JohnM81 wrote:Broomstick wrote:
Yeah, actually two tribes that consider each other separate "races" who are biased against each other are racist, even if WE would define them as being in the same group.
The reality is we are all one species - any other division, even when based on a biological trait, is to one degree or another somewhat arbitrary as in reality there are not sharp divisions between populations but gradations. "Race", although a real concept, is mutable.
So in a nut shell your point is what? The term race is subjective and its meaning is in the definition of the user?
Yes.
Some definitions of "race" are based on physical characteristics, but which ones are chosen are frequently arbitrary. In other instances, such as "the Italian race" or the "Spanish race" the division is even more subjective and arbitrary. However, one thing that seems to escape you is that it is not YOU who get to define whether or not two groups are "races" or not, nor is it your book of myths - it is the two groups in question who decide that. Not you, who stand outside their concerns.
Well almost every Jew will admit they are semitic.
Except, of course, they'll also admit that there are Asiatic Jews, and African Jews who look, respectively, Asian and African.
Now go look up what other groups belong to the semitic race. And as a person who is of Levite heritage I can tell you everyone in my family acknowledges they and Arabs (not all Arabs though) are the same semitic race.
And EVERYBODY is a member of the
human race yet we still manage to subdivide into groups that hate each other.
This is their subjective definition. Yours and Mikes “subjective” definition differ. But if we are talking about the semitic race then what matters is what they say.
Right - it matters what Jews and Arabs say, not what I say (although by your definitions I actually DO have a say in this, as I have considerable Semitic ancestry), not what Chinese-Canadian Mike Wong says, not what a hypocritical Christian claiming some semitic ancestry says,
You are an outsider. You don't get a say in this. The Arabs and Jews (of which you are neither, apparently) get a say.
Broomstick wrote:
Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, in that one person is benefiting from the labor of another who has no ability to terminate or change the conditions of the contract. It's not as bad as North American chattel slavery was, but it still exists on the spectrum. In actual fact, the first Africans brought to North America were "indentured servants" legally, and that later evolved into race-based chattel slavery.
A "paid servant" is not an indentured servant. They are an employee.
There is a significant difference between what the new testament talks about a bond servant and being a slave as our society uses the term. Being a servant/bondsman/bondservant is not the same as a slave. The former is a person what willingly agrees to a contract to work off a debt they owe a person.
Historically, the "willingly" part was under considerable question. Also, my husband's first ancestor to come to North America was legally an "indentured servant" but he never
willingly agreed to anything because it was imposed by the court. It was not for debt, it was for supporting the wrong person in a rebellion. There was no end to the contract, it was for life, and his contract (essentially, the person himself) was sold to the highest bidder on arrival in the Colonies. In other words, he was a white slave instead of a black slave.
That's the problem with your statement - it treats terms like "bondsman" and "indentured servant" and "slave" as if they were discrete and immutable categories when in reality there weren't sharp divisions between the various states either legally or socially.
But hey, why let the FACTS get in the way of your mythology, right?
Broomstick wrote:
Right. He's king, she's chattel. Doesn't matter if she's the most capable of the two, or he's batshit insane, or gone soft in the head - he's the man, he's in charge because he has a penis and testicles and she doesn't. Institutionalized inequality.
Being mandated to observe the fact that a man is the head of the house hold doesn’t relegate her to be chattel, subhuman, or worth less than the man.
Yes, it does. He is put in the position of authority because he has penis and testicles and she is subservient because she has vagina and uterus. Of course, admitting that puts you in the scary position of maybe having to respect and woman as your equal at some point.
If asked, when I was a teenager should I have obeyed my parents most people would say that is something I should do. And yet that didn’t make me worth less than my parents.
You aren't a teenager forever - you ARE a man or woman forever. You grow out of being a teenager, but in marriage a woman must, according to your myths, be subservient
forever - in other words, permanently a child and never an adult human being. That does demean her value.
And yet my parents valued me enough that I know they would have given their lives for mine.
Again with the death thing - is there no other standard you use that one person
dying for another? Is there no other way to demonstrate love? What a horrid, dark, depressing world you live in!
When someone demands that you back up your obviously nonsensical claims, you have to provide something better than "it was an actual event". That's like a murder suspect saying "I have a real alibi. Honest!"
