blondes are smart but discriminated

it is racism actualy, and sometimes discrimination
blond hair isn't a race, neither is black skin
and Martin Luther King had a good reason to act against discrimination
but today, I agree people can prove they are better than those discriminating whether they are blonde, black or any other minority
 
it is racism actualy, and sometimes discrimination
blond hair isn't a race, neither is black skin
and Martin Luther King had a good reason to act against discrimination
but today, I agree people can prove they are better than those discriminating whether they are blonde, black or any other minority


Racism is when people of one race believe people of another race are inferior, and discriminate against people of that other race.

How on earth can this silly stereotype that blonde women (not men) are dumb be a form of racism when it was created by white people about a sub-group of other white people, or Europeans, if you will, long before minorities had any power to create any pejorative stereotypes about white people? Who do you think created it? This existed when most African-Americans lived under Jim Crow laws for goodness' sakes.

You can't twist this into some sort of saga of discrimination against white people.
 
Racism is when people of one race believe people of another race are inferior, and discriminate against people of that other race.

How on earth can this silly stereotype that blonde women (not men) are dumb be a form of racism when it was created by white people about a sub-group of other white people, or Europeans, if you will, long before minorities had any power to create any pejorative stereotypes about white people? Who do you think created it? This existed when most African-Americans lived under Jim Crow laws for goodness' sakes.

You can't twist this into some sort of saga of discrimination against white people.

racism of today is about prejudices based upon apearances
racism of the time of Martin Luther King was about discrimination by laws and rules, it was a kind of apartheid

both are different things indeed, today we shouldn't talk about racism any more, everyone is the same to the law
 
racism of today is about prejudices based upon apearances
racism of the time of Martin Luther King was about discrimination by laws and rules, it was a kind of apartheid

both are different things indeed, today we shouldn't talk about racism any more, everyone is the same to the law

Sorry, but you don't get to create idiosyncratic definitions of common words and concepts. Racism is about race; this stupidity about blonde women being dumb has nothing to do with race. End of story.

If someone thinks blacks are inferior and doesn't give a black person a job because of it, even though that's not the stated reason, that's racism.

If some white executive doesn't give a job to a blonde woman because he thinks she's probably dumber than a dark haired applicant, that's a stupid prejudice or stereotype, but it's not racism.

I agree with a lot of your posts, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.
 
Sorry, but you don't get to create idiosyncratic definitions of common words and concepts. Racism is about race; this stupidity about blonde women being dumb has nothing to do with race. End of story.

If someone thinks blacks are inferior and doesn't give a black person a job because of it, even though that's not the stated reason, that's racism.

If some white executive doesn't give a job to a blonde woman because he thinks she's probably dumber than a dark haired applicant, that's a stupid prejudice or stereotype, but it's not racism.

I agree with a lot of your posts, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?

Racism is about race

About ethnicity or religion too. And there are some ethnic groups which are largely blonde-haired.

If I said "people with black peppercorn hair are stupid", it would be considered Anti-Afro racism:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/racial-differences-in-scalp-hair/
 
the racism that existed in the days of Martin Luther King does not exist any more

they should use 2 different words for what happened then and what is considered racism today
that would put todays discussions a bit into perspective
 
Being blonde or not I think has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is.
There are a lot of ethnicities that have natural blondes,starting from North people like Finns,Swedes,Norwegians,Russians and going till Middle East.
As for this test ,on which ethnicities or ethnicity was done ?
Since actually those more blonde people could have come from a different area where the IQ was higher while those with black hair from a different area,where IQ was lower.
 
The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?

What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.



About ethnicity or religion too. And there are some ethnic groups which are largely blonde-haired.

Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.

If I said "people with black peppercorn hair are stupid", it would be considered Anti-Afro racism:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/racial-differences-in-scalp-hair/

That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.
 
What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.





Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.



That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.


Logically argued and clearly expressed. Bravo! I can't think of anything to add, which is rare for me, as you know. :)
 
The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?

...

It doesn't. Race, as defined in various official forms (including the US's standard categories) is a social construct that has some utility in understanding trends involving large groups of people but that is much less useful when you start digging into smaller populations or individuals. The US's categories, for example, don't work well for Australian Aborigines. They might be able to classify themselves under "Asian and Pacific Islander", but that means that they are being grouped together with Chinese people which which they share very little ancestry or culture. There is also a political battle going on now in the USA over whether "Middle Eastern or Arab" should be added to the list of choices because many of them do not consider themselves to be "white", and because many people in the USA do not consider them white either despite the protests by our government that they are, in fact, "white people".
 
It doesn't. Race, as defined in various official forms (including the US's standard categories) is a social construct that has some utility in understanding trends involving large groups of people but that is much less useful when you start digging into smaller populations or individuals.

Race is not just a social construct. That's baloney. Our racial categories in America don't perfectly explain human genetic diversity, but they do perfectly explain colonial American diversity. There were Indians and whites and Negros, and that was it. Our racial terms were not meant to be used on Iraqis or Papuans or whoever else lives in the world. All they claim, is that Africans and Amerindians and Europeans are differnt.
 
What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.





Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.



That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.

I don't find any logic here.
If I would follow your logic, Hitler was not a racist when he persecuted the Jews.

All definitions about race are chosen arbitrarily and thus without any logic, or at best a logic that is confined to a certain area and time period.

Racism today - in western countries where everyone is equal to the law - is judging people upon their appearances.
Also discriminating on the basis of religion is considered racism, though it has nothing to do with race.
 

This thread has been viewed 16802 times.

Back
Top