I really shouldn't be getting into this, but whatever:
Let's assume that you believe that "all men are born equal" and you know for yourself that you are not a war-mongering, savaging monster and that this are also not typical traits for other people around you. Then, from your believe that "alle men are born equal" it's just far more likely that people in africa would default to a similar, peaceful, state like you and the thing that drives people in african war-torn countries must be outside factors.
(Also, let's be realistic and just admit that it's mostly just racism if you state something negative about a particular group, and not when it's something positive)
First of all, pointing out something that's "negative" is not necessarily racism. "Negative" is also subjective.
For example: Japanese people are short. In the West (and actually most of the world), people would find it a negative statement. If it is negative (that somehow being short is bad), stating this fact is not racism. This is not to mention the fact that it's subjective whether being short is negative or not.
If you look at chad_oliver's post, you'll see that he claims (and provides a source) for the fact that Africans are statistically the most corrupt. This fact is not racism, nor is bringing it up racism, as long as you're just using the facts for what they are: facts.
Secondly, I NEVER made any claims about Africans being more corrupt than other people, or being war mongerers... so every argument about that you've made is moot. If I did make such a statement, please QUOTE me!
Finally, "all men are born equal" is false. The intent of the statement is that all men should be given equal opportunity under the law as if all men are born equal. The statement does not mean that all men are literally created equal. You can easily see this if you're not color blind. Asian people look different from black people, and white people look different as well. And it's not much of a logical leap to conclude that genetic, cultural, and societal differences don't just end at skin color. If you watch Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert often parodies this fallacious political correctness by claiming he is "color blind" and everyone has the same skin color to him. His belief that "all men are born equal" is fallacious, and that's what I was trying to point out by suggesting the opposite might also be true.
If you watch Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert often parodies this fallacious political correctness by claiming he is "color blind" and everyone has the same skin color to him.
You have profoundly misunderstood why Colbert does that bit. He's parodying racists who say they are colorblind in order to ignore white privilege. Racial colorblindness is the modern version of, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend." The bit is commentary on structural racism in society.
If you don't believe that is Colbert's point, consider that Colbert's character is a parody of bombastic conservative talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and O'Rielly. Whenever he does something obviously funny he's parodying conservative stereotypes not well-meaning but superficial liberal hippie types, and racism is a major conservative stereotype.
"is a sociological term referring to the disregard of racial characteristics when selecting which individuals will participate in some activity or receive some service."
And from the first link you sent:
"Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity."
I have not profoundly misunderstood colbert's parodies. Misunderstanding of concepts like equality under the law ARE conservative stereotypes (conservatives often think liberals think everyone should be perfectly equal). Color blindness by wikipedias definition and my definition ARE conservative stereotypes as well. They often misunderstand what "racial equality" means and turn it into "colorblindness" instead, thinking all we need to do is to see everyone as exactly the same. Colbert parodies this because in his monologues and interviews he specifically refers to the Wikipedia definition: he points out that he can't tell skin color, not social-economic status. The viewer quickly sees the absurdity of the false political correctness because it's obvious his subject has a different skin color.
So I think you need to re-evaluate Colbert's parodies because you grossly misunderstand them, and apparently what "colorblindness" means. A good start would be to read the links you posted for me.
The part of the article you are referring to is the original intended usage before it was adopted by racists seeking to cloak their racism in the language of their opponents. This new use that Colbert parodies is one where racists have adopted the form but not the meaning.
At this point your decision to willfully ignore the relevant part of the article in favor of the usage before it had been co-opted by racists suggests intellectual dishonesty rather than pure scientific egalitarianism.
@chrischen:
(I cannot reploy to your latest comment)
All I was trying to do is explain how one might come to the conclusion that africans are not intrinsically more corrupt or warlike than other people (instead of the opposite).
I wasn't offended by your statement or wanted it to label as racism or anything. I'm sorry if you've misunderstood that.
Yes I understand how the OP came to his conclusion. In fact, the reason why I made my comment was to point out that his conclusion was based on fallacious logic.
The problem is that you're trying to have a logical or even scientific discussion with people who are more interested in having a political, politically correct, socially non-offensive discussion.
Science and logic often lead to socially unpleasant realities. You can see the same thing when you talk to religious people about the scientific rationalization for an atheistic worldview. Those discussions don't go well either.
Especially in public forums, even better-than-average ones like HN, political correctness will always hold the emotional and populist trump cards.
Out of nowhere, the throwaway account for opinions TOO FAR out of the HN mainstream enters.
The fact that anyone believes it's possible to have a "scientific" or purely "logical" evaluation on a race of people in some kind of sterile/unbias environment without racism being a significant factor is wrong in today's world. Studies such as this[1] are just racism.
How often does anyone try to connect white people with some negative trait? How many of those studies are done? But we love finding ways to support racism with "studies" masquerading as "science". Media, society, "studies" without all the context of history & corruption: anything to ensure black people, their culture, their home country continues to be looked down upon.
Meh, I don't believe in throwaway accounts for expressing non-mainstream opinions. People can downvote me if my thoughts bother them too much.
environment without racism being a significant factor
You demonstrate my point. I approach every sacred cow as though we should skip the emotionalism and let the facts lead where they will. You view the issue as being inextricable from the politics and emotion. You can't even begin to try to approach the subject without politicking and spinning, such as calling the linked article "racism" when it's really just a study that gives us some possibly interesting data points.
Hence, discussion is fairly pointless - as I was pointing out to the previous poster.
Let's assume that you believe that "all men are born equal" and you know for yourself that you are not a war-mongering, savaging monster and that this are also not typical traits for other people around you. Then, from your believe that "alle men are born equal" it's just far more likely that people in africa would default to a similar, peaceful, state like you and the thing that drives people in african war-torn countries must be outside factors.
(Also, let's be realistic and just admit that it's mostly just racism if you state something negative about a particular group, and not when it's something positive)