i see there is "Black Freethought" as one of the groups listed on the main page. is there something different about black freethought as opposed to white freethought or just freethought without any race attached? would it be tolerated to post a "white freethought" or "caucasian freethought" group? this is sickening that this is allowed here.

Views: 215

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Hmm. From my perspective on the outside, it seems to me that there is a very long history of evangelicalism and spirituality in the black community. Much of it due to their history here in the U.S., especially in the deep south. Church was a very large part of their lives and community. This is much too large a topic if you wanted to get into all the bigotry and slavery issues. But any cursory examination of history will show it to be the case.

As such, there must be a heavy stigma associated with being an African American atheist in many of those communities. So I can see there being a place for such a group here.
Yeah, I'd say people in some sub-groups have had a specific type of experience (in this instance, maybe lack of social acceptance) and would like to be in contact with others who understand that experience.
You must be a carpenter...
Race doesn't exist, but there are cultures built up around race that are very real.
Sorry, but race DOES exist and is physiologically very damned real ... ask anyone with sickle-cell anemia, most of whom are BLACK.
Race is a social construct not biological. This doesn't mean that the concept of race does not exist; it is very real.
Well, yeah, but I don't think desirefirst is talking about physiology. He's talking about race as a social exclusion factor between groups, ie race as defined by racism. That's how I saw it anyway.
here's a copy and paste for you

"Sickle-cell disease, usually presenting in childhood, occurs more commonly in people (or their descendants) from parts of tropical and sub-tropical regions where malaria is or was common. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene[2], because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[3] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.
The prevalence of the disease in the United States is approximately 1 in 5,000, mostly affecting Americans of Sub-Saharan African descent, according to the National Institutes of Health.[4] In the United States, about 1 in 500 black births have sickle-cell anemia."
Race is a social construct not a biological one. Sickle cell anemia is a disease the affects black people, but one must understand genetics to understand diseases. On a genetic level, sickle cell anemia is a trade off for protection against falciparum malaria, which was more dangerous in certain areas of the globe. For instance, tropical regions were dark skin was a benefit to protect them from the heavy sun.
> Race is a social construct not a biological one
>
If you're going to say this, it's only honest to say what other 'social constructs' there are. Wikipaedia gives a history of the notion [social construct] of social constructs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

So, as you'll see, there are many. Sex, for example, is a 'social construct', based, the argument goes, not on biology, but on society's view of it. [they misuse the grammatical word 'gender', meaning 'sex', in lots of these discussions, but don't let that illiteracy put you off].
"Race has ALWAYS existed."

The idea may have, existed for a few thousand years, but we have no way of knowing how long. BUT, the reality has never existed within the few thousand years of our recorded history.

If you think race is an objective, measurable reality,kindly provide us with a universally accepted definition. You''ll be the first person to manage.
A lot depends on what you mean by 'reality' and 'exist'. These are not simple matters.

Many believe that poetry 'exists' as an objective, measurable 'reality' - but you try to find a universally accepted definition of it!

Arguing about racism on the grounds of whether race exists or not, or whether it is anything 'real', misses the point completely.

It doesn't matter if you discriminate against somebody negatively because they are, or are not, X or Y. What matters is whether that discrimination is proper, or simply based on some sort of prejudice.

Ballet companies, properly discriminate against endomorphs because they simply don't make good ballerinas, aesthetically. This is negative discrimination, based on a characteristic that a person can't change, but is proper because denying it would make a nonsense of ballet. It doesn't matter whether endomorphs are a minority or majority, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether endomorphs have a history of being persecuted, or excluded from ballet, it is still proper to discriminate against them in this case because they are not up to the job.

It would be quite wrong, though, to discriminate against ectomorphs from working at a call centre, say, where their physiology isn't relevant to their ability.

Thus all negative discrimination against people, whether because they are white, tall, black, short, female, muslim, wasps, atheist or jewish, is wrong - unless it can be demonstrated that the particular characteristic is relevant to the situation.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service