[civilian_number_two]

1. You say that you don't like how followers of science are so damend relihious about it, allowing authority over facts to dictate what they will believe. That "devotees" of science just believe the scientists no matter what they say, and that they don't bother to read on thir own. You say you don't like this. You dismiss scientific claims on exactly these grounds, that scientists are just faith healers, and that they are incapable of backing up their claims. This is 100% the same as calling science "just another faith-based belief system." I agree with you; I don't like it.

2. Yes, the Quebecois are "French." They are from "French Canada." Collectively they refer to themselves as "French Canadian." I appreciate that yopu'd like the entire world to obey you, but millions of people there are using a word descriptive of a European country to describe the people of a North American region. The word also describes the language that they speak. There are also French in Africa.

3. No. I would say "Turkey is a country in Asia," but I would never call Turks "Asian." It's ambiguous. They are Turkish, possibly Middle Eastern. Racially they are not in the same group as Japanese or Chinese.

Please address the points originally introduced in this discourse, ie that racial groups are not limited to the continents they happen to live in, that "Asia" is just a word that the Romans invented to mean "Shit we don't own" (apart from "Asia Minor," ie Turkey), that redistributing a continent wouldn't change the geneic makeup of the people living in it, and that you have no problem with calling white people after a geographic region, ie the Caucasus, because for some reason you thought "Caucasian" was a scientific classification and not a geographic term.

Using the terms as you'd have them, there is no single "North American" race, no "South American" race, no "European" race, "No "African" race, no "Asian" race, no "Australian" race. However as t happens we have race groups named after alleged areas of origin, hence "Asian" as you think only denizens of the United States use it, hence "African," hence "European." Hence also "Caucasian."

3. ...

4. Yeah ok.

Anyway, I'm getting that you REALLY believe the things you said in your initial post, that words used to describe geographic areas (except for Caucasian) should never be used to describe racial groups (except for Asian, but you have an odd idea of who belongs in that group). But I have a small suspicion that I'm wrong here, and that you actually don't believe that racial groups exist at all. Not that you're all PC Liberal and try not to describe people in terms of specifics like that (your insistence that all roses should have the same name, regardless of variations), but that you actually think thatr folks are all the same. I respectfully put it to you that you're wrong, for all the reasons I gave to Spoon when she made a similar claim.

[Slade]

Jordan: Fine. Judaism (and it's followers, called Jews) is a religion, not a race. I, to this day, have no clue as to what the hell an "ethnic Jew" is supposed to be. I saw an episode of Law & Order once, and it was about some wacky Neo-Nazi, and she flipped out on this generic white dude about being some Jewish <epithet> (I don't recall the insult), and I was confused as hell. I had no idea how she was supposed to be able to tell this man was Jewish, race or religion. How am I supposed to genericise someone of a religion to a race? How am I supposed to pick out defining characteristics of an "ethnic" Jew? Unless we're going to go into asshole stereotyping and say some idiot thing like "you can tell because they're tightwads and cheats and control the whole world in secret!", I am at a complete and total loss.

Besides that, I prefer the term Hebrew, if we're going to talk about a genetic/ethnic background, because that separates this people, however they are supposed to look, from the religion Judaism, it's followers Jews, which anyone can join. And I'll call them Israeli if they're from Israel, otherwise, they're something else. It's not nonsense as far as I'm concerned, it's trying to be less vague when communicating. It's also just plain lazy to lump is all together. It's like using the word "Muslim" to mean "Arab," or vice-versa. Absurd. I also don't care that you don't like it. You're not an authority on language, and if you were, I'd still disagree with you unless you could state a real case for lumping a racial group and a religion into one word.

[civilian_number_two]

I'd still disagree with you unless you could state a real case for lumping a racial group and a religion into one word.

So the Nazis were able to identify Jews from physical characteristics because their religion is largely carried through one race, a race that Jews will tell you bears the same name as the religion, and Jews themselves will identiy an atheist whose mother is Jewish as an ethnic Jew but not as a member of the Jewish faith.

You on the other hand will state that you are an authority on all things relating to Judaism, and will declare with authority that Judaism is a religion only, and that there is no Jewish race. Please cite your sources. Mine is jewfaq.org.

[barend]

1. You say that you don't like how followers of science are so damend relihious about it, allowing authority over facts to dictate what they will believe. That "devotees" of science just believe the scientists no matter what they say, and that they don't bother to read on thir own. You say you don't like this. You dismiss scientific claims on exactly these grounds, that scientists are just faith healers, and that they are incapable of backing up their claims. This is 100% the same as calling science "just another faith-based belief system." I agree with you; I don't like it.

Just for a moment forget everything I've said that you didn't quite catch right. I don't dismiss scientific claims, I only refuse to commit 100% without question to the not yet conclusively proven.

I'm still waiting for facts to roll in before I quote anyone on certain issues. I'd like to entertain possible new ideas when they come along.

2. Yes, the Quebecois are "French." They are from "French Canada." Collectively they refer to themselves as "French Canadian." I appreciate that yopu'd like the entire world to obey you, but millions of people there are using a word descriptive of a European country to describe the people of a North American region. The word also describes the language that they speak. There are also French in Africa.

That 'viva Québec!' remark was not part of the argument. I just threw it in because I like saying it.

Yes the people of Quebec are French by blood. Therefore they are 'French' but not 'European'. I have no problem with this because it on no way interferes with correct definitions. Saying Indians aren't Asian because it's just too much for some people to understand, is where I draw the line.

3. No. I would say "Turkey is a country in Asia," but I would never call Turks "Asian." It's ambiguous. They are Turkish, possibly Middle Eastern. Racially they are not in the same group as Japanese or Chinese.

No they're not. But 'Asian' isn't a racial group. It's just a place. At best it's a name for a collection of racial groups pertaining to single large area.

Please address the points originally introduced in this discourse, ie that racial groups are not limited to the continents they happen to live in, that "Asia" is just a word that the Romans invented to mean "Shit we don't own" (apart from "Asia Minor," ie Turkey), that redistributing a continent wouldn't change the geneic makeup of the people living in it, and that you have no problem with calling white people after a geographic region, ie the Caucasus, because for some reason you thought "Caucasian" was a scientific classification and not a geographic term.

I referred to white people as 'Caucasian' because I heard them being referred to as such in American movies. Now I know better and will never refer to them as such again. technically it just means not black. because apparently the US is/was of the opinion that you are either 'black' or 'not black'; perhaps a reflection of some attitude I can't be bothered exploring.

Let's not take this too much further, or I"ll be forced to explain that technically, 'American' doesn't mean from the US. Maybe we should call them 'Unities' or 'Yoo-Essians'

Using the terms as you'd have them, there is no single "North American" race, no "South American" race, no "European" race, "No "African" race, no "Asian" race, no "Australian" race. However as t happens we have race groups named after alleged areas of origin, hence "Asian" as you think only denizens of the United States use it, hence "African," hence "European." Hence also "Caucasian."

Those are continental terms; they refer to people from certain continents. As "I would have it"
Sometimes it is applicable to describe people as such, sometimes it's not. It just depends on context. Ultimately you should not use those terms to describe a single group out of several from any of those regions.

3. ...

,,,

4. Yeah ok.

Cool.

Anyway, I'm getting that you REALLY believe the things you said in your initial post, that words used to describe geographic areas (except for Caucasian) should never be used to describe racial groups (except for Asian, but you have an odd idea of who belongs in that group). But I have a small suspicion that I'm wrong here, and that you actually don't believe that racial groups exist at all. Not that you're all PC Liberal and try not to describe people in terms of specifics like that (your insistence that all roses should have the same name, regardless of variations), but that you actually think thatr folks are all the same. I respectfully put it to you that you're wrong, for all the reasons I gave to Spoon when she made a similar claim.

A rose is just a rose because I don't care about it's subcatigories. Rose subcatogrisation is about as important to the general public as knowing Barry Manilow's back catalogue in chronological order. I suffer no guilt being uninformed on either topic.

I don't believe in racial groups? And you have arguments to support that I'm wrong? How terribly exciting for you. Unfortunately I DO believe in racial groups. So that fucks that up that potential argument. Sorry.

[azerty]

I almost get Barend's point of view.

People should be described by the continent on which they were born.

If you are from a country in Asia, you are Asian. If you are from a country in Africa, you are African. If you are from a caountry in Europe, you are European.

My point is that anyone who thinks 'African' = 80% of Africa instead of 100% are retarded. I used 'Asian' as an example because people seem to be quite hell-bent on declaring that 'Asian' = 65% of Asia instead of 100%.

So far it seems simple enough. Barend made a list (in alphabetical order no less) of countries which make up "Asia". He didn't include Tibet of course - but then again Tibet doesn't really exist, does it?

Barend's borders are largely defined by water, as if water were some sort of impassable barrier to all human migration. Africa is separated from Asia by the Suez canal, and from Europe by the Straits of Gibralter. Turkey is separated from Europe by the Bosporus River and the Dardanelles (Hooray for the Anzacs) - so therefore Turkey is in Asia. But what about the other half of Istanbul on the west side of the Bosporus, and all of the land bordering Bulgaria. It that still Asia or is it technically Europe? And the Suez Canal goes right through the middle of Egypt, so is northwest Egypt really in Asia?

If it's Egypt it must be Africa, if it's Turkey, it must be Asia.... Way too arbitrary! When Turkey gets accepted into the European Union, will Turkey then become part of Europe?

The problem for Barend is that for a guy who doesn't like to have his opinions dictated to him by any person, he is allowoing some historical wanker to ABSOLUTELY dictate to him where his borders are.

Calling only the eastern rim of Asia 'Asian' is silly. I don't care how fashionable it gets, it's a gateway to idiocy and global intellectual mediocrity. And I for one won't stand for it.

Whatever racial borders may be, they are definately NOT lines drawn on the surface of the planet by some cartographer for ancient political reasons. Racial borders instead are natural borders that people thoughout history found it difficult to cross.

The Sahara Desert is a much bigger border between North and South Africa than the Straits of Gibraltar could ever be between Africa and Europe. Other physical borders would be the Gobi Desert, or the Himalayas. Cultural borders might be the isolation and persecution of Jews by nearly everybody for thousands of years. All these separators cause inbreeding and eventually racial distinctions. So yeah Jews are a race.

If Barend is going to decide (or have decided for him) that Russia is Asia, then he must also decide that a person from St. Petersburg has more in common with his Asian compatriot in Naukan, than the dude from Naukan has in common with a guy in Wales Alaska, even though the first two are 7000 kilometers apart and the second two are 80 kilometers apart, simply because the first two live in the same country and the second two don't.

Barend's definition of Asia will have to change when Turkey is accepted into the EU. Barend includes Japan in his collection of people who can call themselves Asian, but would he include Yap Island or Guam or Iwo Jima? Does his defintion of Asian go as far as the Maldivies but not as far as Mauritius?

This is my test for Barend: Can you get a world map and a red pen and draw borders for Asia, Africa and Europe on it, with confidence that you haven't screwed up East Timor, or Qadib, or New Caledonia, or Astrakhan

What's my point? King Tut was no doubt not a Black African. He was also no doubt not the stupid white bread looking guy that the makers of the Museum Bust have painted him. Everybody wants cultural bragging rights, whether they deserve them or not.

[civilian_number_two]

the people of Quebec are French by blood

But 'Asian' isn't a racial group. It's just a place. At best it's a name for a collection of racial groups pertaining to single large area.

Thank you. Wow, it sure took a long time to get that across. Since I know you don't think that Japanese and Turks are the same people, then at best "Asian" when applied as a racial group, which you believe in, does apply to Japanese and not to Turks. Or, as you may have it, to Turks and not to Japanese. Either way, not to both.

Azerty said a lot of the things I might have said about this and that.

As for roses, if you don't care about it, Barend, we shouldn't name something, is that right? Should that be the convention for naming things, whether you personally use it or care about it? Maybe you don't eat sandwiches either, so we should just call them all sandwiches, regardless of contents? Well well. Why even bother calling it a rose, I wonder? Why not just "flower?" Or if that's too specific, how about just "plant?" Since apparently noone cares about it. Maybe we should not boher with specific words at all, even though you have recently been quite hung up on them. Maybe all movies should be called "movie" and all people "hey you."

Spoon. if you're still reading: you say that you only used racial terms because they have been ingrained in you by society, and that you'd rather we had different terminology. Fine. But you used them to describe differences between the Japanese people and the Chinese people. So you acknowledge broad physical differences between the people of one place and the people of another. You don't weant to call this "race," but since you want to talk about it at all, you have to call it something. So .. racial differences exist, and not just because society says so. Even without the words, you'd still draw the distinctions.

[barend]

Thank you. Wow, it sure took a long time to get that across. Since I know you don't think that Japanese and Turks are the same people, then at best "Asian" when applied as a racial group, which you believe in, does apply to Japanese and not to Turks. Or, as you may have it, to Turks and not to Japanese. Either way, not to both.

:sigh:

Analogy. (and lets not get caught up in how bananas are technically a herb or anything like that)

It's like Asia = Fruit

India is apples, Korea is lemons, Japan is oranges, and China is Mandarines, Turky is Bananas, etc. You could say China, Japan, and Korea are all citric fruit, but you can't say they are what determines the definition "fruit". So while apples and oranges are differnt types of fruit they are both fruit.

(for intents and purposes europe are vegitables)

Azerty said a lot of the things I might have said about this and that.

As for roses, if you don't care about it, Barend, we shouldn't name something, is that right? Should that be the convention for naming things, whether you personally use it or care about it? Maybe you don't eat sandwiches either, so we should just call them all sandwiches, regardless of contents? Well well. Why even bother calling it a rose, I wonder? Why not just "flower?" Or if that's too specific, how about just "plant?" Since apparently noone cares about it. Maybe we should not boher with specific words at all, even though you have recently been quite hung up on them. Maybe all movies should be called "movie" and all people "hey you."

Woah there... way to fly off the handle. Of course we should have names for different varieties of things. However it's not my responsibilty to know the names of specific flowers, it's information unlikley to assist in everyday life, and is hardly any where nears as relevant as knowing the things I do unless I end up fancying a cute young florest one day and want to win favor with her in which case she'll just think I'm gay for knowing such things anyway and probably criple my chances anyway.

You really take your flowers seriously huh?

[civilian_number_two]

Barend, try reading Azerty's post. Especially the bit about what might happen if Turkey gets into the European Union.

You just seem hung up on words for racial groups that happen to be the same as continents. You seem to have allowed that sometimes it happens without your consent (as with your allowance for Asia: "At best it's a name for a collection of racial groups pertaining to single large area," and we know you don't think folks from Khazahkstan are of the same grup as folks from Japan, regardless of the continental line drawn by the Romans).

So basically you have a chip on your shoulder about language, even while you insist that you don't like to use it all that specifically anyhow. But you acknowledge that this is something you're doing, refusing or not bothering to use language as others use it, to dumb down your own langauge use out of some sort of pragmatism. You even suggest that in some cases the forces causing you to do this are homophobic in nature. Well I suppose I should say glad to see you finally came around, but hat bit about not knowing the names of plants because you're worrid gals might think you're gay is a bit sad.

Over and out.

[barend]

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

I almost get Barend's point of view.
So far it seems simple enough. Barend made a list (in alphabetical order no less) of countries which make up "Asia". He didn't include Tibet of course - but then again Tibet doesn't really exist, does it?

Poor Tibet. I suppose my neglect there will unravel my point entirely.

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Barend's borders are largely defined by water, as if water were some sort of impassable barrier to all human migration. Africa is separated from Asia by the Suez canal, and from Europe by the Straits of Gibralter. Turkey is separated from Europe by the Bosporus River and the Dardanelles (Hooray for the Anzacs) - so therefore Turkey is in Asia. But what about the other half of Istanbul on the west side of the Bosporus, and all of the land bordering Bulgaria. It that still Asia or is it technically Europe? And the Suez Canal goes right through the middle of Egypt, so is northwest Egypt really in Asia?

Barend's borders?

Since when does nature's ridges and crevices dictate all the worlds borders? I"m sure there's a sign saying welcome to where ever somewhere to help the odd traveller.

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

If it's Egypt it must be Africa, if it's Turkey, it must be Asia.... Way too arbitrary! When Turkey gets accepted into the European Union, will Turkey then become part of Europe?

I guess we'll have to wait and see? I Suppose if all the parties involved agree.

or should we all hold our breath and see what United States of America has to say on the Issue?

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

The problem for Barend is that for a guy who doesn't like to have his opinions dictated to him by any person, he is allowoing some historical wanker to ABSOLUTELY dictate to him where his borders are.

Well that "some wanker" did do all the groundwork I guess. Like the historical wanker who paved all the roads here... I could go with my own opinion, but I like the idea of keeping people on the sidewalk and cars on teh street.

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Whatever racial borders may be, they are definately NOT lines drawn on the surface of the planet by some cartographer for ancient political reasons. Racial borders instead are natural borders that people thoughout history found it difficult to cross.

Racial borders? racial borders? What the hell's a "racial border"?

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

The Sahara Desert is a much bigger border between North and South Africa than the Straits of Gibraltar could ever be between Africa and Europe. Other physical borders would be the Gobi Desert, or the Himalayas. Cultural borders might be the isolation and persecution of Jews by nearly everybody for thousands of years. All these separators cause inbreeding and eventually racial distinctions. So yeah Jews are a race.

And?

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

If Barend is going to decide (or have decided for him) that Russia is Asia, then he must also decide that a person from St. Petersburg has more in common with his Asian compatriot in Naukan, than the dude from Naukan has in common with a guy in Wales Alaska, even though the first two are 7000 kilometers apart and the second two are 80 kilometers apart, simply because the first two live in the same country and the second two don't.

Russia is Asia?

Russia sits on two continents. They can deal with it, why can't you?

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Barend's definition of Asia will have to change when Turkey is accepted into the EU.

Barend's definition of Asia? MY definition of Asia will never change. If Asia moves it's borders to suit Turkey's desire to be considered European, then all that will change is that Turkey is in the new Europe. My definition of Asian will still be the same, it just won't include a country no longer in it because "my" definition of Asia is just whatever is officially in Asia.

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

Barend includes Japan in his collection of people who can call themselves Asian, but would he include Yap Island or Guam or Iwo Jima? Does his defintion of Asian go as far as the Maldivies but not as far as Mauritius?

I have no Idea? I'm not a geography teacher. I'll look it up.

azerty, on Oct 31 2007, 07:46 AM, said:

This is my test for Barend: Can you get a world map and a red pen and draw borders for Asia, Africa and Europe on it, with confidence that you haven't screwed up East Timor, or Qadib, or New Caledonia, or Astrakhan

Damn... some geographer has gotten well ahead of my wack theories and chucked this bizzaro map together.



It seems to define some sort of set of... what's the word for it...? continents? No, no... Let’s call them 'Barend's wacky weird nonsense groupings' that's a much catchier name.

What's my point? King Tut was no doubt not a Black African. He was also no doubt not the stupid white bread looking guy that the makers of the Museum Bust have painted him. Everybody wants cultural bragging rights, whether they deserve them or not.

They probably didn't paint the face at all and just used the clay or or plasters natural tone. or maybe they just didn't do a good job thinking that people would would be just interested in the shape projected by the catscan. If only they'd known... they could have given him chinese eyes, black skin, a beefeater tunic, a hindu dot, and a rastafarian hat with dreads. then everyone could have been happy.

This post has been edited by barend: 31 October 2007 - 07:46 PM

[Jordan]

So if you're born in the arctic, you're an arcticain?

[barend]

Barend, try reading Azerty's post. Especially the bit about what might happen if Turkey gets into the European Union.

yeah, easy up... one at a time.

You just seem hung up on words for racial groups that happen to be the same as continents. You seem to have allowed that sometimes it happens without your consent (as with your allowance for Asia: "At best it's a name for a collection of racial groups pertaining to single large area," and we know you don't think folks from Khazahkstan are of the same grup as folks from Japan, regardless of the continental line drawn by the Romans).

I think they are of the same continental group, not the same racial group. You still stuggling with that one? Continent is not reflective of Race. Naming a racial group after a continent that houses more than them is misleading.

So basically you have a chip on your shoulder about language, even while you insist that you don't like to use it all that specifically anyhow.

I shouldn't have to write an essay every five minutes. But what does it matter, you've already decided I mean something other than what I'm sying. But I guess I should expect that from someone who is used to words meaning something other than what they mean and then defends it for 10 pages.

But you acknowledge that this is something you're doing, refusing or not bothering to use language as others use it, to dumb down your own langauge use out of some sort of pragmatism. You even suggest that in some cases the forces causing you to do this are homophobic in nature.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I think a girl might not want me if she thinks I'm gay, and that makes me a homophobe.

that's an awsome conclusion. good work.

Well I suppose I should say glad to see you finally came around, but hat bit about not knowing the names of plants because you're worrid gals might think you're gay is a bit sad.

Oh god it continues...

I was suggesting remote possibilites for why I'd go the effort of learning the individual names of sub-species of flowers and that the only purpose would be to impress a girl who was a florist by giving us something to talk about. Going on further to tounge in cheek suggest she might take my obsession with flowers as a sign of incompadibility. (It's called irony)

But "A bit sad".

yeah, I while away the nights fretting that girls think I'm gay becuase I know so much about flowers....

(that one's called sarcasm)

So if you're born in the arctic, you're an arcticain?

I suppose if it's your home and you're part of an established community based there and no just part of an english expedition or something.