>>82856068
The difference is geometry is necessary for architecture, physics, mathematics, etc, so those sorts of debates about the nature of shapes and numbers are perfectly legitimate. "Racism" is just bullshit
>but the concept fundamentally stands that one race is superior to another
It's not really this, the same way that sexism isn't -REALLY- about men thinking they're better than women. How do I know, because I read some of the anti-racist polemics, and they get away with writing about how whites are genetically inferior.
Take Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel", which was made into a documentary and taught in Social Studies. He explicitly writes in the introduction how he's writing this book to counteract the race essentialist explanation for racial differences, about how Europeans shot ahead for genetic reasons. He insists on geography being the determining factor. But literally three pages later he goes into detail about how it's actually the Paupa New Guineans who are "genetically superior", and Europeans that are genetically inferior. Why? Because survival for Europeans was based on resistance to disease, while for Papua New Guineans it was more about intelligence and navigating the world.
Does he get criticized as "racist"? No, Jared Diamond is used to shill racial egalitarianism everywhere. You see the same with feminists who screech the hardest against the patriarchy, they find it no problem to tilt right over into saying women are superior when it suits them.
The very fact that casual people every day understand that "reverse racism" is understood as non-whites victimizing whites, means that people fundamentally do understand the actual truth about racism. It's simply an anti-white concept, and all the evolutions in forms it takes relates to how it can be used to attack white people and white identity. Anything else it does is incidental.
But also, yes, I have no problem with admitting that whites are superior(in certain ways).
