|
I cannot believe this thread is still going.
But:
I find it interesting if you look at the original post - and then you read the responses, one would think that half of the white men dated Asian girls and half of the Asian dudes dated white chicks. So it comes back to perception. Based on this thread the original poster is way off, but then that just illustrates what all of this is:
It is just opinion, none grounded in fact.
Funny thing about perception - it is highly influencial, mutable, sensitive to externalities and dynamic. Just exchange out any of the main nouns (i.e.- Asian) with another "label" and you'll start to understand how ridiculous the whole thing really is.
A large part of the problem is that, as a species (homo sapiens) we are essentially "label whores". It's just so easy to paint everything with a broad stroke brush and be done with it:
Black people are loud
Jews are cheap
Latinos (what is Latino anyway) commit crimes
White people smell
Asians are geeks
Women are bad drivers (really? Then why is their insurance cheaper?)
Catholic priests are molestors etc..etc...etc...etc...
At this point in human civilization we have not been able to evolve past our propensity to label and generalize. It is our comfort zone and gives us a sense of security. It gives us control. When we become more advanced (who knows when?) then "labels" as we know it will cease to matter.
My opinion:
Human beings are bipedal. Our eyes are rather large (proportionally as a sense) and are located in the front of our head. We are "designed" as a visual species. Therefore, we have a "need" to see things to better understand and subsequently control our environment.
EX: When a person walks into a room, he looks around. Sizes things up, checks things out. When a dog walks into a room, he sniffs around. Because his eyesight is relatively poor and sense of samell rather strong. A quadraped with a low center of gravity, dogs are typically smell oriented just as we are sight-oriented.
Therefore, we judge things typically by sight. Then we categorize, organize and make conclusions based on our observations.
The problem is: People are not necessarily homogenous nor monolithic. We are individuals with some shared characetristics and traits which is simply, variation within our given species along a range of genetic distribution. So, to judge within our own species so broadly is really not useful nor productive. In fact it is downright false.
"Labels" are meaningless when there is no substance or meaning attached. Because the labels we assign each other are not based on any fact but based on phenotypical or anecdotal behavior subject to a wide range of environmental, social, external variables, we can conclude that the labels are therfore meaningless and without merit.
If in doubt, just try and apply the scientific methods to any racial or ethnic profiling. It simply doesn't work. We are individuals, not members of a demographic subject to the "traits" ascribed by ignorant observers.
Another element to the racial dynamic in relationships: Familiarity breeds habit and comfort. We tend to stay within comfort zones. If I grow up in the countryside near a lot of white folks, chances are I will be comfortable and possibly seek out other white folks who like to live in the countryside. Which brings up: Shared interests - learned attributes, culure = learned, NOT inate or by "blood". Ther's no such thing. If a black guy donated blood to save my life, do I become black? No, of course not, though we may now be blood brothers.
Shit! I have to go...to be continued....
|