Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Thomas Yu (tomy@slip.net)
29 Oct 1996 14:35:53 -0800
In article <555rct$g6q@news.sdd.hp.com>,
Gerold Firl <geroldf@sdd.hp.com> wrote:
>In article <553ake$2nl@pelican.unf.edu>, Ron Kephart <rkephart@osprey.unf.edu> writes:
>
>
>If you choose to willfully deny the existance of race in humans, then
>you will compromise your ability to understand how we got to be where
>we are. Of course, the political benefits of such denial may make it
>worth your while; you'll have to be the judge of that.
Many race deniers claim that race can not be classified do
to it's anologue distribution. Which means the NAZI racialist
must agree on an absolute definition of what being white is.
The best and the most solid definition of a white person is
some one who can not tan. No matter how long they lay out in the
sun, they just turn red, and their skins peal off and they become
white again. Thus this is where the term "red neck" came from.
With this definition, we have an absolute dividing line between
where one race ends, and another race begins.
If you can NOT tan what so ever, then you are part of the white
race.
If you can tan, then you are not part of the white race.
You are most likely a "Mongolian rape trash", or
an "Arabic rape trash".
Are all you Aryans willing to agree on this definition?
If not, you are trying to blurr the racial lines again,
which is just the amo that the race denyiers need to claim that
race doesn't exist.
|