Zuo Tung wrote:

150 years ago in America, people believed that African-Americans were
inferior to whites. This was considered a fact. Was this fact racist?

This also has nothing to do with anything you're replying to and is
therefore irrelevant.

In fact, the entire line of your reply is utterly irrelevant. There is
no such thing as race. It's a lie pushed upon us by you
Conserviliberals partisans, even as you try to foist your phony and
petty Conservative-Liberal debates upon the rest of us, and monopolize
the airwaves with it.

Next time get your eyes fixed and check WHO you're talking to. You're
not even in the right ballpark and are TOTALLY off.

Dated 2003 October 7:
Anything that even so much as claims the existence of "races"
(where in fact there is no such thing) is racism.

Dates 1997 January 29, from sci.anthropology.paleo:
Subject: There are no races, only castes.

Toby Cockcroft wrote:

2) What are RACES: what is WHITE and what is BLACK?

What Americans call "race" and often wrongly believe to be attributed
to
"being on different parts of the world family tree" are in reality
CASTES.
For one thing, there is no such thing as a race in the human species.
There
are superficial features of the human body that have geographic
distributions
(e.g. shape of nose, skull, fingerprints, aspects of body chemistry
such as
lactose tolerance, etc.) and the rings comprising the areas delimiting
each
of these features don't even coincide to give anything meaningful.
Second,
there is no such things as a family tree. It's a massively interwoven
web,
calling it a "tree" is a fallacy), so that everything premised on it is
utter
non-sense (such as "your nationality",) Third, this web shows a
*massive* degree
of intermixing practically everywhere in the world, according to
current DNA
research, so whatever geographical features are present are nothing
significant
more than the reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach coloring of a wave
washing over
reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach sand. It's the wave that carries the
genetic
linkage and everyone is concentrating on the sand. Fourth, the
criteria used
(skin color) are so ridiculously fallacious that people can't even
apply that
right. You have light-skinned people calling themselves "black",
dark-skinned
people calling themselves "white", exposing the pernicious lie behind
of this
classification criterion.

A caste is defined as a social class separated from others by
distinctions of
heritary rank, profession or wealth and a social system of grading
society
based on these groupings. This description fits the American notion of
"race" like a glove, therefore that's what we actually have. For the
most
part, you can attribute the case to the historical fact that we had
slavery,
and there is a degree of coincidence between the dividing line between
"black"
and "white" that's captured by the term "descendant of slaves". A
"black"
person typically identifies himself or herself as such when there is a
sizeable degree of ancestry amongst the slaves that inhabited the
United
States before Emancipation. The disadvantages often noted are the
historical
remnant of that time when the lower social standing was embedded in
law.
Over time, more and more of the lower social standing was taken out of
the
legal system, even with Constitutional guarantees provided, because the
Americna ideal is to place every adult male (and since 1920 every adult
female) in equal standing under the law.

What remains is largely (a) self-perpetuated via a pernicious
inferiority
complex that's been wrongly and tragically bought into (and manifests
itself,
for instance, in the form of blacks using the word "*****" to refer to
one
another, notwithstanding Richard Pryor's comments in the issue, or
black-on-black violence) and (b) perpetuated from the outside due to
similar
causes. The Feds, though, have long ago taken themselves out of this
loop
-- but a government cannot force its people to reform themselves or rid
themselves of a caste system, regardless of how many troops are sent
down
to Birmingham or how many Amendments are passed. So, officially, the
caste
system is defined entirely as a matter of self-identification. You
should
have noticed this on the 1990 census, if you took it. They defined
"race"
completely as a matter of how YOU identify yourself.

What's significant is that there is no longer a legally binding
definition of
"race" in the US. The traditional definition of 1/32 ancestry amongst
the
slaves to distinguish black from white was discarded long ago.

The one thing the Feds have yet to do is DISCARD the caste system
entirely!
If the Hindus are enlightened enough to do this to their caste system
even
after 3500 years!! then certainly Americans -- who pride themselves on
the
principle fundamental human equality -- should be able to. What stands
in
the way is the mind set of people who still insist on perpetuating the
notion
of "race" like it has more reality or more biological grounding than a
mere
caste system and then (if they're in the group of lower standing) try
to
extract some retribution for that standing.

There is only one way to eliminate the problem -- to complete DISCARD
the
caste system and any institution premised on it (which includes the
EEOC).
Anything less is perpetuation, and *complicity*.

In particular, making "race" an obligatory item on driver's licence HAS
TO
END! I do not identify myself as being of ANY "race" (because there
are
none, and because I don't accept the American caste system, and even if
I did, I have no discernible 'ethnicity' by appearance and absolutely
no
known ancestry of any kind) and deeply resent this intrusion and
attempt
for force me to conform to this caste system just to be able to get a
license.
Likewise, this item has no business appearing on any employment
application
*anywhere*, certainly not as an obligatory item nor even as an
"optional" item.
This is what it means and is entailed by discarding our caste system.
And the
perpetuation of this system the true *definition* of "racism".

All people who participate in its perpetuation either explicitly, or by
complicity or acceptance are culpable. All such people are racists in
the true and only meaningful sense of the word.

Zuo Tung wrote:

150 years ago in America, people believed that African-Americans were
inferior to whites. This was considered a fact. Was this fact racist?

This also has nothing to do with anything you're replying to and is
therefore irrelevant.

In fact, the entire line of your reply is utterly irrelevant. There is
no such thing as race. It's a lie pushed upon us by you
Conserviliberals partisans, even as you try to foist your phony and
petty Conservative-Liberal debates upon the rest of us, and monopolize
the airwaves with it.

Next time get your eyes fixed and check WHO you're talking to. You're
not even in the right ballpark and are TOTALLY off.

Dated 2003 October 7:
Anything that even so much as claims the existence of "races"
(where in fact there is no such thing) is racism.

Dates 1997 January 29, from sci.anthropology.paleo:
Subject: There are no races, only castes.

Toby Cockcroft wrote:

2) What are RACES: what is WHITE and what is BLACK?

What Americans call "race" and often wrongly believe to be attributed
to
"being on different parts of the world family tree" are in reality
CASTES.
For one thing, there is no such thing as a race in the human species.
There
are superficial features of the human body that have geographic
distributions
(e.g. shape of nose, skull, fingerprints, aspects of body chemistry
such as
lactose tolerance, etc.) and the rings comprising the areas delimiting
each
of these features don't even coincide to give anything meaningful.
Second,
there is no such things as a family tree. It's a massively interwoven
web,
calling it a "tree" is a fallacy), so that everything premised on it is
utter
non-sense (such as "your nationality",) Third, this web shows a
*massive* degree
of intermixing practically everywhere in the world, according to
current DNA
research, so whatever geographical features are present are nothing
significant
more than the reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach coloring of a wave
washing over
reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach sand. It's the wave that carries the
genetic
linkage and everyone is concentrating on the sand. Fourth, the
criteria used
(skin color) are so ridiculously fallacious that people can't even
apply that
right. You have light-skinned people calling themselves "black",
dark-skinned
people calling themselves "white", exposing the pernicious lie behind
of this
classification criterion.

A caste is defined as a social class separated from others by
distinctions of
heritary rank, profession or wealth and a social system of grading
society
based on these groupings. This description fits the American notion of
"race" like a glove, therefore that's what we actually have. For the
most
part, you can attribute the case to the historical fact that we had
slavery,
and there is a degree of coincidence between the dividing line between
"black"
and "white" that's captured by the term "descendant of slaves". A
"black"
person typically identifies himself or herself as such when there is a
sizeable degree of ancestry amongst the slaves that inhabited the
United
States before Emancipation. The disadvantages often noted are the
historical
remnant of that time when the lower social standing was embedded in
law.
Over time, more and more of the lower social standing was taken out of
the
legal system, even with Constitutional guarantees provided, because the
Americna ideal is to place every adult male (and since 1920 every adult
female) in equal standing under the law.

What remains is largely (a) self-perpetuated via a pernicious
inferiority
complex that's been wrongly and tragically bought into (and manifests
itself,
for instance, in the form of blacks using the word "*****" to refer to
one
another, notwithstanding Richard Pryor's comments in the issue, or
black-on-black violence) and (b) perpetuated from the outside due to
similar
causes. The Feds, though, have long ago taken themselves out of this
loop
-- but a government cannot force its people to reform themselves or rid
themselves of a caste system, regardless of how many troops are sent
down
to Birmingham or how many Amendments are passed. So, officially, the
caste
system is defined entirely as a matter of self-identification. You
should
have noticed this on the 1990 census, if you took it. They defined
"race"
completely as a matter of how YOU identify yourself.

What's significant is that there is no longer a legally binding
definition of
"race" in the US. The traditional definition of 1/32 ancestry amongst
the
slaves to distinguish black from white was discarded long ago.

The one thing the Feds have yet to do is DISCARD the caste system
entirely!
If the Hindus are enlightened enough to do this to their caste system
even
after 3500 years!! then certainly Americans -- who pride themselves on
the
principle fundamental human equality -- should be able to. What stands
in
the way is the mind set of people who still insist on perpetuating the
notion
of "race" like it has more reality or more biological grounding than a
mere
caste system and then (if they're in the group of lower standing) try
to
extract some retribution for that standing.

There is only one way to eliminate the problem -- to complete DISCARD
the
caste system and any institution premised on it (which includes the
EEOC).
Anything less is perpetuation, and *complicity*.

In particular, making "race" an obligatory item on driver's licence HAS
TO
END! I do not identify myself as being of ANY "race" (because there
are
none, and because I don't accept the American caste system, and even if
I did, I have no discernible 'ethnicity' by appearance and absolutely
no
known ancestry of any kind) and deeply resent this intrusion and
attempt
for force me to conform to this caste system just to be able to get a
license.
Likewise, this item has no business appearing on any employment
application
*anywhere*, certainly not as an obligatory item nor even as an
"optional" item.
This is what it means and is entailed by discarding our caste system.
And the
perpetuation of this system the true *definition* of "racism".

All people who participate in its perpetuation either explicitly, or by
complicity or acceptance are culpable. All such people are racists in
the true and only meaningful sense of the word.

Zuo Tung wrote:

150 years ago in America, people believed that African-Americans were
inferior to whites. This was considered a fact. Was this fact racist?

This also has nothing to do with anything you're replying to and is
therefore irrelevant.

In fact, the entire line of your reply is utterly irrelevant. There is
no such thing as race. It's a lie pushed upon us by you
Conserviliberals partisans, even as you try to foist your phony and
petty Conservative-Liberal debates upon the rest of us, and monopolize
the airwaves with it.

Next time get your eyes fixed and check WHO you're talking to. You're
not even in the right ballpark and are TOTALLY off.

Dated 2003 October 7:
Anything that even so much as claims the existence of "races"
(where in fact there is no such thing) is racism.

Dates 1997 January 29, from sci.anthropology.paleo:
Subject: There are no races, only castes.

Toby Cockcroft wrote:

2) What are RACES: what is WHITE and what is BLACK?

What Americans call "race" and often wrongly believe to be attributed
to
"being on different parts of the world family tree" are in reality
CASTES.
For one thing, there is no such thing as a race in the human species.
There
are superficial features of the human body that have geographic
distributions
(e.g. shape of nose, skull, fingerprints, aspects of body chemistry
such as
lactose tolerance, etc.) and the rings comprising the areas delimiting
each
of these features don't even coincide to give anything meaningful.
Second,
there is no such things as a family tree. It's a massively interwoven
web,
calling it a "tree" is a fallacy), so that everything premised on it is
utter
non-sense (such as "your nationality",) Third, this web shows a
*massive* degree
of intermixing practically everywhere in the world, according to
current DNA
research, so whatever geographical features are present are nothing
significant
more than the reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach coloring of a wave
washing over
reddish/yellowish/brownish/peach sand. It's the wave that carries the
genetic
linkage and everyone is concentrating on the sand. Fourth, the
criteria used
(skin color) are so ridiculously fallacious that people can't even
apply that
right. You have light-skinned people calling themselves "black",
dark-skinned
people calling themselves "white", exposing the pernicious lie behind
of this
classification criterion.

A caste is defined as a social class separated from others by
distinctions of
heritary rank, profession or wealth and a social system of grading
society
based on these groupings. This description fits the American notion of
"race" like a glove, therefore that's what we actually have. For the
most
part, you can attribute the case to the historical fact that we had
slavery,
and there is a degree of coincidence between the dividing line between
"black"
and "white" that's captured by the term "descendant of slaves". A
"black"
person typically identifies himself or herself as such when there is a
sizeable degree of ancestry amongst the slaves that inhabited the
United
States before Emancipation. The disadvantages often noted are the
historical
remnant of that time when the lower social standing was embedded in
law.
Over time, more and more of the lower social standing was taken out of
the
legal system, even with Constitutional guarantees provided, because the
Americna ideal is to place every adult male (and since 1920 every adult
female) in equal standing under the law.

What remains is largely (a) self-perpetuated via a pernicious
inferiority
complex that's been wrongly and tragically bought into (and manifests
itself,
for instance, in the form of blacks using the word "*****" to refer to
one
another, notwithstanding Richard Pryor's comments in the issue, or
black-on-black violence) and (b) perpetuated from the outside due to
similar
causes. The Feds, though, have long ago taken themselves out of this
loop
-- but a government cannot force its people to reform themselves or rid
themselves of a caste system, regardless of how many troops are sent
down
to Birmingham or how many Amendments are passed. So, officially, the
caste
system is defined entirely as a matter of self-identification. You
should
have noticed this on the 1990 census, if you took it. They defined
"race"
completely as a matter of how YOU identify yourself.

What's significant is that there is no longer a legally binding
definition of
"race" in the US. The traditional definition of 1/32 ancestry amongst
the
slaves to distinguish black from white was discarded long ago.

The one thing the Feds have yet to do is DISCARD the caste system
entirely!
If the Hindus are enlightened enough to do this to their caste system
even
after 3500 years!! then certainly Americans -- who pride themselves on
the
principle fundamental human equality -- should be able to. What stands
in
the way is the mind set of people who still insist on perpetuating the
notion
of "race" like it has more reality or more biological grounding than a
mere
caste system and then (if they're in the group of lower standing) try
to
extract some retribution for that standing.

There is only one way to eliminate the problem -- to complete DISCARD
the
caste system and any institution premised on it (which includes the
EEOC).
Anything less is perpetuation, and *complicity*.

In particular, making "race" an obligatory item on driver's licence HAS
TO
END! I do not identify myself as being of ANY "race" (because there
are
none, and because I don't accept the American caste system, and even if
I did, I have no discernible 'ethnicity' by appearance and absolutely
no
known ancestry of any kind) and deeply resent this intrusion and
attempt
for force me to conform to this caste system just to be able to get a
license.
Likewise, this item has no business appearing on any employment
application
*anywhere*, certainly not as an obligatory item nor even as an
"optional" item.
This is what it means and is entailed by discarding our caste system.
And the
perpetuation of this system the true *definition* of "racism".

All people who participate in its perpetuation either explicitly, or by
complicity or acceptance are culpable. All such people are racists in
the true and only meaningful sense of the word.

Zuo Tung wrote:

It all depends on how you define facts. 150 years ago in America,
people believed that African-Americans were inferior to whites. This
was considered a fact. Was this fact racist? Of course.

It wasn't a fact. It was an assertion, a belief.

Bob Kolker

Zuo Tung wrote:

You can use statistics to prove just about anything.

#1 This has nothing to do with anything you're replying to, therefore
it is irrelevant.

#2 No you can't use statistics to prove anything. That's little more
than Middle America layman nonsense which betrays a deep
misunderstanding of how statistical inference works. And it's nothing
more than a stock reply the desperation of which is betrayed by the
fact that it doesn't even have anything to do with what it's claiming
to be in replly to.

Mind is not limited by language.... we establish our own limits and
then we act according them...

Recent research shows that Asians generally have a higher IQ due to
harsh living environments.

This probably ain't a good thing at all; we
have the best cheaters of the world, everyone is very alert of being
taken advantage, with an dead economy consisted of only predators but
no preys; which in turns causes insanely high working hours, low pays
and the like.

Zuo Tung wrote:

There has been some studies that indicate that Asians who use characters
instead of words can absorb information faster and process ideas quicker.

shevek4@yahoo.com wrote:

Rock Brentwood wrote:

Zuo Tung wrote:

Being a Chinese and get used to English enough, I just don't find it
much a difference. I read both at around the same speed, but over
speaking Chinese may be better because the sentences are shorter.

Recent research shows that Asians generally have a higher IQ due to
harsh living environments. This probably ain't a good thing at all; we
have the best cheaters of the world, everyone is very alert of being
taken advantage, with an dead economy consisted of only predators but
no preys; which in turns causes insanely high working hours, low pays
and the like.