What was the point of institucionalized racism?

Exactly this. It benefits the elite when you're being taken advantaged of but you blame the illiterate nigger instead.

>the elite
>not just naming the jew

1 half of the plebs subjugating the other

>he fell for the jew meme

LOADS of economic benefits though. Do you think the family inherited everything when the lynched somebody?

>institucionalized racism

doesn't exist

Imagine you are some poor and uneducated redneck with a drug problem and related parents. With institutionalized racism, you're still privileged with higher status above everyone who isn't white, no matter what their accomplishments. Whereas otherwise you'd be on the absolute bottom of society. That is the point.

Or you could just say "the elites" because that covers corrupt assholes that happen not to be Jews and doesn't incriminate any respectable middle or lower class Jews.
Why is /pol/ so fucking stupid?

Concept of a white race developed to reduce tension between different ethnic groups of Europeans living in America, so I am told. If this is true then it makes sense why there is racism, but it doesn't paint a picture of racism being some well thought out plan. There are other reasons why racism started, of course, I don't mean to say this is the only one.

Divide and rule.

black "people" are violent primitive unpleasant savages seriously how much evidence do you delusional idiots need?

Kek, looks like

This.
It's hard to grasp how people will see nignogs chimp out time after time after time, yet blame "racism for it"
The same racism worked against the Chinese immigrants and now they are doctors and what not.

>and now they are doctors

And you're not. Makes you ponder.

Go live in the Detroit suburbs on fullerton avenue for a year, then tell me.

Because I didn't have affirmitive action back my ass ? :^)

Self defense, see what happens in America now that we let blacks live around us, they do nothing but ruin our lives and settlements.

Neither did the Asians.

Asians don't give a shit about niggers, either, because they're rich enough that they don't have to deal with them.

Rednecks dont give a shit if they are poor user, so plz go with this theory as middle class american whites liked segregation as well.
Pay attention goy look at the race of the people with the most high positions in American society ITS ALWAYS JEWS.

>fullerton avenue

It seem to be rather important for you to assume I am some sort of hill billy or anything like that.

...

If you lynch a guy who was a business owner you get their customers and maybe by up their shops location.

Listen to this feed for a couple of hours to understand how dangeorus the nigger

broadcastify.com/listen/feed/763/web

This is Cook County in Chimpcongo.

I don't assume anything like that.

I'm just saying, out of all the really successful people I've known, none of them have been racist.

They're too busy making money, and they don't encounter brown people anyway.

i think it was b/c the freed slaves were stealing a lot of shit, and white guys didn't want them fucking their chicks.

basically, exactly like today.

Keeps the poor disorganized by race tensions so they can't focus on getting fair treatment from the bourgeois.

You're close with that answer. American European immigration over the last two centuries has left us with an amalgamation of English speaking white people who have very different roots in Europe from Slavs to Scandinavians, though it seems the majorities are German, Irish, Anglos, italians, french, etc.

Once these immigrants lost their old languages and adopted common American culture, we created the concept of a common 'white' race, a concept that didn't seem to catch on in Europe until mass immigration from ex-colonies more recently, fugees.

We had this concept first because of black populations that swelled after slavery, Indians across the continent, Mexicans on our back door, (and already living in areas conquered during the Mexican American war) as well as sino-oriental peoples flooding the west coast in the mid 19the century.

We could all come from different European heritages ultimately, but looking like a European was just easier to call 'white' to distinguish us from the others by the 20th century

Buy up? No, you can just straight up TAKE the shops location. You already got away with murder.

Also, remember that for every lynching, there's a lot more "narrowly avoided" lynchings. Nigger tries to compete with your business, let him know that he better get out of town before the sun goes down. Oh, and since you're so generous, you're even willing to buy his store on short notice, for pennies on the dollar.

This, using divide and conquer tactics on the masses is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

>Pay attention goy look at the race of the people with the most high positions in American society ITS ALWAYS JEWS.
>more educated population rises to the top
whoa.

Race war covers the real, emerging truth: Class War.

>No deaths
Progress

Ingroup/outgroup bias

>give black people freedom
>they chimp out
sage anytime

Donald Trump, nigga.

Botswana may dispute you on that

>What was the point of institucionalized racism?
Maybe they just don't liked these people.

>naturally violent
>less intelligent

youtube.com/watch?v=9yVJEoglgB8

web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

debunkingdenialism.com/2015/02/03/mailbag-fetishizing-richard-lewontin/

americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/

livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/race-reconciled-debunks-race/

Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press.

"The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings."

It is ridiculous to say that "race" does not exist in regards to humans when there are clear visual differences between various groups of people that any child can tell apart. The idea that the differences were limited to visual differences alone and had no implications on cognitive abilities and character is wishful thinking.

Any study that is aimed at "debunking" race is most likely bad science. In general, this branch of science is highly political and assuming someone published something that actually supports there being significant differences between races, his career would most likely be ruined.

>still denying the proof that debunks race realism

Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. "Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (...) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity."

Like it or not, you and I are not a different sub-species or species to an asian or a black.

You can cop it on the chin, or deny facts. Your choice.

>implying politically motivated science wasn't also used to persecute other races, giving them justification to do so.

uh huh

However, we can't say that a certain thing isn't allowed to be researched because it may give people harmful ideas.

>The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races.
How don't they? Any child can tell between Whites, Blacks, Asians, etc.

These groups exist. They are defined by clearly visible differences. I could create a test where people have to guess the races of people and I guarantee you that most people would be able to do so with sufficient accuracy.

Are you seriously deciding race by phenotype?
What race is a light-skinned Mulatto? What about a Mexican with no Mestizo blood in his heritage?

>However, we can't say that a certain thing isn't allowed to be researched because it may give people harmful ideas.

Except it was, and it was debunked with the evidence I provided.

You seem like a smart guy, don't rip yourself off like this, m8.

>hey are defined by clearly visible differences

So that means it's only skin deep then.

>Are you seriously deciding race by phenotype?
It is the most immediate characteristic assuming you don't have your phrenological devices at hand.

>What race is a light-skinned Mulatto? What about a Mexican with no Mestizo blood in his heritage?
Why would certain cases where a clear distinction is impossible discredit the concept? We're not talking about a mathematical function that must be well-defined. Certain people might not clearly fall into a race, but many people do. The point is: you can catalogue groups of people based on their visual features. People have been doing so since the dawn of time.

>We're not talking about a mathematical function that must be well-defined.
We ought to be if we're talking about actual science here. If we're just looking at what people think in their gut (even if its a majority of people) then this whole matter of race simply comes down to "muh feels." Which is fine if you want to live your life with that worldview, I won't stop you, but you shouldn't expect anyone to take what you draw from that worldview with any genuine scrutiny. Especially in a scientific context.

>We ought to be if we're talking about actual science here.
I don't see why that should be the case. Science is not a clear-cut thing like mathematics. It can perfectly deal with uncertainties and the mathematical realm of stochastic even provides the tools for this.

>this whole matter of race simply comes down to "muh feels."
In my opinion the whole matter of race not existing comes down to "muh feels". I completely get that people see an inherent danger to cataloguing people like that, but I'm talking whether it could be done and I see no reason why not.

> It can perfectly deal with uncertainties and the mathematical realm of stochastic even provides the tools for this.
But science does not deal with uncertainty through mere personal or popular opinion of the masses.

The reason I say categorizing race comes down to "muh feels" was specifically because of the way you stated it. Categorization becomes arbitrary when its left up to opinion. Even if there is a "consensus" it doesn't make it any less subjective. When most educated people say "race doesn't exist" they don't generally mean it as a "muh feels" kind of statement. Many laymen mean it that way in an effort to try and bring everyone together and spread love and peace and all that shit, but science likes to be a bit more concrete than that. Modern science does not deny that there are differences and similarities among human populations. What it is usually denying is that these population differences fit neatly into the traditional 19th century definitions of race that most people are familiar with. That is why most now prefer to categorize people on a basis of "ethnicity" instead of "race." It may look like semantics, but ethnicity is a genuinely more accurate category that better reflects both genetic and cultural differences, than the traditional racial categories do. Beyond this, they also say "race doesn't exist" on a greater context as a general species because of how unique humans are in our genetic similarity. We look quite different due to our adapting to certain environments, but the genetic evidence simply doesn't support our personal sympathies. No matter how different they look, a Nigerian and a Swede are still much closer to eachother than two random Chimps, or many other animals for that matter. Separating humans into races or subspecies would in turn mean we'd have to separate a shit ton of other animals into a shit ton of subspecies, which would eventually get so numerous that the whole category would feel superfluous.

>But science does not deal with uncertainty through mere personal or popular opinion of the masses.
You seem to have a very idealised idea of science. Scientists are people too and in that regard they are subject to the very same flaws that plague non-scientists.

>The reason I say categorizing race comes down to "muh feels" was specifically because of the way you stated it. Categorization becomes arbitrary when its left up to opinion.
The categorisation is not arbitrary in the sense as it can clearly be made. You can classify people by their visual traits. Whether you can tell a Pollack from a German is or an Englishman from a Welshman is questionable, but you can certainly tell that none of them is a Black African.

>Modern science does not deny that there are differences and similarities among human populations. What it is usually denying is that these population differences fit neatly into the traditional 19th century definitions of race that most people are familiar with.
That is rhetoric. Claiming races don't exist and claiming that races that fit neatly into the traditional 19th century definition of the term don't exist are two different things. The latter is an overly specific refutation to a claim that has never been made.

>It may look like semantics, but ethnicity is a genuinely more accurate category that better reflects both genetic and cultural differences, than the traditional racial categories do.
It is semantics. If you'd rather use the term ethnicity I don't mind. The term race is not important to me.

[to be continued]

[continuation of ]
>No matter how different they look, a Nigerian and a Swede are still much closer to eachother than two random Chimps
Closer how? Based on DNA differentials? I'm highly doubtful in regards to such claims as they leave out important details. One for example that they're usually interpreted in a fashion that quantifies them in a linear fashion. But small difference can have vast implications. The trait that defines whether a snake develops or not is a tiny sequence for example. In the same sense, the quantitatively larger differences between individual chimps might be completely irrelevant.

>Separating humans into races or subspecies would in turn mean we'd have to separate a shit ton of other animals into a shit ton of subspecies
We have no problem separating animals into races based on visual traits alone. Dogs for example.

>The trait that defines whether a snake develops or not is a tiny sequence for example.
By that I meant: whether a snake develops limbs or not.

Not everything is rationalised in economic terms. Or even rationalised. You're an engineer or an accountant, right?

>that pic
I like how things are pretty much the opposite today.

youtube.com/watch?v=pXfdq0BpqeU

Than G-d I'm not white.

Because >niggers lol

>No real economic benefits
there is if youre imposing taxes on someone whos practicing a different religion than yours. if we are talking about race here you could just pay them less and pocket the difference or keep them out of jobs where they could get too powerful

>tension between the masses
its not usually the 'masses' its the majority bullying a minority. works really well when the minority is outnumber 5:1 or more

heres a few videos you might find helpful

youtu.be/PddJqj8MPmk
youtu.be/OOYzIyWf3D8
youtu.be/btfLjIYw300

It began far earlier

Racism was created by rich whites to prevent the poor whites from uniting with blacks.

Anti-Miscegenation laws weren't put in place until white workers started marrying black workers.

>Closer how?
How about the the fact that they are both members of the only extant human species on Earth?
>Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominid; H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
>We have no problem separating animals into races based on visual traits alone. Dogs for example.
Except the separation for dogs are 'breeds'. Humans do not have breeds like dogs and and different human races are not the same as different dog breeds.
>quora.com/Why-are-there-not-breeds-of-humans-like-breeds-of-dogs

Should have lynched Tyler Wang and Daniel Suzuki too back then

Vid removed what was it?

>from uniting with blacks.
Blacks are human shit they would rather beat the shit out of whites than ever unify with them, unify with whites blacks had no intentions of ever living around white people, the jews and their liberal drones promised the negro menace it would have access to the white man's leisures if they pretended to care about racial equality.

That is the real reason blacks dont want segregation because they know they will create hellholes on their own and no whitey leisure places either, they are fucking parasites.

>ask politic questions
>turns into debate about race and muh genetics

Boii seems like op forgot where he is

Because if Billy-Bob thinks Tyrone is behind everything wrong in his life he won't pay attention to his boss robbing him blind.

>Vid removed
I wonder why

youtube.com/watch?v=stL0Y-GBd0k

>Even Turks are laughing at what cucks whites are

Will the round eyes ever live this down?

>Scientists are people too and in that regard they are subject to the very same flaws that plague non-scientists.
Yes, which is why they can make mistakes. That's not the same as this subject at hand. The moment you forgo a controlled methodology, you're not doing science, and determining categorization on personal opinion is not what I'd called controlled.

>Whether you can tell a Pollack from a German is or an Englishman from a Welshman is questionable, but you can certainly tell that none of them is a Black African.
Which are the extreme ends on a not as black and white overall scale. By looking at physical features alone I could probably also make an argument that the people of Madagascar are Black Africans as well, but that would be incorrect.

>It is semantics.
I already explained why it's not. The technical definition of ethnicity is not the same as the technical definition of race. It may be in layman's terms, but that's not what we're talking about.

>But small difference can have vast implications. The trait that defines whether a snake develops or not is a tiny sequence for example. In the same sense, the quantitatively larger differences between individual chimps might be completely irrelevant.
Which is precisely the reason why genetics can't be forgone in such a prospective system of categorization. Small genes can account for vast differences, and similar differences can be accomplished through different genes in different ways. Abos and Africans are not as related as their appearances would have you believe. You cannot, for certain, extrapolate genotypical differences from phenotypical differences. Categorizations based on phenotype should only be made if you can support something similar happening on the genotypical level. Otherwise it is quite literally in the eye of the beholder.

breathe, dude