A Conversation About Race.

[Beorn]

<table width="98%" border="0"><tbody><tr><td width="47%">A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE

</td> <td width="53%">
"...An intense, even gripping, hour of film....." (http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/#kaminsky)
Ross Kaminsky, Denver Post Blogs
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="70%" align="center" border="1" bordercolor="#ffffff" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td rowspan="2">http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/_photos/home_1.jpg</td> <td colspan="2">http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/_photos/home_2.jpg</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/_photos/home_3.jpg</td> <td>http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/_photos/home_4.jpg</td> </tr> </tbody></table> View the TRAILERS (http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/trailer_order.asp) for "A Conversation about Race."

TC0AuhogixQ
aeU_5YmS_9E
Wgrysv9Xa_Q
h_NUGl2lZao

Source (http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/)




If anyone knows where this can be watched in its entirety, please contact me.

[Electronic God-Man]

Surprisingly good. Makes you wonder how stupid some people can get.

Anyway, go to btjunkie.org and download the full thing. You need a bittorrent program.

I'm downloading it now. :)

[Jägerstaffel]

The bit about double standards was brilliant.

[Beorn]

b_LXQsXJ9qk
bDNlDyy_xj0
nkbmfAOkN40
sGKLUi1FhZk
kSOxT8JcmTI
tKXYdaBWCLs


I'm not to sure how long this will stay up on YouTube, but if there is any problems please contact me.

[Electronic God-Man]

So you got the whole thing up, eh?

I was just trying to upload it to Youtube myself, but it was taking forever. Google Video wouldn't let me put any videos up for some reason.

Good. Now that we got it, let's hope it stays there.

[Aliandrin]

The film shows exactly what I always say: There is no such thing as Racism by nonwhites or against whites. It's not up to me the way Society defines a word, or whether or not the Dictionary takes a stand and places a fair definition. I am a racist, and racism is Evil, therefore I am Evil.

Now surely I'll be labelled a troll and banned, when all I want is to be around people as Evil as I am. But oh no, you can't do that, you can't call a spade a spade. On the other side, you have PCism stating that you can't say it if whites do better on test scores. And on this side, you have people as evil as me who say you can't call Evil... Evil. That you can't call Racism... Racism.

None of those people can offer a good definition of Racism that's concise, but I can.

Racism is the belief that the white race is superior, in any area, or an action taken that advances the white race, or a member of the white race, prefferentially.

I believe it's a fair and concise definition based on the common usage. This is the only definition I'll accept, and if the Dictionary did, there would be no "disconnects" because that, in fact, is the true definition of the term. If the Dictionary changed the meaning of "dog" to "cat" but we went on as we've been going, the Dictionary would be wrong, not the Language. The task of the Dictionary is to represent the Language as it is used, not to set forth dictates about how it is to be used. When usage and Dictionary definition differ unanimously, the Dictionary is wrong, and the usage correct. As it is in the case of Racism.

[Barreldriver]

Lol at that retard that thought being homosexual/gay means you're of a different race. What a retard, sexual preference = sexual preference, not race.

And in response to Aliandrin:
Quote from you:
"Racism is the belief that the white race is superior, in any area, or an action taken that advances the white race, or a member of the white race, prefferentially.


^Then what do you call it when a black person or other non-white discriminates against whites? Justice? What a load of pure crap. Racism = discrimination on the basis of the issue of race itself as a whole. Racism is not limitted to just one group/race, it is practiced by people of all races and creeds and is natural.

[Beorn]

The film shows exactly what I always say: There is no such thing as Racism by nonwhites or against whites.

Then what is it then? What is the racially motivated act upon a white by a non-white called?


I am a racist, and racism is Evil, therefore I am Evil.

Racism is a naturally pre-set response. Is nature "evil"?



Lol at that retard that thought being homosexual/gay means you're of a different race. What a retard, sexual preference = sexual preference, not race.

Yeah, I had a good laugh at that one too. It seems racism is now a word that has evolved from its original meaning - if one ever existed - and is now any dissent against the accepted societal norm.

[Barreldriver]

Then what is it then? What is the racially motivated act upon a white by a non-white called?



Racism is naturally pre-set response. Is nature "evil"?



couldn't have said it better myself.

[Aliandrin]

Then what do you call it when a black person or other non-white discriminates against whites? Justice?

According to my own mind, no, it is not Justice, but according to Society it is permissible. As to what I call it? It's not specifically discrimination under the law, since discrimination laws are not made to include discrimination against whites. So, though it is discrimination, calling it that would be ambiguous and confusing. So I suppose I call it ethnocentricism, or ethnopreference. But more socially appropriate terms might be Black Pride, Black Power, etcetera. Just as the woman in the video said, it is important to advance your own race. [As long as it isn't white, of course, which everyone knows but nobody is forthright enough to say.]

Let's face it, we are second-class citizens. Wanting to be more than that is Racism, because it would be advancing the white race. I will always want to be equal to blacks, Mexicans, Jews... But that in itself is racist. I also never will be equal.

[Aliandrin]

Racism is a naturally pre-set response. Is nature "evil"?


Yes because Nature includes Evil. Torture, murder, rape, Racism, all these things exist in Nature so I would suppose Nature includes Evil, which I suppose was your actual question: Does Nature include Evil? Yes, it does.

In reponse to your stated question, no, Nature is not Evil, Nature is Neutral because it includes both Good and Evil without real bias toward either. All Human behaviour exists within Nature, so to say Nature does not include Evil is to say Evil does not exist, which in term would make the word trivial and meaningless, since nothing would be defined by it.

[Beorn]

Yes because Nature includes Evil. Torture, murder, rape, Racism, all these things exist in Nature

I don't mean to sound petulant, but when was the last time you saw a herd of Indian Elephants capture a lone African Elephant, torture said Elephant and then rape and murder it?





Nature is not concerned with the trivialities of mankind's perceptions. It merely exists and does what it does.

It does no evil and it does no good. It just does!

[Barreldriver]

According to my own mind, no, it is not Justice, but according to Society it is permissible. As to what I call it? It's not specifically discrimination under the law, since discrimination laws are not made to include discrimination against whites. So, though it is discrimination, calling it that would be ambiguous and confusing. So I suppose I call it ethnocentricism, or ethnopreference. But more socially appropriate terms might be Black Pride, Black Power, etcetera. Just as the woman in the video said, it is important to advance your own race. [As long as it isn't white, of course, which everyone knows but nobody is forthright enough to say.]

Let's face it, we are second-class citizens. Wanting to be more than that is Racism, because it would be advancing the white race. I will always want to be equal to blacks, Mexicans, Jews... But that in itself is racist. I also never will be equal.

So when a Black guy calls me a honky white ass cracker foo out of the blue unprovoked that isn't racist? What an effing double standard. And yes, that has happened, I'd be walking in the city and some negroe would give me shit for no reason, then expect me to give him a cigarette and "fitty cent".

[Barreldriver]

I don't mean to sound petulant, but when was the last time you saw a herd of Indian Elephants capture a lone African Elephant, torture said Elephant and then rape and murder it?





Nature is not concerned with the trivialities of mankind's perceptions. It merely exists and does what it does.

It does no evil and it does no good. It just does!

Way to think "Beyond Good and Evil" lol couldn't resist. Had to say it just had to.

[Aliandrin]

Cats torture their food. Chimpanzees rape and murder; they even have gang warfare, and will form gangs of males and set out to beat lone rival males from other bands to death.

[Aliandrin]

So when a Black guy calls me a honky white ass cracker foo out of the blue unprovoked that isn't racist?

Nope.


What an effing double standard. And yes, that has happened, I'd be walking in the city and some negroe would give me shit for no reason, then expect me to give him a cigarette and "fitty cent".

Yes, it's a double standard. I personally would rather there be no double standards and everything be fair, but that's not the way it is.

[Barreldriver]

Nope.



Yes, it's a double standard. I personally would rather there be no double standards and everything be fair, but that's not the way it is.

I had gotten the impression earlier that you were attempting to justify the double standard, I hope I was mistaken, correct?

[Beorn]

Cats torture their food.

Domesticated cats do, but not wild cats.



Chimpanzees rape and murder; they even have gang warfare, and will form gangs of males and set out to beat lone rival males from other bands to death.

Emphasis upon the word 'rival'.

[Aliandrin]

I had gotten the impression earlier that you were attempting to justify the double standard, I hope I was mistaken, correct?

Society has justified it, therefore objectively it is justified.

I don't happen to agree with it, but that's just my opinion, which has no value in the face of legal and moral Truth: Racism is a crime (don't be fooled, you can and will be punished for it; the job goes first) and it is Evil.

[Barreldriver]

Society has justified it, therefore objectively it is justified.

I don't happen to agree with it, but that's just my opinion, which has no value in the face of legal and moral Truth: Racism is a crime (don't be fooled, you can and will be punished for it; the job goes first) and it is Evil.

Anything worth fighting for has some risk involved. I'm willing to lay it all on the line for the kin.

[Aliandrin]

Anything worth fighting for has some risk involved. I'm willing to lay it all on the line for the kin.

Then you fight on the side of Racism and Evil, as do I. As will I, if I have to.

[Beorn]

Then you fight on the side of Racism and Evil, as do I. As will I, if I have to.


You keep going on about being an evil racist with no clear defined justification.

Racism isn't evil, nor is someone for being a racist.

[Barreldriver]

You keep going on about being an evil racist with no clear defined justification.

Racism isn't evil, nor is someone for being a racist.

Exactly. It's just life.

[Aliandrin]

Walk into any Church and ask that. Obviously the cultural definition of Evil we have includes us. And if you look closely at History, and how acts are considered differently in different times, you will see that the cultural definition of Good and Evil is the only one there has ever been.

[Barreldriver]

Walk into any Church and ask that. Obviously the cultural definition of Evil we have includes us. And if you look closely at History, and how acts are considered differently in different times, you will see that the cultural definition of Good and Evil is the only one there has ever been.

That's only applicable to those who follow the Christian concepts, I do not share a same POV of the world and mankind that Christians do. I live Beyond Good and Evil, and choose to live according to what is benificial to myself and those linked to myself(people of the same race and ethnic origin are thus linked to myself, sort of extended family)

[Aliandrin]

Then if Evil is meaningless to you, why argue that you are not? The only judgment and justification I need is the attitude of Society.

[Beorn]

Walk into any Church and ask that.

Why a church?

[Barreldriver]

Then if Evil is meaningless to you, why argue that you are not? The only judgment and justification I need is the attitude of Society.

I never argued against being evil, I just stated that my behavior is not limited to myself and people of my race. It's typical behavior of all humans. It was never an issue of good or evil, it was an issue of people acting like people.

[Aliandrin]

I never argued against being evil, I just stated that my behavior is not limited to myself and people of my race. It's typical behavior of all humans. It was never an issue of good or evil, it was an issue of people acting like people.

You said Racism is not Evil. I contend that it is.


Why a church?

Clearly Religion, as the architect of the concept, gets to decide. Find a religion that allows you to be a racist and remain nonevil, and join it, and you'll be nonevil. You might have to pray to God ten times a day with your rear end in the air and facing Mecca, though.

[Osweo]

I see what you're saying, Aliandrin, but this 'Evil' you speak of has only been so for about a generation or so, and has never been totally successful in its acceptance anywhere. That's how it differs from other 'societally determined evils'.

Here's an analogy; We think paedophilia is evil in Europe, but some Australian Aborigines seem to think different. In Europe though, only a TINY percentage of people - and they can easily be dismissed as sociopathic - would disagree that it's not evil. With 'racism' (and I use your good definition, as the one that the intellectual elites push), the concept has nowehere near become as internalised and accepted. People are far more grudging and guarded about the matter. More healthy attitudes were prevalent before the War, when people didn't trap themselves with these 'disconnects' as the good man in the film says, and aren't completely dead at all. Racism in your definition will prove a passing fad.

Something that puzzles me, though - in his sketch about that day in school with the word association game - why did the kids fall for it?!? We had a few similar instances, but many of us just laughed at it as nonsense. Why are some more gullible?

[Psychonaut]

Racism is the belief that the white race is superior, in any area, or an action taken that advances the white race, or a member of the white race, prefferentially.

I have but one question for you: if you're going to co-opt the word "racism," to mean what you write above, what equivalent word, if any, would you give to refer to that attitudes that prevail amongst Asians (especially the Japanese)? On average, those I've met born in China and Japan are just as likely, if not more so, to be racist as those from the American South. I suppose ethnocentrism could suffice, but your usage just seems counterintuitive and biased against your own kind.

As to the whole "evil" thing, that word is next to meaningless outside of Middle-Eastern religions.

[Barreldriver]

You said Racism is not Evil. I contend that it is.






No I didn't I said that Whites aren't the only ones that participate in it.

[Manifest Destiny]

Clearly Religion, as the architect of the concept, gets to decide. Find a religion that allows you to be a racist and remain nonevil, and join it, and you'll be nonevil. You might have to pray to God ten times a day with your rear end in the air and facing Mecca, though.

So...you say that racism is evil because Jeebus says so, but you can't figure out why homosexuality is considered wrong by many people (Hint: It's in that book about the Jeebus guy.)?

[Aliandrin]

I see what you're saying, Aliandrin, but this 'Evil' you speak of has only been so for about a generation or so, and has never been totally successful in its acceptance anywhere. That's how it differs from other 'societally determined evils'.

This is no fad. It's not going to pass until there is not one white person left with breath in him.


I have but one question for you: if you're going to co-opt the word "racism," to mean what you write above, what equivalent word, if any, would you give to refer to that attitudes that prevail amongst Asians?

A Neutral word, such as Ethnopreference.


So...you say that racism is evil because Jeebus says so, but you can't figure out why homosexuality is considered wrong by many people (Hint: It's in that book about the Jeebus guy.)?

I accept that objectively Homosexuality is morally Evil, but I want to know why it's actually ethically wrong, bad for society, and bad for the preservation of our culture. What is worse, allowing everyone with that inclination to be gay, or forcing them to behave against their nature and making millions of little gaylets, making their spouses miserable, and potentially leaving them because it's against their nature to be coupled with that person in the first place? My question to that effect is one of logic, not morality. Furthermore, if two women - women, who are in general less likely to commit infidelity - want to create a relationship and children, it seems to me that they have great potential to select only the purest and fittest sperm whereas a straight woman has to be content with her mate's sperm. Add to the fact that if you're not a model, getting a woman is much easier than getting a [nonabusive] man.

[Psychonaut]

A Neutral word, such as Ethnopreference.

That just sounds like PC backpedaling. You ought say what you mean and mean what you say, the PC police be damned.

[Aliandrin]

But it's not Racism. Just check the video. Racism is only done by whites, it cannot be done by any other culture.

[Beorn]

Racism is only done by whites, it cannot be done by any other culture.

Are you saying it can't be judged as racist or it is simply not racist by its very nature?

[Aliandrin]

I'm saying that the same ethnopreferential behaviour is not racist when done by other cultures because of the proper and common usage of the word Racism.

I even go so far as to state that because there are no negative societal implications for nonwhite Ethnopreference, it is not Evil, but Racism is.

[Barreldriver]

I'm saying that the same ethnopreferential behaviour is not racist when done by other cultures because of the proper and common usage of the word Racism.

I'm suspicious of the common usage concept, heck if one day people start using the word potato as a derogatory term and it becomes known through the common usage theory as something that is bad does it no longer mean potato as in the wonderful goodness that is used to make my home fries and hash?

And anything "common" cannot truly be good, multiculturalism, miscegination, and lack of culture is really common these days, so I hold the "common usage" concept in regards with the previous stated, it equals poop.

[Aliandrin]

I'm suspicious of the common usage concept, heck if one day people start using the word potato as a derogatory term and it becomes known through the common usage theory as something that is bad does it no longer mean potato as in the wonderful goodness that is used to make my home fries and hash?

Unfortunately, as far as Language is concerned, common usage is correct usage. And in your example it will eventually get into the dictionary.

Are you such a spud that you don't realize that?

P.S. Couch Potato.

[Jägerstaffel]

Racism is only done by whites, it cannot be done by any other culture.

Actually, no. That's wrong.
End of discussion.


And what's a 'white' anyways? That term doesn't fly around here.

[Aemma]

The bit about double standards was brilliant.

I personally got a great guffaw from that young illegal Latino calling the US a 'mixing bowl'...er....try getting it right, it's melting pot! He may as well have been calling you guys a tossed salad! :eek: :D


But seriously, I thought this documentary brilliant. I liked his ideas about disconnects and I agree wholeheartedly with Jag, the highlighting of double standards was brilliant. :thumbs up

Thanks for posting this BWW! It is well worth the viewing.

Cheers!...Aemma

[Aliandrin]

And what's a 'white' anyways? That term doesn't fly around here.

Then what was I supposed to put for Ethnicity? I am by best estimates, half British, 1/8th Irish and 1/8th German from my maternal grandmother, and another 1/4 German from my maternal grandfather, So 1/8th Irish, 3/8ths German, and 1/2 British.

Please don't tell me to leave. Lenny said I didn't have to admit I was part Irish if I didn't want to. I don't drink, at least.

[Electronic God-Man]

Please don't tell me to leave. Lenny said I didn't have to admit I was part Irish if I didn't want to. I don't drink, at least.

Haha, don't take that Irish Month thread so damn seriously. Most of it was a joke...I am an 1/8th Irish too. Didn't know that until a few years ago though.

[Osweo]

Then what was I supposed to put for Ethnicity? I am by best estimates, half British,

Goddamnit - if you mean 'English', WRITE bluddy English! 'British' is not an ethnic term! :mad::wink

[Aemma]

Then what was I supposed to put for Ethnicity? I am by best estimates, half British, 1/8th Irish and 1/8th German from my maternal grandmother, and another 1/4 German from my maternal grandfather, So 1/8th Irish, 3/8ths German, and 1/2 British.

Please don't tell me to leave. Lenny said I didn't have to admit I was part Irish if I didn't want to. I don't drink, at least.

Hi Aliandrin,

I have no idea why you would have thought that your Irish background would not have been welcomed here. We're not a Germanics-only forum. We embrace people of different European cultures, Celts included.

And yes, as to referring to your ethnicity as 'white', it would be preferable for you to change your ethnicity information to include your rich cultural background for the time being just for a few days at least just until we get to know you a bit better. Then you can change it to whatever (however preferably not 'white'). :)

So embrace that which you are! And tell us about it!

Cheers for now!...Aemma

[Aliandrin]

Goddamnit - if you mean 'English', WRITE bluddy English! 'British' is not an ethnic term! :mad::wink

I read so many British books as a child it seeped into my blood, extra U's and all.

[Aliandrin]

Actually, no. That's wrong.
End of discussion.

Then show me where a black, Asian, etcetera, gets publicly denounced for racism and loses his job over it.

Obviously, the act is a different act when done by a white then when done by a black. Would Obama still be president if he was white, listening to a white Reverend Wright preach all the exact same bad stuff, only against blacks? No, this is because when a white does it, it's a different act: The act of racism. Just as assault is not assault until the perpetrator is at least eighteen years of age, racism is not considered unless the perpetrator is white. As for what's white? Anyone not covered by minority laws, affirmative action, and whatnot. Although this includes non-Aryans like Italians, Iranians... [I think]... Etcetera.

Show me where Hitler says anything positive about the Irish, or Scottish, and I'll be less ashamed of being partly Irish. I think he accepted the English as Aryans, but he didn't even care too much for the Czechs, or the Slavs, and I imagine they're closer to Nordic than Irish people are. In fact Irish people, isolated on that island over there for all that time, are probably the most genetically dissimilar from all the other populations of whites.

[Osweo]

Obviously, the act is a different act when done by a white then when done by a black.
Right, we get where you're coming from - now how do you propose ACCEPTING our enemies Newspeak (you read Orwell's '1984'?) will help us to progress beyond this absurd situation?

Show me where Hitler says anything positive about the Irish, or Scottish, and I'll be less ashamed of being partly Irish.
Who gives a shit what Hitler thought or didn't think about the Irish?!? What's that got to do with anything?!?! He didn't even know anything about them, as far as I'm aware, and why should he?
I'm half Irish, and am not in the slightest ashamed!
You're pretty mixed up, my dear. Are you under the impression that this is a forum for Hitler-worshippers? :confused:

I think he accepted the English as Aryans, but he didn't even care too much for the Czechs, or the Slavs, and I imagine they're closer to Nordic than Irish people are. In fact Irish people, isolated on that island over there for all that time, are probably the most genetically dissimilar from all the other populations of whites.
All the other 'Whites' from the other peripheries are equally as distinct, if not more so. Why are you making strange value judgements based on genetics? The old-fashioned historical perspective is good enough for me.

[Osweo]

I read so many British books as a child it seeped into my blood, extra U's and all.
It seems you misunderstood me. I don't care if you write in American orthography or not.
I was talking about how you said you're "half-British". Are your British ancestors from England, Scotland, or Wales? Chances are England, and therefore you are "Half English", not 'British' which is far too general a term.

[Barreldriver]

Right, we get where you're coming from - now how do you propose ACCEPTING our enemies Newspeak (you read Orwell's '1984'?) will help us to progress beyond this absurd situation?

.

That book freaked me the hell out. Ever since I read it I've been a nut case.

[Barreldriver]

Then show me where a black, Asian, etcetera, gets publicly denounced for racism and loses his job over it.

Obviously, the act is a different act when done by a white then when done by a black. Would Obama still be president if he was white, listening to a white Reverend Wright preach all the exact same bad stuff, only against blacks? No, this is because when a white does it, it's a different act: The act of racism. Just as assault is not assault until the perpetrator is at least eighteen years of age, racism is not considered unless the perpetrator is white. As for what's white? Anyone not covered by minority laws, affirmative action, and whatnot. Although this includes non-Aryans like Italians, Iranians... [I think]... Etcetera.

Show me where Hitler says anything positive about the Irish, or Scottish, and I'll be less ashamed of being partly Irish. I think he accepted the English as Aryans, but he didn't even care too much for the Czechs, or the Slavs, and I imagine they're closer to Nordic than Irish people are. In fact Irish people, isolated on that island over there for all that time, are probably the most genetically dissimilar from all the other populations of whites.

^ check some autosomal plots, the British populations seem to match best with N.W. continental Europe and parts of Scandinavia, with minor overlap into Iberia.

[Aliandrin]

It seems you misunderstood me. I don't care if you write in American orthography or not.
I was talking about how you said you're "half-British". Are your British ancestors from England, Scotland, or Wales? Chances are England, and therefore you are "Half English", not 'British' which is far too general a term.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Scotland. As far as England or Wales, however, I don't know. I never knew my father, all I was ever told was that he was British.

And I didn't expect that I would be asked to leave because I respect Adolf Hitler, no. There's never really been anyone else in power who thought that being white was a good thing.

Tell me what to put for ethnicity, and I'll put it. Keep beating me over the head with my supposed incorrectitude without providing an alternative, and I'll have no choice but to assume this is like every other forum I've ever been to, and only wishes to flame me.

[Osweo]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Scotland. As far as England or Wales, however, I don't know. I never knew my father, all I was ever told was that he was British.
Wales is pretty small compared to England. I don't know - maybe fifteen times less population? Chances are you're English. It's easily checked by looking at the surnames. You could start here:
http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/

And I didn't expect that I would be asked to leave because I respect Adolf Hitler, no. There's never really been anyone else in power who thought that being white was a good thing.
I don't see Hitler quite as the monster that the Establishment demands me to, but I don't blindly accept everything he said either. He was a very specific result of his time and place. Now and then he said something pretty insightful, universal and eternal in its wisdom, but his success rate was far from 100%! Who asked you to leave, anyroad? :confused:

Tell me what to put for ethnicity, and I'll put it. Keep beating me over the head with my supposed incorrectitude without providing an alternative, and I'll have no choice but to assume this is like every other forum I've ever been to, and only wishes to flame me.
Christ, girl, it's not flaming, it's just called 'conversation'. If it's a bit stronger than the sort you're used to, you'd better learn to adapt! I actually would love to help you gain some deeper understanding of the subjects that you seem to so far have a rather superficial awareness of, and we can't do that if we drive you off, can we? Relax, try to see where others are coming from!

[Osweo]

As for your ethnicity, Aliandrin, you could just write 'American' if you like! Or 'Anglo-American' as Rathbeorn does, as it's your predominant heritage. I call myself 'English', despite being about 7/16 Irish or thereabouts, as that's what I feel most comfortable with. I talk like an Englishman, and am accepted by them as one of their own, so that's good enough for me.

[Aliandrin]

http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/Map.aspx?name=PAGE&year=1881&altyear=1998&country=GB&type=name

That's what I got.

American isn't an Ethnicity, unless you're a Native American!

[Barreldriver]

As for your ethnicity, Aliandrin, you could just write 'American' if you like! Or 'Anglo-American' as Rathbeorn does, as it's your predominant heritage. I call myself 'English', despite being about 7/16 Irish or thereabouts, as that's what I feel most comfortable with. I talk like an Englishman, and am accepted by them as one of their own, so that's good enough for me.

Exactly, I just go by what the majority of my heritage is and what my main line is, and it's bu ba ba ba English, thus Anglo-American! lol That's just my logic/two cents. It's always safe to go by your main line(it's your source of inheritance) and the majority of what you are, greatest number always wins.

[Osweo]

http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/Map.aspx?name=PAGE&year=1881&altyear=1998&country=GB&type=name

That's what I got.
The East of England. Simple. I knew a Page from Rutland, in that same general area. You're Anglo-American

American isn't an Ethnicity, unless you're a Native American!
It's not an ethnicity for them. Their ethnicities are Delaware, Comanche, etc. They're as different to each other as we are from Turks and Lapplanders.

And doesn't your Census allow for an ethnic self-identification 'American'? Seems the most straightforward thing to claim if you're rather mixed or unsure of your ancestry, but are descended from European colonists. What else could such a person call themselves? I hear it's a common notion down in Dixie, where most people are a blend of English, Irish and Scotch. Where in the States are you?

[Aliandrin]

Florida. But I still say American is no ethnicity, anymore than "mut" is a breed of dog.

[Beorn]

I talk like an Englishman, and am accepted by them as one of their own

It's only because we can't understand you northern monkeys that we accept you.

[Treffie]

It's only because we can't understand you northern monkeys that we accept you.

Didn't you mean Mankies? :D

[Beorn]

Didn't you mean Mankies? :D

Same species? :confused:

[Electronic God-Man]

Adolf Hitler...There's never really been anyone else in power who thought that being white was a good thing.

Are you serious? Have you any knowledge of the world prior to 1945?


Just put "English, German, Irish" for your ethnicity. It's not perfect, but damn put something.

[Aemma]

Tell me what to put for ethnicity, and I'll put it. Keep beating me over the head with my supposed incorrectitude without providing an alternative, and I'll have no choice but to assume this is like every other forum I've ever been to, and only wishes to flame me.


Ok perhaps I can help a bit, Aliandrin...did you not say that you had some English, Irish and other influences? Just list those...that's all. We don't need percentages or proportions or any such thing. Just the broad strokes of who your folk are and where they might have come from. Nothing more, nothing less.

And try not to be so sensitive about the comments that you are reading perhaps. :) The good people here aren't flaming you but are just trying to point out a few things. Everything's an opportunity for learning about oneself...just think of it that way. :)

Cheers Aliandrin!...Aemma

[Psychonaut]

There's never really been anyone else in power who thought that being white was a good thing.

*does a double take*

Uh...I mean...really? You have heard of imperialism, the African slave trade, the American and British eugenics programs, etc., right? Anti-white politics is a distinctly post-war thing.

[Electronic God-Man]

*does a double take*

Uh...I mean...really? You have heard of imperialism, the African slave trade, the American and British eugenics programs, etc., right? Anti-white politics is a distinctly post-war thing.

And you definitely don't need eugenics programs etc to be a pro-"White" leader either. I mean, I doubt someone like Barbarossa was not pro-German at the very least. The list of "pro-White" leaders in the past would be enormous. Certainly the kings and queens of European countries throughout most of history were not "anti-White".

[Jägerstaffel]

It blows me away that you think that no one is racist but whites, Aliandrin.

Try to think of it outside of the American sphere of thought.
You're taught to believe racism is a white only 'crime' because that's what how it's portrayed. It's supposed to make you feel guilty. It's called white guilt.

But, really think about that. What is so ethnically inbedded in European blood that makes them the only people capable of racism?

Think about how the Koreans and the Japanese got along. Or the Tibetans and Chinese. Or Hutu and Tutsis. Onondaga and the other Iroquois. Comanche and Apache. South Americans and Native South American Indians. Armenians and Turks. Kurds and Arabs. Jews and Arabs.

As to what to call yourself? I don't care what you call yourself - just don't lump me in with 'white' people as I'm not just 'white'. I have an ethnicity not a colour.

And I don't care what Hitler said about anything.

[Lenny]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1084394769627714346

I watched this today from google-video, where it's been posted in full since June. The link is directly above this sentence. :P

It is good for the uninitiated. But was mostly boring to me, personally. I mean, I was just nodding along with everything. No shocks or revelations. Nothing that challenged me or presented a fresh perspective. (I had long since realized the "double standard"...and so much more.).

If I'd seen it about 7 years ago, or so -- when I still would've given answers similar to most of the white airheads on there -- it would have been much more effective. (BTW, watch till the end and you get a "surprise" about one of the white interviewees...:rolleyes:).

It is ultimately a very simple movie that might get some "True Believers" to start doubting. Apparently James Edwards and co. (http://thepoliticalcesspool.org/) are touring the Deep South screening it for free to large audiences. Or so is my understanding.

[Beorn]

Here's his Youtube page if anyone fancies talking to him about his film. Very interesting bloke.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Craigbe

[Tony]

Racism is only done by whites, it cannot be done by any other culture.
Everyone can be racist , the fact is , I think , that too many people are prone to condone racism by non-whites , especially by blacks , because they perceive it as a justification for centuries of submission to whites.
Even if they won't admit (it's sorta social taboo) they see the racism expressed by non-whites as a "right to revenge" their past lower social status , as the slave has the right to fight against his master.
That's why all the Affirmative Action thing or Hate Crime laws are in reality a tool against whites more than a tool pro-minorities.
Of course this way of thinking makes little sense since me as white have nothing to do personally with what say my ancestors did (and since races aren't equal) it's a leftist political ideology , they abandoned the classical struggles of classes to turn into the struggle of races , yesterday they took side (i.e.exploited)with workers , today with non-whites.
Of course we , everyday , in every place , have to attack this political leftist agenda as hypocritical , anti-white and anti-democratic.

[HawkR]

Racism, bah! There is nothing called racism, it's just mocking about other races, and there's no reason to give it another name. Just because you mock someone about their hair, doesn't mean it's hairism. Besides, people who doesn't believe in races amongst humans can't use the word never the less, and they are those who use it the most. Nope, I don't believe in a thing called racism, as I see it as bullshit. Talking about it seems to me as a waste of time, but still, it's an interesting topic to discuss with lefties:)

[007]

Goddamnit - if you mean 'English', WRITE bluddy English! 'British' is not an ethnic term! :mad::wink

Actually, it is, it includes the following; Cornish, Welsh, English, Scottish, Orcadian and Manx :thumb001:

[Beorn]

...and Pakistani, Indian, Jamaican, etc, etc. :)

[007]

And I didn't expect that I would be asked to leave because I respect Adolf Hitler, no. There's never really been anyone else in power who thought that being white was a good thing.

:laugh: Did he?


...and Pakistani, Indian, Jamaican, etc, etc. :)

No

[Beorn]

Captive Teenagers Comment On Craig Bodeker’s “Conversation About Race” (http://www.vdare.com/kerry/090721_conversation_about_race.htm)

By Athena Kerry (http://www.vdare.com/kerry/index.htm)

Which of the following actions would you expect to be labeled as “racist” by a normal person?<o></o>
<!---->
1.<!--[endif]--> A woman notices a man (http://vdare.com/fulford/jane_elliott.htm) walking in her neighborhood. She makes a mental note that his race is different (http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/RacialProfiling.htm) from the people usually seen walking around in this area.<o></o>
<!----> 2.<!--[endif]--> A woman is engaged in conversation with a co-worker, who responds by saying “Yeah, sister, I understand what you mean”.<o></o>
<!----> 3.<!--[endif]--> A man comments to another man at a club, “You’re a good dancer”.
<!--[if !supportLists]--> 4.<!--[endif]--> When asked what he would do as “immigration czar” of America, a young man responds “deport them all!” (http://vdare.com/fulford/070328_fulford_file.htm)<o></o>
Stumped? The answer, according to the interviewees in Craig Bodeker’s documentary [I] A Conversation about Race (http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/index.asp) is[I] every situation except #4. <o></o>
Startling? On its face, yes. But VDARE.COM readers shouldn’t find too much comfort in #4. Here’s some extra information: the woman in situation #1, the co-worker in situation #2 and the compliment giver in situation #3 are whites while the noticed man, the “sister (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-60059064.html)” co-worker, the dancer in the club (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1995/2/95.02.03.x.html) and the potential immigration czar are black. <o></o>

Now it’s not so surprising. Even #4’s immigration czar would be easily identified as a “racist” if he were white. But he’s black—so he can’t be a racist!<o></o>
(Don’t laugh. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder (http://vdare.com/epstein/090223_holder.htm) has just testified (http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/06/26/a-g-holder-no-hate-crime-protection-for-white-christians-or-servicemen/) that only whites can be guilty of hate crimes).<o></o>
Bodeker’s excellent debut documentary is intended to demonstrate the “disconnects” and double standards inherent in the “anti-racists’” belief system. The term “belief system” is used intentionally, since the interviewees say that racism is “all around them, everywhere all the time” and yet are unable to come up with any definition of the word or examples of it in action. <o></o>
Peter Brimelow once defined a racist (http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2006/01/26/as-the-old-saying-goes/) as “someone winning an argument with a liberal (http://vdare.com/epstein/090202_racist.htm)”. Well, as Bodeker discovers, that’s just the beginning:<o></o>


<o> “Racism is when we chop ourselves into categories…when you really look at the quantum level or the basic fabric of the universe there is no separation. I am you, I am the chair, I am the wall, I’m the rug, I’m the rock, I’m the tree, I’m the grass.”<o></o></o>
<o> <o> “It’s as if saying, once I’ve put a boundary (http://vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm), you and I can no longer communicate.”<o></o></o></o>
<o> <o><o> “Racism could be anything, like I could be racist against him [I]per se, he could be gay and I could be straight. That’s still racism.”<o></o></o></o></o>

Strikingly, the most dogmatic “anti-racist” interviewed was also the prettiest person in the film: a young blond haired, blue eyed college girl who berated herself for observing that “black people are so loud” (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013732.html) (it’s true, I used to teach them)and explained to the camera that while black people are better than white people at some things, white people only succeed when they cheat.<o></o>
These are the definitions of racism provided by those who also professed to see it every single day. With these bizarre vagaries as their foundation, it’s no surprise that the anti-racist faithful are quickly befuddled when Bodeker presents them with facts. <o></o>

Befuddled, but not deterred. <o></o>

The point Bodeker makes is not a new one to VDARE.COM readers, but it is a good one, made invaluable by the clear, accessible presentation. Addressing the camera, Bodeker frankly describes his methodology—from advertising for interviewees on Craigslist to stopping random people on a busy street corner in downtown Denver (http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/1455/Blacks-in-Denver-are-All-Over-the-Place.aspx). He cuts back and forth between his own commentary and the interviews, with a seamless flow from one clip to another. He is never sarcastic or vicious, and the interviewees always seem completely at ease. Bodeker himself looks the part of a new breed of male celebrities like John Corbett ( (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0179173/)of Sex in the City (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/sex-and-city.html) hunk-dom) or the country singer Keith Urban (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buRnPSlWQHk): casual, friendly and presentable.

In that sense, this DVD is an excellent jumping-off point for an audience that may not be ready for much of the franker debate about race that VDARE.COM readers are used to. It seems perfectly adaptable to a middle or high-school classroom and could provide an excellent spark for debates in college environments. I can even see sending the film to a few of my own relatives who might need a polite kick-in-the-pants towards reality. <o></o>

With this in mind, I hosted a little showing with the first two teenagers I could find. At first indignant at the prospect of abandoning their summertime allotment of video games (http://www.reason.com/news/show/38372.html) for a whole hour (oh, the humanity!), they were consoled with popcorn. And after the first few minutes, they were riveted. <o></o>
Occasionally, one or the other of them would blurt out in exasperation, or laugh at the ridiculous responses that Bodeker managed to get on film, at which point they would pause the movie to discuss their disgust. <o></o>

Now, these particular kids have heard criticism of the “racism” concept before and are even familiar with some of the more incorrect ideas regarding the race debate in America, hearing about them regularly at home. But even so, they inevitably have absorbed some of the conventional blame-whites propaganda that they get stuffed into their ears at school and on television and everywhere else in the world. <o></o>
And the extent to which this movie laid out in explicit terms how exploitative the “racism” racket (http://vdare.com/malkin/fake_hate_crime.htm) has become was very educational for them. They brought it up days later, clearly having been turning it over in their minds for some time.<o></o>
When I asked the two of them if either could imagine the movie being shown in their school, both answered negatively. The younger of the two, a girl, qualified her answer, saying “Well, maybe some teachers (http://vdare.com/sailer/truth_telling.htm), but I don’t know who”. <o></o>
I’m afraid she’s being naïve. In her private school in the past two years, she has never had a white guest speaker. Instead, she’s had an Indian tribal leader (http://vdare.com/fulford/dick_morris.htm#microcosm) explain how whites killing Indians (http://vdare.com/fulford/071121_fulford_file.htm) was historically comparable to Hitler’s holocaust (he visits every year); a black congressman talk about Martin Luther King (http://vdare.com/sailer/mlk_street.htm); a black storyteller share African folklore (http://vdare.com/sailer/randall_kennedy.htm); and an African dance troupe teach them how to beat African drums (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/02/clinton.jones.reax/). <o></o>

Bodeker is neither the right color nor does he convey the right message.<o></o>
Noting Bodeker’s race, the older of my two guinea pigs, a boy, tried to think of ways that the documentary could be more viewer-friendly for race believers. His suggestion was to replace Bodeker with a black man giving the commentary. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915717/) Or, perhaps Bodeker should disguise his conclusions and only reveal them little by little, waiting for a dramatic end with all of his footage serving as evidence after the fact. <o></o>

I don’t disagree with the boy’s points: yes, the public has come to bridle when faced with a white man discussing race. (http://vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm) Yes, the public is taught to believe black people are allowed to talk about it (http://vdare.com/francis/entrepreneur.htm) and whites aren’t (http://vdare.com/francis/041216_brock.htm). Yes, it is a bit jarring for newbies to hear Bodeker say calmly into the camera that he can’t think of anything more, “artificial, manufactured and manipulated than this whole construct called racism” (http://issuesviews.blogspot.com/2008/09/racial-disconnects-and-double-standards.html) and that he has “grown suspicious of the term itself and the people who use it frequently (http://vdare.com/fulford/southern_poverty_center.htm)”.<o></o>
But that’s kinda the point. <o></o>

This film is a response to Obama’s call (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/world/americas/20iht-react.1.11279989.html) for a “conversation” about race. For Bodeker, it is an achievement. For Obama and other racism-believers (http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/07/26/barack-obama-cant-get-a-taxi/), it is an indictment. <o></o>
Blacks have done enough talking about race. It’s time to let us—and not just brainwashed blondes (http://vdare.com/sailer/blonde.htm)—into the conversation.

[Beorn]

October 28th 2009


In an October 26th article defending Dr. Carol Swain’s support for my documentary film, A Conversation About Race, Mr. Taranto remarked, “…Mr Bodeker makes a compelling case...” And that he, “…sees the film’s value in illuminating the subject of race in America.” The case I made was that the term, racist has no real definition, and that it is used too often today to intimidate whites.

Mr. Taranto then called me a racist.

His evidence of my racism? The exact same anonymously sourced, third party “quotes” that the SPLC used to determine I was a racist, in their vicious attack on Dr. Swain.

Just how does one defend himself against anonymous, third party attacks? It’s not easy to defend surgically selected bits of three dimensional conversations in the two dimensional confines of a newspaper or a quick soundbite. Those “quotes” would indeed be highly inapropriate in a newspaper or on the TV, but they weren’t made on either of those 20th century forums.

They were made on the Internet, on discussion boards and, virtually every one of the terrible “quotes” attributed to me was said either rhetorically, in irony, or sarcasm. (Does anyone seriously call blacks monkeys today?) But why is it racist to call President Obama a monkey, but not President Bush? Might that be another of the disconnects the film illustrates? Real communication suffers if we continue to view all Internet content through 20th century, broadcast TV filters.


For nearly a decade, last-century media companies, including The Wall Street Journal, have been working to turn the Internet into another form of television. Want to watch a video? Here’s a commercial first….. Thankfully, their efforts have been largely unsuccessful. If the dinosaur-media had their way, the Internet, the last remaining arena of free speech on the planet, would become just another passive-viewing tool, used for keeping up with the likes of Keith Obermann and Al Sharpton.


At one point in the film I corrected an African-American man who complained that my forefathers came to America and, “…did their dirty deed.” (No family members of mine have ever owned slaves or killed Indians.) Mr. Taranto says this somehow contradicts another part of the film in which I demonstrate that most people today feel that it’s OK to blame whites for historical wrongdoing, yet simply horrible to credit whites for any positive achievements. Finding contradiction there seems like quite a stretch to me.

Mr. Taranto appeared livid when addressing the film’s segment concerning interracial-rapes. The film uses a Justice Department statistic showing that in 2005 there were over 37,000 black-on-white rapes or sexual assaults in America, versus less than 10 white-on-black rapes or sexual assaults. He gets so wrapped up in the semantics of what does or does not constitute a hate-crime that he cannot see the larger issue here; the rampant rape and assault of white women by black men today. Whether you define rape as a hate-crime or a love-crime becomes less important when you consider the numbers; 37,000 to 10. Eldridge Cleaver told it like it is. Just how can a normal person be expected to be concerned about the rare and ill-defined racism of whites toward blacks, yet at the same time be oblivious to the more common, and clearly defined criminality of blacks toward whites?

It’s discomforting questions like this that the film addresses. We can continue to ignore them, as our legacy-media have done for decades in their increasingly biased treatment of whites, or we can choose to include them in the conversation. My choice is evident.

Mr. Taranto appears to confirm that A Conversation About Race does succeed in pointing out that the term, racism has become an ellusive “shut-up word” for whites. He also seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of my demonstration of the many disconnects we all experience when closely examining the sensitive subject of race. In fact, it appears that his only real problem with the film, is his own personal dislike for me.

I can accept that. I knew when I decided to produce the film, that mocking the racism industry was a sure way to make enemies in the 20th century media.


Craig Bodeker
A Conversation About Race.

Source (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=176843355016&ref=mf)

[Electronic God-Man]

They were made on the Internet, on discussion boards and, virtually every one of the terrible “quotes” attributed to me was said either rhetorically, in irony, or sarcasm. (Does anyone seriously call blacks monkeys today?)

Internet discussion boards FTW.


The film uses a Justice Department statistic showing that in 2005 there were over 37,000 black-on-white rapes or sexual assaults in America, versus less than 10 white-on-black rapes or sexual assaults.

DIRTY FUCKIN' MONKEYS!!! :mad:

[Beorn]

He apparently has brought a new video out full of off cuts and film spillages that didn't make it to the documentary proper.

Here is one that caught my eye.

Go Craig! :thumb001:


EaxMUZcBIQw

[Stefan]

Here is one that caught my eye.

Go Craig! :thumb001:


I have a little trouble with his response when asked if it is because of racial differences that Americans feel this way.

"Some people just don't like Mexicans"

Well that just goes to show, that some Mexican-Americans don't even know what their race is , or rather what the word "race" means. So that gives me doubt that they can recognize racism opposed to nationality differences. :rolleyes:

Anyway it is a difference of nationality and loyalty, not race. Illegal Mexican immigrants are Mexicans, not Americans, and because of that they should go through the process of naturalization(the right way) if they want to become an American. When going through that process, they should also drop any inability to be at least culturally compatible(i.e learn English.) I don't want them to fully assimilate, as they should form their own distinct ethnic group and keep to that group(Mexican-American), but if they are going to live in the country they should do everything the right way and drop any Mexican national identity that they may have(opposed to ethnic identity.) This is all if they truly want to become Americans rather than leech off of the economy set up by those who chose that path.

It isn't a difference of being foreign vs "relatively native" to the United States either. If somebody comes to the United States to become an American and they contribute to the country positively, while accepting the values of the country and respecting them, they will fit in with some group here. If they don't, or even worse, do the exact opposite, of course Americans would be against it.

I don't have any issue with people of non-European descent living in the United States. The United States has been, for a while now, and for some areas always, past the point where it could have stayed a country strictly for people of Northern/Central European descent.

That was just my opinion(supported by generalizations and facts) on the common fallacious idea that "Whites" have a problem with Mexicans because of their race. This is especially the case when most "Whites" also don't know the racial makeup of Mexico, and even more specifically that of the individual Mexicans to form a basis for this racism.

[Borat Paor]

Racialism in any form (even the mildest one) and/or any concern with "race" and population genetics is mental illness, and a grave one, for that matter.

[Electronic God-Man]

Racialism in any form (even the mildest one) and/or any concern with "race" and population genetics is mental illness, and a grave one, for that matter.

Jeez, we DO have a lot of sick people around.

[Borat Paor]

Jeez, we DO have a lot of sick people around.

Yes, some places sometimes have a greater concentration of psychiatric patients than others.

[Beorn]

Yes, some places sometimes have a greater concentration of psychiatric patients than others.

Slovenia being a veritable Mecca.