NationStates

Iuronia wrote:

Orla wrote:It is a part, but it isn't all that matters, you know.

Of course not. But I assumed that you just want people to completely disregard that.

It's a good thing to be proud of your heritage, imo. But one race isn't inherently superior to another.

Iuronia wrote:

Orla wrote:It is a part, but it isn't all that matters, you know.

Of course not. But I assumed that you just want people to completely disregard that.

No, I don't. Interracial marriage does not "disregard" that.

New Aerios wrote:It's not inherently good or bad. That said, a society where everyone looks the same is a pretty weird thing to aspire to.

The collective needs to be given priority over individualism, something cosmetics in one step of that.

As a mestizo, race mixing has done nothing bad to me.

Mixing genes to create the people of the future is interesting.

Terra Sector Union wrote:Mixing genes to create the people of the future is interesting.

Mixing genetics is irrelevant. All that matters is love, we should not mix just because we want to create the people of the future. We should wed and have children because we love someone, whatever their race might be.

The IASM wrote:

New Aerios wrote:It's not inherently good or bad. That said, a society where everyone looks the same is a pretty weird thing to aspire to.

The collective needs to be given priority over individualism, something cosmetics in one step of that.

Why is that?

Orla wrote:

Terra Sector Union wrote:Mixing genes to create the people of the future is interesting.

Mixing genetics is irrelevant. All that matters is love, we should not mix just because we want to create the people of the future. We should wed and have children because we love someone, whatever their race might be.

Eh. To me, I see it as art and creation to build a new appearance for humanity. Love and children wouldn't matter to me.

Saiwania wrote:

Divair2 wrote:They're a tiny minority, they won't survive long. Not my problem if they want to drive themselves to extinction.

What makes you think that racism is on the way out? There is a bright and long future ahead for race.

Sadly Saiwania is proof that racism can survive any amount of condemnation, mockery, and rational thought.

Terra Sector Union wrote:

Orla wrote:Mixing genetics is irrelevant. All that matters is love, we should not mix just because we want to create the people of the future. We should wed and have children because we love someone, whatever their race might be.

Eh. To me, I see it as art and creation to build a new appearance for humanity. Love and children wouldn't matter to me.

Thankfully most humans possess emotions

This sounds pretty horrible.
This way, groups would lose their identity and heritage.
Racism is bad, mkay.
But it's worth it if the other option is losing your identity.

Terra Sector Union wrote:

Orla wrote:Mixing genetics is irrelevant. All that matters is love, we should not mix just because we want to create the people of the future. We should wed and have children because we love someone, whatever their race might be.

Eh. To me, I see it as art and creation to build a new appearance for humanity. Love and children wouldn't matter to me.

That is kind of disturbing.

Papait wrote:This sounds pretty horrible.
This way, groups would lose their identity and heritage.
Racism is bad, mkay.
But it's worth it if the other option is losing your identity.

It would sound horrible, if the article was even remotely true. The one race thing? Yeah, not going to happen.

Threlizdun wrote:

Terra Sector Union wrote:Eh. To me, I see it as art and creation to build a new appearance for humanity. Love and children wouldn't matter to me.

Thankfully most humans possess emotions

Meh. He's just a teenage boy obsessed with his own capacity to disregard moral intuitions he doesn't fully understand. I've known a thousand of them.

Papait wrote:This sounds pretty horrible.
This way, groups would lose their identity and heritage.
Racism is bad, mkay.
But it's worth it if the other option is losing your identity.

Strange that you perceive gaining additional identity as a loss.

Papait wrote:This sounds pretty horrible.
This way, groups would lose their identity and heritage.

It doesn't. Absolutely nothing is lost from reproduction between members of different races because there is almost no biological difference between races. Unless you consider lactose intolerance a fundamental part of your identity and culture, you aren't losing anything.

Racism is bad, mkay.
But it's worth it if the other option is losing your identity.

No, this may sound crazy, but racism for racism's sake is not a good idea.

Unified Yakutsk wrote:

The Fascist American Empire wrote:
Oh yes because giving a bunch of wild tribes who want nothing more than to kill each other the ability to got vote in a cut-throat, corrupted, inefficient system will most certainly end in peace, happiness, and cupcakes falling from the sky.

Libya doesn't even have democracy. NATO pretty much elected the government for them, and the nation remains in a state of civil unrest. Southern cities have risen in rebellion, while Qaddafi loyalists continue to resist government forces. Libya was a mistake.

I meant the Middle East and North Africa in general, but you only proved my point, so that's ok.

Othelos wrote:

Iuronia wrote:Of course not. But I assumed that you just want people to completely disregard that.

It's a good thing to be proud of your heritage, imo. But one race isn't inherently superior to another.

inherently is exactly and perfectly true.

1850 ish, Europe conquered the Rest of the World because we had rifles and swords and trousers and they had sticks and bananas. Europe was temporarily superior. But when foreigners got their own rifles and trousers, they took their land back.

Ungrateful bastards.

Islamic republiq of Julundar wrote:

Othelos wrote:It's a good thing to be proud of your heritage, imo. But one race isn't inherently superior to another.

inherently is exactly and perfectly true.

1850 ish, Europe conquered the Rest of the World because we had rifles and swords and trousers and they had sticks and bananas. Europe was temporarily superior. But when foreigners got their own rifles and trousers, they took their land back.

Ungrateful bastards.

That would be circumstantially superior, not temporarily superior. The second one makes it sound like Europeans suddenly turned into the Hulk or something.

Terra Sector Union wrote:Mixing genes to create the people of the future is interesting.

No eugenics please, ugh. As much as a cosmopolitan as I am, that stuff is too creepy.

Totally Not Leningrad Union wrote:

Independent Canterbury wrote:Race mixing is a vile act which will destroy the Aryan race.

I agree! Let's not allow those evil subhumans pollute our Germanic bloodlines!

Ironically enough, the word "Aryan" describes the first tribes in India. At least, that's what I've read.

The Fascist American Empire wrote:

Totally Not Leningrad Union wrote:I agree! Let's not allow those evil subhumans pollute our Germanic bloodlines!

Ironically enough, the word "Aryan" describes the first tribes in India. At least, that's what I've read.

It's a quite old Indo-European word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

The Fascist American Empire wrote:

Totally Not Leningrad Union wrote:I agree! Let's not allow those evil subhumans pollute our Germanic bloodlines!

Ironically enough, the word "Aryan" describes the first tribes in India. At least, that's what I've read.

Persia. Currently and historically. Persians are Aryans.

The name Iran comes from "Airyanəm Vaējah" the "expanse of the Aryans." Middle Persian shortened this to "Ērān-shahr" and ultimately "Ērān."

Of course, the Aryans did invade India, but there were already people living there when they did.

Sanguinea wrote:

Terra Sector Union wrote:Mixing genes to create the people of the future is interesting.

No eugenics please, ugh. As much as a cosmopolitan as I am, that stuff is too creepy.

This.

Divair2 wrote:

Orla wrote:No, that is a horrible idea. Racists "like him" should be taught and educated. Do not resort to that Apartheid garbage.

You cannot teach those that do not want to be taught. Throw them out the airlock. They're a tiny minority, they won't survive long. Not my problem if they want to drive themselves to extinction.

itt, Divair is Laura Roslin.

Sun Wukong wrote:

Islamic republiq of Julundar wrote:
inherently is exactly and perfectly true.

1850 ish, Europe conquered the Rest of the World because we had rifles and swords and trousers and they had sticks and bananas. Europe was temporarily superior. But when foreigners got their own rifles and trousers, they took their land back.

Ungrateful bastards.

That would be circumstantially superior, not temporarily superior. The second one makes it sound like Europeans suddenly turned into the Hulk or something.

Well, historically, they kind of did. Europe in the Middle Ages was technologically and organizationally far inferior to places like China; hence why 20 000 Mongols were able to easily defeat armies five times their size. Even prior to the 1660's or so, the Ottomans were easily able to stand toe-to-toe with the biggest of European powers like the Holy Roman Empire.

From 1660 or so to 1900 is a pretty short period of time, historically-speaking.