CC Random thread

[Strangelove]

Not sure what your point is, Doc.

My point is that we're living in a world gone mad

... what with one half of the world cancelling the other half.

Are you just scared of everything being "cancelled"?

WHOA... now that's interesting.

Cancel EVERYTHING!

Cancelling half of everything clearly creates a mad world.

But what if we were to cancel EVERYTHING?

It would certainly be the saner of the two...

Okay, I'm in.

[Meds]

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-bibli ... ian-racism

"Darwinian Racism"

How long before they cancel the Theory of Evolution?

Not sure what your point is, Doc. Are you just scared of everything being "cancelled"?

I'm trying to show that Darwin himself embraced a notion, not only of racial hierarchies, because he thought that different races had evolved to different levels, but he also saw these races as in competition with each other in the Darwinian struggle for existence. And this was going to be a central idea of Nazi ideology, which drove a lot of Nazi policies, including their pension for expansionist warfare, their persecution of people of other races, not just the Jews, although they were one of the main targets, but also the Slavs, black Africans and such.

o one thing Darwin had to show is that there's lots of variation within and species. And so when Darwin looked at the human species and when he wrote his "Descent of Man" in 1871, he was trying to show that there was lots of variation within the human species and using the racial prejudices of his day, which he embraced himself, he thought that was a way to show this racial, excuse me, show the variation within species. So racism played a very integral part of providing evidence for his theory.

A long history of racists looking for any excuse to be racists, and Darwin gave them some hope.

Well if you take bigotry/racism/discrimination out of the equation, is it unacceptable to question why the inhabitants of Africa, North and South America, Australia, and even India, were so far behind Europe and Asia in terms of development? I mean, the native denizens of Africa, North and South America, and Australia, were essentially nomadic hunter-gatherers. If you go with the land-bridge theory, they had nearly the same amount of time to develop a civilization and progress in the various scientific areas. Why didn't they?

It's not a long history of racists looking to be racist, it's a long history of mankind looking for justification for oppressing others in order to achieve personal gain. Look no further than some of the back and forth flame wars that we've witnessed on this here (and a former) message board. Pride, vanity, and vindictiveness.....and sometimes just a laughable good time of course.

Racism is just one label.

[Topper]

Colonialism as ancient as mankind

[Per]

Pre-political-correctness IRL I used to jokingly say:

"I'm a black woman trapped in a white man's body."

(usually after my singing impression of Tina Turner/Whitney Houston or the like)

At least a half decent pick up line for flirting with lesbians!

[Per]

Well if you take bigotry/racism/discrimination out of the equation, is it unacceptable to question why the inhabitants of Africa, North and South America, Australia, and even India, were so far behind Europe and Asia in terms of development? I mean, the native denizens of Africa, North and South America, and Australia, were essentially nomadic hunter-gatherers. If you go with the land-bridge theory, they had nearly the same amount of time to develop a civilization and progress in the various scientific areas. Why didn't they?

Well, they did. We just conveniently avoid mentioning it.

Tenochtitlan was a far greater city than any city existing in Europe at the time, and they still had well functioning distribution of potable water, food and removal of waste. The Spanish were stunned at how clean the city was, compared to in Europe where people back then just dumped their waste in the streets.

And apart from the Aztecs you also had the Maya and Inca cultures that were very advanced. The Maya culture had already crashed, in part due to climate changes brought on by deforestation and extensive farming, when the Spanish came, but they brought down the Aztecs and Incas and crushed them. Destroying most of their literature and scientific achievements in the process. The postal services in Peru have still not recovered from the Spanish invasion and are far less efficient today than in the days of the Inca empire.

I don't think there was anything as advanced north of Mexico, but most of the natives in North America were wiped out by smallpox, measles and other disease the Europeans brought, many without even meeting a white person, so we may not know of everything that existed there. Almost 90% of the population of North America died within a century of the European arrival, and even if many were massacred by the newcomers, the vast majority died of disease. And at least we know the North American indians had agriculture, which they had developed independently from those in the old world. Tobacco, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, peanuts, squash, cocoa, chili, bell peppers... these are all crops that were developed in the Americas and then later brought to Europe and Asia. Can you imagine Italian cuisine without tomatoes? Indian without chili? British without potatoes? And some of the First Nations had developed metallurgy as well. They didn't have bronze, which is an alloy, but there was at least some knowledge of gold, silver, copper and iron, even if the usage wasn't widespread in North America, they did have the know-how.

Back in the 14th century the king of Mali was supposedly the richest man on earth, and he even had a navy he sent out for exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

And what about Egypt? It's situated in Africa, but I guess technically the ancient Egyptians to a large part were descended from neolithic farmers from the fertile crescent. Still though, the culture developed in Africa, and dna from ancient Egyptians have 10-15% subsaharan African in it, so they were basically a mixed group. Also, they traded with the Nubians and the Kingdom of Kush, a black African civilisation centred in what is now Sudan. At one point, around 700 BC, the Kushites even conquered Egypt and thus the 25th dynasty pharaohs were black Africans. I think this may be what has confused some African Americans into believeing that the Ancient Egyptians were black. They were not. They were a typical Mediterranean olive skinned people, but the rulers of the 25th dynasty, that ruled Egypt for a century or so, were Kushites, and their culture was more or less on par with the Egyptian, even though we do not know as much about it. Some stupid Italian Indiana Jones type of Archeologist blew up and bulldozed almost all Kushite pyramids in the hope of finding gold and other treasure. It is a sad sight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kush


Fortunately there are a handful left though: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/trav ... kush-nubia

And there was also the kingdom of Sheba, or Saaba, which is mentioned in the bible and probably was situated in Ethiopia, which was another powerful African empire back in Ancient times. And you know, of course, that the Ethiopians have their own alphabet, right?



But all the African kingdoms and empires were crushed, in part by expanding Islam, that tended to want to erase any trace of cultures that had gone before, in part by European colonial powers that also wanted to portray the African continent as an untouched wasteland waiting for Europe to seize control over it, and it's population as subhumans worthy of enslaving. Thus both the Arabs and the Europeans have for propaganda reasons downplayed the level of civilisation present in Africa before colonisation.

It's not a long history of racists looking to be racist, it's a long history of mankind looking for justification for oppressing others in order to achieve personal gain. Look no further than some of the back and forth flame wars that we've witnessed on this here (and a former) message board. Pride, vanity, and vindictiveness.....and sometimes just a laughable good time of course.

Racism is just one label.

Amen. There's the rub.

The root cause is not racism but greed. But when the people you want to oppress look different than you do, racism becomes a convenient tool for justification and legislation in order to make the oppression permanent.

Slavery has been present in all major cultures, but normally you enslaved locals, who looked just like you, and they and their offspring had a decent chance to be freed and improve their lot in society. There was even a Roman emperor who started out as a slave.

Once you started enslaving people that looked different, you could make their enslavement permanent, because you could tell that someone was a slave just by looking at them. And then their children also become slaves by default. That's why the black slaves in the Americas were so much worse off than other slaves. And also why their descendants still have not reached the same wealth and status level of others in those countries.

The vikings got their slaves from the Slavic countries (thus the word slave = Slav) and the British Isles. The children of those slaves just blended in with other people in the general population, so you had to go get new slaves all the time. Very impractical. Then the British and French came up with the idea of black slavery - problem solved! And the concept of institutionalised racism was born.

Footnote: dna studies have shown that dark hair was more common in Scandinavia prior to the viking age than it is today. An important part of the viking economy was capturing slaves in raids in Europe and then selling those slaves at the slave markets in the Black Sea region, eg Constantinople. Now, blonde women were a highly prized commodity, and so they would probably focus on them during raids, and then occassionally some of the slaves may have ended up at home in Scandinavia rather than being sold in Constantinople, and so gradually more and more blonde genes ended up here in Scandinavia. It's a possible explanation. Shrug. In the tiny little Icelandic population this is at it's most extreme. Y chromosomes, inherited from father to son, are 90% Norwegian, but mitrochondrial dna, inherited from mother to daughter, is almost two thirds Celtic, from the British Isles. So basically, they took all the good looking ones they could find and brought them home as souvenirs, leaving the homely ones to become the foundation of the British population we see today.

[Cousin Strawberry]

[Topper]

How does gender re assignment surgery for minors differ from genital mutilation?

[Per]

How does gender re assignment surgery for minors differ from genital mutilation?

They use a scalpel instead of a rusty razor. And anaesthesia.

[Meds]

How does gender re assignment surgery for minors differ from genital mutilation?

They use a scalpel instead of a rusty razor. And anaesthesia.

And don’t forget a massive propaganda machine to convince everyone that this is normal.

[Per]

How does gender re assignment surgery for minors differ from genital mutilation?

They use a scalpel instead of a rusty razor. And anaesthesia.

And don’t forget a massive propaganda machine to convince everyone that this is normal.

No, that's the same for genital mutilation. In the countries where they do it, everyone thinks it's normal.
Heck, even in North America many think it is normal to cut off parts of the dick of new born baby boys.
In Sweden most doctors refuse to do it and many want to ban it, yet we keep it legal just so we don't push certain religious minorities back to the rusty razor butchery.

Prevalence of male circumcision globally; red >80%, orange 20-80%, yellow <20%:



As you can see it is mainly done in more or less the same countries that practice female circumcision, but there is also an increased prevalence in some former british colonies, yet not in Britain itself.

Circumcision of both genders seem to have originated in Africa; you find it in Egyptian mummies that are thousands of years old, and then through the Egyptian influence spread to the Middle East. Then in the Victorian era the British upper class started circumcising their children (both gender) to prevent masturbation, but it fairly quickly went out of fashion. Probably because it really didn't work when it came to boys, and was a bit too effective when it came to girls. Somehow the habit, especially regarding boys, survived in some of the colonies and even became more widespread, and practiced even by the lower classes. Other than that, most of the spread beyond Africa and the Middle East has been due to the spread of the Abrahamic religions, albeit Paul made sure to eliminate that particular rule when bringing the Christian flavour of Abrahamic religion to Rome, realising that "and you must cut off part of your dick" was not a great marketing message. Thus circumcision is not generally practiced in Europe or Latin America. He also chose to tone down the rules banning pork and shellfish, which is probably another reason why this branch of Abrahamic religion has proven more successful than the others.

South Korea I cannot explain.

[Cornuck]

On a more serious note... I've taken a (rare) day off and re-discovered the wonder of Day Drinking.

I might have to make add this to the schedule. 78 and sunny and no wind for a change.

[Cousin Strawberry]

On a more serious note... I've taken a (rare) day off and re-discovered the wonder of Day Drinking.

I might have to make add this to the schedule. 78 and sunny and no wind for a change.

Corny walking a mile in Blobby's shoes

[Cornuck]

On a more serious note... I've taken a (rare) day off and re-discovered the wonder of Day Drinking.

I might have to make add this to the schedule. 78 and sunny and no wind for a change.

Corny walking a mile in Blobby's shoes

I am WAY too lazy to pull a couch out to the front lawn. There are no pizza places in town to get some dipping sauce. I haven't bought drugs in decades, so that whole angle is missing.... nope, just relaxing for a change. ymmv

[Cousin Strawberry]

On a more serious note... I've taken a (rare) day off and re-discovered the wonder of Day Drinking.

I might have to make add this to the schedule. 78 and sunny and no wind for a change.

Corny walking a mile in Blobby's shoes

I am WAY too lazy to pull a couch out to the front lawn. There are no pizza places in town to get some dipping sauce. I haven't bought drugs in decades, so that whole angle is missing.... nope, just relaxing for a change. ymmv

Give it time! It starts with day drinking and before you know it you're all hammered up down at the boat launch stirring up the shit

[Topper]

Apparently distributors warehouses are full of immoveable Bud Light.

I propose a solution. The Anheuser Busch mother shop sponsor a

BUD LIGHT BEER FOAM BUKAKE PHOTO CONTEST

- participation at the bar level with each bar submitting their best bud light beer foam bukake photo

- seperate classes for gay vs straight bars

- video class is also a possibility

LET'S SEE THOSE FACES