DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Lynch

So this is the convo he was looking for .... huh ... i thought this was about “oppression” ... not who can be the BIGGEST LIGHTING ROD in the “hes my hero ... he an a-hole” debate ..

Guess i was wrong again ...

This entire saga has produced a few things ...

1. MORE DIVISION in the country ... cause theres not enough of that all ready ...

2. Declining nfl ratings

GOOD JOB FELLAS ...

I forgot all about that one. Good catch.

...I think he's just ramping up for his run on the 2018 GQ Citizen of the year award.

That's not where the word Hispanic comes from.

Hispania was the old name for the Iberian peninsula, where modern day Spain and Portugal reside. Nowadays, Hispanic broadly refers to the people and countries with a historical link to Spain-- most often via language.

Race, ethnicity, and national origin are all different things. Some of it can become complicated, and as I'm sure you know, it is made worse as the social justice types like to scream 'racist!' at every possible opportunity.

Hispanic, as mentioned above, largely means having a cultural link to Spain. One would expect such people to speak Spanish as their first language. Things get complicated in the United States because the term 'Hispanic' is often used as an imprecise racial term to describe the ancestry (combination of Amerindian, European, and African) often found in largely varying degrees in Latin American countries, but not Spain itself.

In this context, even Brazilians can sometimes be considered Hispanic, which makes no sense from the cultural perspective (Brazil having a much stronger link to Portugal) but with how us Americans often use the term, it does make some sense. I still think it would be considered inaccurate by most but it's not exactly something that comes up often, so I really don't know for sure.

Hopefully that clears a few things up. Maybe CHS can contribute further. He is pretty well-read into this subject.

If class structure happens across the world, and the darkest colored people of every culture, including those in Africa, are the most marginalized in every country, then class structure cannot be at the root of the racial issue. One would imagine that in one of the various cultures in our earth, the darkest colored people would be on the upper echelon of the social hierarchy. After all, the class system is just a result of the economics and biases of a nation. So, by seeing darker colored people constantly be at the bottom of this system, then something else must be going on. What that is, I'm not sure. A mix of colonial influence, normal xenophobia or maybe something else. It's certainly a big topic.

It was more in response to your post about black-Mexicans saying that Mexico doesn't represent them. There is a lot of racism in South America that's never really brought up.

Your stuff on sports was interesting. And while an athlete wouldn't be able to completely change the compositions of short and long muscle fibers, by training at a young age, kids are able to change their composition a fair amount more than adults. Not saying you'll go from 20-80 short fibers to long, but you could probably work that out to be around the higher 60's, if one were to train as a kid like that. So it wouldn't entirely be out of the question for Lynch to become a good soccer player. With his mindset alone, he'd probably be a pretty good midfielder. A mix between Nigel De Jong or Kevin Prince-Botang, someone who can win the ball around mid field, go up for headers, and maybe score the occasional goal.

Nope, you got it spot on. And while hispanic can refer to Brazil, it's more accurate to say Latin@ or latin origin. But that's how it breaks down.


For Arch: Saying you're Puerto Rican is like saying you're an Ohioan. Calling yourself an American is implied because Puerto Rico is part of America.

j/c:

The Mexican government is corrupt. There is true oppression in Mexico. Untold numbers of people are trying to enter the United States illegally because of how bad things are in Mexico.

Yet, the POS Lynch, sits for our anthem and stands for the Mexican anthem.

I think actions like that spark discussion, but I don't think it is constructive discussion. In fact, I think that such irresponsible and loathsome acts only further to enhance the divide.

We had a "darker colored" president. He wasn't on the bottom of the system. He was part of a "higher class," though.

The "darker colored" people at the bottom of "this system" primarily started out in poorer regions. Does the current system exploit the poor? Absolutely. Getting out of being poor isn't easy no matter what color you are. In Egypt, darker colored people were on the top, it was one of the few developed countries in Africa. Most of Africa was tribal/nomadic which doesn't allow for a whole lot of accumulation of wealth.

Civilization (though there really isn't much civilized about it) advanced the fastest in Western Europe and Asia. Civilization and specialization allowed for greater productivity and creation of wealth. Wealth became equated with power. The people that grabbed the power, primarily "lighter skinned" people from Europe and Asia, don't want to give it up. It's not so much about skin color as it is about not wanting to give up control. I was trying to track down an example of white slaves in "darker colored" nations with something along the lines of Jews in Egypt in mind and came across this article:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hidden-history-white-slavery-us-norman-mccreary

We had one black President. I wanted to use the label "darker colored" to also include the indigenous populations of some Latin American countries, most notably Guatemala and Brazil, as well as the indigenous people of Australia. I also wanted it to apply to even colorism within African countries. It wasn't trying to skirt around "black".

Obama was our first black President. He was also the first black person to receive any electoral votes in the history of our nation. Now there are three black people who have received votes (I think. I know Colin Powell is one, but I think someone else got one last year). That is sign of progress, which black people have made in strides since the 60's, but it's also a sign of just the start of progress.

As for ancient Egypt, colorism is rampant in their artwork. You constantly see domestic work done by the darker colored people.


Yes. I think colonialism has a lot to do with it. You cannot escape Abrahamic cultures. It may even be the reason. But with modern day cases in Guatemala, Sudan and Liberia.

Yes. If you go back further, you would be shocked at what the Muslims did to the Spanish, during the conquest of Hispania.

As far as the Egyptian colorism, were the workers naturally of darker complexion? Or was it a result of their being the one's out in the sun laboring? Lighter skin may have been more a symbol of power and not having to go out and work in the sun. In some "Anglo"-cultures people powdered their faces and tans were a sign of the lower class. Not really because the melanin count was different, but because it meant you were of the elite class and didn't do menial labor.

I wonder if that could subconsciously tie in? Darker skin is tied to labor in the subconscious? I.e, "I" get darker if "I" work out in the sun. => They are darker, therefor they work out in the sun. => They work out in the sun, therefor they are "common laborers."

Would you guys please talk about the color of skin on your own thread instead of hijacking this thread?

I have a bad feeling that some of you are doing this purposely because you know there is no excuse for what Lynch did and are trying to deflect the criticism and make it about how certain people are always victims.

I have no problem w/your opinions. But, how about you start your own damn thread about "color" and leave this one to Lynch's actions?

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

I'd assume they were of mixed races(I really have no idea, how to even correctly label such concepts when dating them back to BC) just based off their geographic locations and the possible time scale we're talking about. People had to go to Egypt at one point to get to another continent. I'd assume it's historically prominent due to this and the amount of people who stayed in the region instead of going abroad. You're absolutely right though that the differences in skin color could be just based off being in the sun. It could also be an artistic emphasis based off makeup used by the rich class. Although, my knowledge of ancient cosmetology is extremely lacking and not an education that I wish to receive.

I really do think you might be onto something with an inherent bias built off of something small that evolves over hundreds of thousands of years.

Good posts

My suggestion is to treat them the same way you and I treated each other:

1. Make a connection over something totally st00pit... but totally shared ("Little Book Of Carty")

2. Figure out how to talk with each other as we go along.


They don't really have to be anything but potential friends/enemies when you first meet them. How you end up defining each other is totally dependent upon how well you play together.

If I can add one more idea to your post, along with the entire discussion of this thread...

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.
-Atticus Finch

Link

I'm not dictating what anyone can/can't say. They all have the right to say their piece, and I have the right to criticize.
Also, I didn't wade into the Charlottesville because I didn't really have anything to add. Racism and white supremacy is wrong. That doesn't require debate, imo.

For the two points above, I think you're making a general "you people" argument. I don't blame you for doing that, but you should know that a good chunk of your response to me doesn't really stick because it's not true of my beliefs (I didn't/don't defend white supremacists, etc.).

I'm just struggling with how Lynch can separate Mexican police oppression and US police oppression. It's dividing up an issue in a way that I don't understand. Why is Mexican police oppression not worth a protest but US is? Because he's not Mexican and doesn't live in Mexico (therefore, hasn't felt Mexican police oppression). I haven't felt police oppression (US or Mexican), so by that token, I should ignore it? Like I said, I don't understand.

I'll use your example of breast cancer. It's not complaining about heart disease at a breast cancer thing. It's a person only raising awareness for lumps in the right breast, but not the left.

Legally it is but according to the Puerto Rican that just moved here and sits beside me.. there are 3 factions in PR.

Those who want statehood ~60%
Those who want status quo ~35%
Those who want independence ~5%

and if you remove the status quo option, he believes it would go something like..

Those who want statehood ~85%
Those who want independence ~15%

15% of the people wanting nothing to do with America is statistically significant.

Another interesting fact, the statehood group is by far the largest but the status quo group includes most of the wealthy because they pay no federal taxes to the US and there is no estate tax.. so the wealthy benefit from the status quo, that's why they can't generate enough momentum to get it changed.

He also told me that the status quo group seems to be getting smaller with each election cycle because the people aren't seeing this "best of both worlds" results that the status quo group has been selling them.