Racism, Neo-Nazism, and Catholic Teaching

Status
Not open for further replies.
Women were indeed heavily discriminated against in Western civilization. It’s a fact. That doesn’t mean they weren’t exceptions. That doesn’t they weren’t places women were treated civilly. If that’s your point, that’s fair. I don’t think we should whitewash instances of discrimination to appease others also.
 
Arkansan said:
You’ve still not answered:

Why is it wrong to discourage interracial marriage?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You have to have a positive reason to discourage a marriage. What possible positive reason is there to discourage a marriage between two people based solely on race?

Why would you tell a white woman that she would do better to marry a white man rather than a non-white man? Why would you tell a man whose forebearers came from Africa three generations ago that he shouldn’t marry a woman whose forebearers came from Asia three generations ago? What is your reasoning?
 
Last edited:
My opinion of him has definitely changed. I don’t know his positive purpose anymore.
 
Jump4Joy said:
Women were indeed heavily discriminated against in Western civilization. It’s a fact. That doesn’t mean they weren’t exceptions. That doesn’t they weren’t places women were treated civilly. If that’s your point, that’s fair. I don’t think we should whitewash instances of discrimination to appease others also.
Click to expand...
Any teaching of women in any civilisation is situated in a teaching framework. I assume the course you did, as you described it is very short.

I could put together a short course of men in a civilisation and only include things which suggest a bias against them.

If this ‘biased against men’ course was your main framework it would be easy to believe that there is a bias against men and that it is heavy.
 
Arkansan said:
That is often true in practice, which is one of the reasons why interracial marriage is bad for society.
Click to expand...
I was kind of following you until you wrote this. Please explain why my (me, a white guy) marriage to an immigrant from the Philippines is bad for society. Be specific.
 
Arkansan said:
That is often true in practice, which is one of the reasons why interracial marriage is bad for society.
Click to expand...
What is often true in practice? That people are “marrying up” when they date interracial or that they believe they’re “marrying up” by doing so?

How is that any different from believing you’d be “marrying down” (doing something worth discourging) if you were to enter into a so-called interracial marriage? (I say “so-called” because a great many people are a lot more “mixed race” than they think they are…)
 
Last edited:
There were laws implemented that women couldn’t do certain things. That is a clear biased against men. Society is ran by men. Women had use pen names to write at one point in history. When did that exist for men? If you want to keep insisting, men and women are equally discriminated against, that’s your prerogative even though historical events suggest otherwise? Was there a time all men were prevented from attending school? Was their a time all men were prevented from voting just because they were men? The class is about women’s experiences in Western society and I’m sorry all of it included discrimination they experienced by men. That’s a part of women’s history.
 
hmikell7 said:
The fact that you even ask this question tells me that you either live in a bubble, or you haven’t been paying attention.
Click to expand...
The personal attack is unnecessary, especially because you’re not reading the thread carefully. I’ve made it unequivocally and repeatedly clear that racism, most often occurring against ethnic minorities, is real and existent and prevailing and sinful.

The question is to challenge others to see if they can own up to its existence. I’m disturbingly finding in a number of posts that the answer is either A) evasive or B) no.
 
Last edited:
Jump4Joy said:
There were laws implemented that women couldn’t do certain things. That is a clear biased against men. Society is ran by men. Women had use pen names to write at one point in history. When did that exist for men? If you want to keep insisting, men and women are equally discriminated against, that’s your prerogative even though historical events suggest otherwise? Was there a time all men were prevented from attending school? Was their a time all men were prevented from voting just because they were men? The class is about women’s experiences in Western society and I’m sorry all of it included discrimination they experienced by men. That’s a part of women’s history.
Click to expand...
Joy, you have to respond to what I say.

Did I once say that women and men were discriminated against equally, let alone keeping to insist this?

I think saying society is and was run by men is misleading. We can discuss more if you like.

Yes I agree that there was a time that women used men’s name as authors. It does work the other way but I am not saying it is equal.


Did you cover the above in your course?

I can also ask why was it that when people had to risk their lives to fight in wars why was it men that had to go? Couldn’t this be seen as discrimination? Risking ones very life is much scarier (and more widespread) than using an author name of a different gender. Did your course cover that?

Was there a time when men were prevented from attending school is a biased question. Men organised education because they valued it. Like democracy we should be grateful to the men who pioneered this which gradually spread to more and more people including women rather than seeing this as a discriminating patriarchy.

THIS IS IMPORTANT HERE SO I AM GOING TO CAPITALISE IT - ADVOCATIMG A DISCRIMINATING PATRIARCHY IS DIVISIVE PROPAGANDA. IT IS MISLEADING AND MEANT TO ENOTIONALISE ONE GROUP AGAINST ANOTHER FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

Part of women’s history in western civilisation is the great things pioneered by men like education and voting which were gradually extended to more and more people including women as a whole when it was possible and feasible to do so.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
I find your apparent conflation of racism and neo-Nazi/white supremacist movements disturbing. Was that unintentional?
Click to expand...
You are disturbed that someone could consider the Nazis racist?
To be a white supremacist is to believe whites are better than other races. White. Supremacist…it is in the title. To believe that any one race deserves to be the master race is essentially the definition of racism.
 
Last edited:
It’s a women’s studies course so we’re studied how women contributed to society and what discrimination they faced. If this was a regular history class, then of course what happened to men should be included. There is a lot I didn’t learn about women that I learned specifically in women’s studies course. Did I think my teacher’s biased? Yes. I don’t think she is advocating that all men are evil or that men aren’t discriminated against, if that’s the point you’re trying to make.
 
Last edited:
Jump4Joy said:
It’s a women’s studies course so we’re studied how women contributed to society and what discrimination they faced. If this was a regular history class, then of course what happened to men should be included. There is a lot I didn’t learn about women that I learned specifically in women’s studies course. Did I think my teacher’s biased? Yes. I don’t think she is advocating that all men are evil or that men aren’t discriminated against, if that’s the point you’re trying to make.
Click to expand...
My point is that western civilisation has a great history with regards to women and any unbiased course needs to discuss this. I am also saying that griping about women not voting and not being educated at certain stages of history due to bias against women is flat out purposely misleading. You cannot study the history of women in any context without discussing men because we all lived together and helped one another. Further to blame another group for the studied groups disadvantage without considering the first groups positive affect on the second group is bias.

This more broadly is why people oppose the politically correct way of looking at the world. It is narrow minded, incomplete and purposely divisive.

If you want to understand people who oppose politically correct ways of thought this is key for consideration.
 
Last edited:
How is that purposefully misleading to gripe about how women were underprivileged at one point? I think i’ve learned plenty about men is typical history courses. Of course there is much to know. It is a women’s studies course so it is going to focus solely on women’s history and areas of women’s history “they” felt was not included in typical history courses.
 
Arkansan said:
There are many ways in which interracial marriage is harmful to society. For one thing, it’s often used to “marry up” as Jump4Joy said. This results in it being harder for certain groups (in the US, Asian men and black women) to find spouses, and in the long run it creates societies highly stratified along (de facto) color lines, which persist for centuries or even millennia after the original race mixing took place (e.g. Latin America, India). Moreover, children of interracial unions are much more likely to suffer from identity issues. And of course, the ultimate harm that comes from mass mixing is that it leads eventually to the extinction of the groups involved, since they cease to exist as separate groups.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…a few points:
  1. You can thank me and my wife later when you go into an emergency room and my future doctor son (last year med school) saves your life
  2. “Mass Mixing”…“exist as separate groups”: Is there not one species of human? One species that comes in many different varieties? If you look at, for example, Filipinos, they can trace their heritage to Japan, Spain, China. So, in your opinion, should they stick to marrying other Filipinos, or sometimes marry Japanese, Spanish or Chinese people? Or is your view there are just 3 races and they should just stick to marrying within those?
  3. Most people are not “pure” of any one race. Do you subscribe to the “one drop” rule?
  4. Lastly, I suppose it can also be argued, using similar logic, that people should not mix with people from Arkansas. After all, the state ranks 47th in education, thus mixing with people from Arkansas would lower the average intelligence of most Americans. We wouldn’t want to marry down, right?
 
Jump4Joy said:
How is that purposefully misleading to gripe about how women were underprivileged at one point?
Click to expand...
Because it is often used unfairly to disparage men as a group.

Take voting for example. Once upon a time we were ruled by kings and queens and dukes and duchesses. The peasants produce went to royalty who controlled the wealth (much like socialism).

Brave men decided that if they created the wealth they should have THE say in what happens to it.
They fought against the aristocrat soldiers. Very often they died. Sometimes they prevailed and created city states. The men who prevailed started the democratic revolution in western Europe. It made sense that since they risked (and sometimes lost) their lives for the right to control their own produce that they should have the vote in saying what happens to this produce. Since (some) men were the ones doing the producing of goods it was very just that (some) men were the ones who voted. VERY JUST.

This was one of the first small steps of capitalism where men got to keep their own produce. This caused a revolution where more and more men took part in production which gradually extended the list of who would have the voting rights in what happened to the produce. This is what made a better civilisation and it got to the stage where so many men were taking part that it became sensible to allow all men to vote in some countries. Because capitalism was so successful in creating machinery which took out the physical strength aspect of work it made it feasible for women to enter the workforce en masse and of course this then made it sensible that they too should vote.

It is wrong to see this as discrimination. It is a process we should be proud of, especially including the initial pioneering men who risked their lives for all of us to have a better life.
 
Yes, of course western civilization has brought us many good things, and in large part those things were accomplished by men. There is no shortage of history lessons that will reassure us of that.

But the fact that those great things took so long to include people who weren’t white men is a stain on the history of western civilization. Yes, it was mostly fixed eventually, but focusing on “men got around to giving women the vote” is weird when it was the same men in power who were denying women the vote in the first place. Women organized and protested and endured terrible abuses to make men share the vote. It wasn’t something men were going to do anyway if women just shut up and waited long enough.

“When it was possible and feasible,” you say. But was there any reason it wasn’t possible and feasible to grant the franchise (or private property ownership or whatever else) to everyone as soon as the idea developed to grant it to some people? Was there any real obstacle, or just a belief that those other people who were not white men were lesser and not capable of handling whatever it was?
 
Arkansan said:
40.png
KMC:
  1. Lastly, I suppose it can also be argued, using similar logic, that people should not mix with people from Arkansas. After all, the state ranks 47th in education
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...
You tell me…you seem to have the racial insight. I assume by your moniker you are from there.
 
Arkansan said:
The South ranks last in education because it has a disproportionate (compared to the rest of the country) number of black people.

Not sure why anyone would think that the same patterns that exist across the world wouldn’t apply here.
Click to expand...
So what is the issue behind poor performance of black people? Genetic? Environment?

Also, is it fair to infer that other races in Arkansas might under-perform against same races in other states? For example, should white parents from Massachusetts avoid having their children mix with white children from Arkansas?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top