Slavery was insane, the annihilation of the Tazmanian aboriginals was insane, The bubonic plague was insane, Aids is insane, people are insane, Blowing up the melonsian islands with nuclear bombs and then placing the natives to that island back on the island, was insane but guess what? It happens and it all did happen :eek:

Incredible? Yes, Moron? No

Just a plain old realist :p

Is there anyone out there who understands and knows what I am saying? If so, please, step up and say something. Don't say something in my defense but say something because it would be the right thing to do. I mean, the name calling is really not necessary. However, I know that the truth is subject to causing people to go bonkers. :eek:

People are most likely calling you names because you continue to talk and use examples of which it is obvious that even you yourself don't understand. Case in point your choice to define and the bold certain sections of the above definition clearly show that you lack certain critical reading skills. You chose to excerpt the above definition to "prove" that a social contstruct in an invention or artifact..." But what you failed to realize when trying to make said quip is that you are only supporting what just about everyone here has been trying to tell you. But just a word of advice on critical reading. When using above referenced definition of social construct, you must insert the social construction you are intending to speak about. Since 'race' is the social construct being spoken of in this thread, I'll give you an example. Replace 'race' with "social construct" and you get the following:

"'race' is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society."

This explains how the concept of race has and will continue to change and be "flexible" in American society, just as much as it explains how the concept of race varies within and between the U.S., Latin America, Europe, Africa. etc.

Ch2tf ... you have so much more patience than I will ever have. I'm glad you understood what she was talking about by quoting wikipedia.com, because I definitely didn't ...

Can you interpret this part? I have no idea what she is trying to say (really, I don't know why I want to any more, except it's kind of a morbid fascination).

What does that mean?? :confused:

This is incorrect. Colonization, racism, and racial distinctions did not begin because of integration. These constructs can and do exist in relatively racial and ethnic homogenous environments.

Instead of going back and forth you, because this has apparently become your thread, I just urge you to read those sources that we mentioned to you pages ago. Do NOT start with Omi and Winant's racial formation theory because you will get lost in it like you did this thread. Begin with the introductory-level textbooks provided by Joe Feagin and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.


You had to go to Wikipedia for that? Wow. I told you what a social construction is pages ago.

This thread is frustrating to some of us because even some of our students don't take as long to grasp these concepts or at least read up on them themselves, as you have. If you want to discuss, do so after you have the basic understanding and can apply them more broadly.

She is saying that colonialists integrated, hence colonialism. :) And without the integration of different groups of people, there would be no need to create racial and ethnic distinctions or the resulting racism. In her mind, integration is simply any type of adding different races and ethnicities of people together in a given setting. It's a static occurrence instead of a dynamic process of social interaction.

Well, looking at the history of this world, the processes of "othering" and "exploitation" happened long before groups actually integrate, voluntarily or involuntarily. The stripping of land and economic foundation for the enslavement and exploitation of labor of certain groups of people, didn't require integration. It required outsider control of land and/or people and the ability of outsiders to come in, take, and leave. Or stay, and reside among people who look like them with little to no interaction with "others." And the "others" that were interacted with were not social equals. That isn't integration.

Dammit, Soror, you tricked me into explaining. :mad:

@DSTCHAOS


I went to Wikepedia to get the quote that I highlighted.


@Chtf


In response to your reason for why people are calling me names. Only children result to name calling. If you all are so confident about anything that you have said, you would not allow yourself to get so frustrated to the point where you resort to the acts of a child.

I hope you trip and fall in front of alot of people soon.

....I also hope your computer crashes.

I haven't read all 14 pages but Black folks have had more name changes than Sprint (now Embarq!)

I like Black. I rarely refer to myself as an American.

I hope you are including yourself in this since, a couple pages ago you called all of us wanna be professors and fake intellectuals. I'm still trying to figure out why is it that you are STILL seeking conversation from us phonies.

LMAO

I like Black too. People seem unwilling to accept Caribbean American, and I do feel like African-American ignores the fact that I am culturally just as Jamaican as I am AMerican, so I dig black.

That quote was essentially the same thing I said pages ago. Be able to see the general and apply it to the specific, and vice versa.

We got off that topic a long time ago. :) So you didn't miss a thing.

You are right, I did call you guys those names but I don't think those names are hardly as dehumanizing as the names you guys called me. Name calling is name calling but when it gets to dehumanizing an individual, that is another.


I keep responding to you and the others for the same reason why you and the others keep responding to me. :D

interesting