I have no issue with you picking your friend or mates, the issue would be if one discriminated based on race or gender in other areas like sales, employment, ect....
cause discriminating based on race or gender is wrong when is comes to sales, employment, ect.... why do you think it's not wrong?
To any sane person, that hierarchy is white supremacy, your non argument that it is apolitical is utter nonsense.
Except we're not talking about that hierarchy, we're talking about ancestry based systematics. Strawman, ad hominem, cherry picking (what about Blumenbach). Just pathetic.
Another non argument. How is it inaccurate? How is it irrelevant? Pathetic? Ad hominem. You have nothing but your own prejudice, which is extremely apparent. Defenders of historical racism, trying to claim it was a benign abstract activity of philosophers and scientists to merely taxonomically distinguish between peoples. What a sick joke.
See Kant's hierarchy, whites #1 possessing anything you could ever want. Everyone else is inferior. How you think this not racist or apolitical is beyond me.
We all know who is repeating lies, as if the racism of the West had nothing to do with the slave trade and imperialism. It was political from the start, revisionists like you cannot change reality.
Ancestry based? Australian aboriginals were dumped in the bucket as black Africans as part of the “Negroid race”. It was based on looks.
We were discussing ancestry based systematics, not racism. Repeating "racism" over and over isn't an argument. It's just mindless. Your argument is that one guy agreed with something, he was a "racist", therefore the idea is wrong. This is absolutely stupid. What does racism even mean, although it's irrelevant.
By whom? You understand one image based on appearances doesn't mean it was all based on appearances. How stupid. Try reading this. http://www.blumenbach-online.de/fil...0.html#index.xml-group.1_text.4_body.1_div1.4
Ancestry based systematics is just a revisionist relabeling of racism. Racism is a system of belief wherein it is asserted that there are differences based upon race that result in one race as being superior to all others. Kant as well as most westerners in that time period, thought all other races were inferior in just about every way to white Europeans, and that on this basis all kinds of hierarchical arramgements were justified, such as African slavery. Perhaps you can unpack that Kant quote to show how it was 1) not racist (as I have demonstrated) and 2) apolitical. So far you have no argument, you have one book citation from 1980 which reduces the history of race down to about 2-3 guys. Weak, seems more like someone who harbors racist ideas of his own wanting to avoid the label and avoid the implications of his ideas.
LMAO. Biology is racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematics Racist, racist, racist... Carry on chief.
You are confusing your ideological nonsense with biology. Race is folk taxonomy that is super outdated.
Your use of biological terminology doesnt mean what you're saying is biological. You are saying Kant was talking about ancestral systematics, when in reality he was just spouting pseudoscientific nonsense that was racist. I see through your BS and so do others apparently.
