fact, it's rather ruddy and pink.  Are there really people with pure-white skin hanging out in Antarctica?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)