Will these Nazis ever learn?

[Lord Nikon]

I also argue that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACISM. Since we are ALL members of the HUMAN RACE, we are all anatomically idetical, with differing amounts of evolution induced disparity in physical appearance and minor differing cellular traits depending on where our ancestors lived. We all have the same internal organs, we all bleed red.

'Racism' cannot exist, except as a term.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Oh yes definitely **** of the earth mentality and only one step up from the N word...

er surely you mean n party

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I also argue that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACISM. Since we are ALL members of the HUMAN RACE, we are all anatomically idetical, with differing amounts of evolution induced disparity in physical appearance and minor differing cellular traits depending on where our ancestors lived. We all have the same internal organs, we all bleed red.

'Racism' cannot exist, except as a term.

An idealistic view. The fact is that there is a condition that is defined as Racism. People DO discriminate against others based purely on their skin colour and/or perceived culture.

[Lord Nikon]

That is not racism, it is an incorrectly defined term for the problem. by using the word 'Racism' it implies that people from different geographical areas are in fact from differing races, when that is not the case. By using the word 'Racism' to describe a form of xenophobc reaction (xenophobia, from the latin Xenos, meaning Stranger, and Phobos, meaning fear) it perpetuates the myth that because someone has a different colour of skin they are from a different subset of the genus homo sapien. There is only one race therefore 'Racism' is itself a derogatory term because it is alluding to that not being the case.

[Russ]

Word it however you want, it neither changes or reduces the problem.

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

They're not Nazi's. They don't belong to the National Socialist party, which hasn't been around for 60 years.

Quite right. If anything, the BNP are Neo-Nazis.

Flyboy, would you like me to alter the thread title to make it more historically correct?

[Lord Nikon]

Most 'racial' slurs are based around the wording. my point is that the term 'racist' or 'racism' is as insulting as any of the other epithets. It perpetuates an incorrect myth.

I am fairly sure that whilst people are being treated as second-class citizens and less than others because they are different, that they are not too fussed about the etymology involved.

Anyhoo, the Oxford English Dictionary definition of race is

noun
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race.
3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
4 a group of people or things with a common feature.
5 Biology a distinct population within a species; a subspecies

which seems to differ from your definition.

I think you will find that humans are a species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), rather than a race......

[Richard M]

So, where does this guy live?

[Lord Nikon]

and yet the populace of the Earth is referred to as the Human Race, which is why I say classing subgroups based on ethnicity as 'races' is to imply a separation which does not in fact exist.

It is all within the usage of the word. Gay used to mean happy, then it became a term used to describe homosexuals, then it became an insult.

For the artificial barriers people erect based on evolutionary locations to be demolished, the acceptance of everyone into one genus is necessary, otherwise we end up with more barriers. It is not acceptable to describe one whose country of origin (not necessarily themselves, but ancestrally) is Pakistan as a P**i, (since that is now an insulting term) However it is acceptable to call one whose country of origin is Britain, a 'brit' - both are merely abbreviations of the original country name, yet one found it's meaning routed into that of an insult. I find 'race' comments to be insulting since it implies a biological difference other than that of the attributes bestowed by evolutionary conditions.

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

and yet the populace of the Earth is referred to as the Human Race, which is why I say classing subgroups based on ethnicity as 'races' is to imply a separation which does not in fact exist.

It is all within the usage of the word. Gay used to mean happy, then it became a term used to describe homosexuals, then it became an insult.

For the artificial barriers people erect based on evolutionary locations to be demolished, the acceptance of everyone into one genus is necessary, otherwise we end up with more barriers. It is not acceptable to describe one whose country of origin (not necessarily themselves, but ancestrally) is Pakistan as a P**i, (since that is now an insulting term) However it is acceptable to call one whose country of origin is Britain, a 'brit' - both are merely abbreviations of the original country name, yet one found it's meaning routed into that of an insult. I find 'race' comments to be insulting since it implies a biological difference other than that of the attributes bestowed by evolutionary conditions.

So if they are not racist what are they?

[Spectato]

... claimed that he was banned from driving because of “conspiracy against the indigenous people”

I doubt incidents like this will in any way lessen their appeal among BNP supporters.
It's probably considered good press for them!

[Lord Nikon]

Xenophobic, they fear that which is different to themselves and exhibit that fear in the form of antagonistic or hostile behaviour.

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Xenophobic, they fear that which is different to themselves and exhibit that fear in the form of antagonistic or hostile behaviour.

Can't spell that,it's a mouthful and racist is what everyone else recognises.

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

and yet the populace of the Earth is referred to as the Human Race, which is why I say classing subgroups based on ethnicity as 'races' is to imply a separation which does not in fact exist.

It is all within the usage of the word. Gay used to mean happy, then it became a term used to describe homosexuals, then it became an insult.

For the artificial barriers people erect based on evolutionary locations to be demolished, the acceptance of everyone into one genus is necessary, otherwise we end up with more barriers. It is not acceptable to describe one whose country of origin (not necessarily themselves, but ancestrally) is Pakistan as a P**i, (since that is now an insulting term) However it is acceptable to call one whose country of origin is Britain, a 'brit' - both are merely abbreviations of the original country name, yet one found it's meaning routed into that of an insult. I find 'race' comments to be insulting since it implies a biological difference other than that of the attributes bestowed by evolutionary conditions.

You make a very good argument for promoting a change in terminology. However, you do your argument a disservice by making this your opening statement:

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I also argue that there is NO SUCH THING AS RACISM. Since we are ALL members of the HUMAN RACE, we are all anatomically idetical, with differing amounts of evolution induced disparity in physical appearance and minor differing cellular traits depending on where our ancestors lived. We all have the same internal organs, we all bleed red.

'Racism' cannot exist, except as a term.

You need to remember that while you as the writer are someone who attaches a particular understanding to the words 'race' and 'racism', your readers are (I would argue) almost exclusively going to have a different, shall we say more 'traditional' understanding of those words.

I am a great believer in authorial intent; I have little sympathy for arch-postmodernists who use text for their own literary masturbation. However, I do believe the author has a responsibility to consider what the natural reading of his material will be to his intended audience. And your intended audience - the other members of this forum - are for the most part going to read the phrase 'NO SUCH THING AS RACISM', which you even helpfully SHOUTED, and assume you're about to try to justify hate crimes against specific ethnic groups. Which of course you weren't, but had you tried a different tack you may have found you didn't need to re-state, re-phrase and elaborate upon your argument quite so much in your subsequent posts.