When does pride in your race cross the line?

[Resistense]

[...] Collingwood has a lot of insightful things to say on this topic
[...] The idea of "huights" [...]

What's that? Heights? From before your question.

[...]
The purpose of the group is not to instrumentalize the members towards economic efficiency, but to support the members of the group, purely because they are members of the group. By virtue of being members of the group, they have a value beyond the exclusively economic.

To go to your example of nepotism: this too can be turned on its head. While it can be frustrating to be in a group in which one does not benefit from nepotism, at the same time, institutions such as family farms or family businesses are essentially nepotistic in nature. I don't see anything morally wrong about passing a business down to one's offspring. Further, such businesses tend to be organized in such a fashion as to prioritize values beyond the purely economic, i.e. they often behave in a more moral fashion in their interactions with the wider society than more "meritocratic" bureaucracies such as large corporations (which as we know, are easy prey for psychopathic subversion).

Of course on the other hand you have "family businesses" that really are purely psychopathic (looking at you, Rothschilds). So as with everything, these questions are not black and white: specific conditions are key to determining right and wrong.

I appreciate this post and line of thinking. It comes to my mind that if things become "mechanical", what had started as a success is likely to falter.

[...]

On the other hand, I don't care about local cultures and ethnicities, because the real question is about a human being's spiritual development, or in more down-to-earth terms his or her "maturity" or "ability to think for himself" or "ability to take responsibility", as Joe put it. That's so much more important than anything else!
[...]

[...] Culture is not your friend, and hatred is hatred, no matter which side of the fence it comes from.

Take the gun, leave the canoli. Cultural appropriation by another term could be flattery.
Hatred probably needs to be countered by rationality, or else.


The other part of Inquorate's post:

I think you missed the point I was making. The social and cultural engineers, the ones that make sure no strong masculine role models are on tv, the ones that ensure the confused and belittled have a voice, but the sensible and intelligent don't.. those people, would love to have us doing exactly what you're doing, Joe.

I'm going to guess he's referring to:
@Joe, "...holiday with a nice tan. Then again, maybe that's a sign of 'white guilt' or a 'self-hating white person', ya know, showing off that your skin is less white than it was before. Paleface would probably agree."

I think he's saying that using the terms like that, even though it's in a kvetching kind of joking way, gives it more standing, airing, and in a way can be playing into the plans of the sociologist types who may have mapped it out as a stratgem. However, how to defuse such terms may best be done with ridicule and scorn.

I think a direct line of refutation to such engineered culture is precisely that -- it did not develop organically to support carrying capacity in the group. Simply stating it.
@Inquorate would you concede that there might be a nuance to culture, that there may be valuable things, and that to decry it as you've done twice now is like "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"?


[[Terence McKenna's Disillusioned Perspective on Mass-Consumerist Culture. "We have to create culture, don't watch TV, don't read magazines, don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow.".]] I mistook him for the LSD guy, Leary.

 

[Resistense]

I don't know if pride is the right word.
[...] strife [...]

Oy... Consciousness?

 

[Voyageur]

God, there's so much fireworks in this thread. I can't help but think this type of conversation nowadays is a bit strange when literally we're witnessing the world remould itself on the lines of vax and unvaxxed. I dare say this is a stronger line of demarcation between people than their skin colour.

Funny that, no race, culture, religion nor skin colour need apply. Suddenly, almost overnight, an unvaxxed minority is created that many, well not that many being they are fast becoming a global minority after all, are indeed demarcated for what's not biologically/synthetically injected under the skin. Will the UN, countries and states provide new minority protection? Hmmm - well no, they would not dare override their pathological 'pride,' in this case.

 

[Inquorate]

Ok, to clarify, yes there is good in culture. Like religion, it was a guide for sensible behaviour. But culture is now (and to a lesser degree hroughout history) so easily twisted by the social engineers using global media.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

This pretty much sums it up:

 

[Ant22]

This pretty much sums it up:
(...)

The ending is the best part

 

[thethirdpath]

Okay so its MLK day :) and he has done a lot for ALL. Now a question came in my mind about cultural/racial pride and how in the US it may be taken as disliking other races. A lot in my life I've gotten comments like "you don't act black enough or you talk like a white girl" Now I'm hoping that speaking white (whatever that means) isn't saying that being a black female I need to speak uneducated. The pressure to place the fact that I am black in a portrait and I just don't know where the line is being drawn. I made a comment that I don't like ghetto people in the 11th grade (no race just ghetto) and was cornered in a bathroom and called a racist and told I don't like my race...yeah you're prob making the same face as me when I heard that. See the thing is I should have A kept my mouth closed (what is ghetto anyway) I guess what I meant was I dislike uneducated people or those who act uneducated. Any who in short the remarks above to me seem more racist than anything and pure stupidity to associate ignorance with my race. So when is it pride, and when is it simply bashing another race or your own?

What a great question. I contend very simply that definitions matter and are not merely semantics. That is to say, there is no such thing as Race in the context of skin colour. There are ethnic divisions, but I challenge you to define Black. Define it. Define White.

You cannot. The simple reason is that if someone marries another and they have children, they will be a combination. What are they "called"? Then those children others who are mixed. What are they "called"? Then those children marry others that are mixed. Then what are they "called"?

My answer is quite simple - We are "The People". Thats it. The People. Sure we come from tribes and yes, it seems we have ancestors who were shuttled and transplanted here. But in the current now? We are the People.

So-Called Racial Issues are a control system imposition for the obvious purpose of divide and conquer. Every time someone talks skin colour I simply say "Why is this more important thats what's currently happening at the Utah Data Centre?" The more people question themselves and agonize over this overblown issue, the more they manifest the problem.

Soon, we will all be focusing on the fact that we are The People.

So, to answer the question, if you bash anyone that isn't you, you are bashing The People. If you are proud of the People, then be proud! Earth is a tough place to live! We are all ONE.