Notices

View Poll Results: Does race exist? (read article)

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 70.83%
  • No

    6 25.00%
  • Undecided

    1 4.17%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 218
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Does race exist? Article says it does!

  1. #1 Does race exist? Article says it does! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

    Not that I agree. I'm neutral on the idea until some 'race deniers' can show why they think he is mistaken (make sure you read the part on 'bone research').


    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'm sure that races exist, when understood as local populations with characteristics slightly different from other populations

    when limited to this definition, the question of race is pretty uncontroversial (even though some might want to have a try) - it's when you try to interpret these local differences as differences in worth that you leave the field of science and enter the world of politics, where race is obviously a hot potato

    however, to place the issue of race in perspective : the amount of variation found in any group of chimps is greater than that of the whole human species


    KALSTER likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Ive always accepted that race exists,and believe the difference in race is similar to sub-species in other animals, If the PC brigade allowed it.

    Looking at other species that have been awarded the label of sub species,there are far fewer differences between them and the variability of humans

    I got mis-interpreted last time i used the term sub species as some took this as meaning sub standard which isn't what i mean
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 do race exist? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    No, biologically, politically or any other way. slight difference in apperance do not make say blue eyes and brown eyes any thing more then Eyes. the same can be said from skin color to hair. and just because one group may see them selves in rankings as opposed to another group does'nt change or make it different either. superiour weapons make superior men, but men never the less. perhaps we have our differences to insure our survival.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman adamd164's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cork, Ireland
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'm sure that races exist, when understood as local populations with characteristics slightly different from other populations

    when limited to this definition, the question of race is pretty uncontroversial (even though some might want to have a try) - it's when you try to interpret these local differences as differences in worth that you leave the field of science and enter the world of politics, where race is obviously a hot potato

    however, to place the issue of race in perspective : the amount of variation found in any group of chimps is greater than that of the whole human species
    But a population is a concept which really doesn't exist in Homo Sapiens, as in most other species. Constant interbreeding, immigration and emigration mean that the vast, vast majority of genetic diversity is between members of the species as a whole, as opposed to between specific groups within the species.
    Knowledge of evolution may not be strictly useful in everyday commerce. You can live some sort of life and die without ever hearing the name of Darwin. But if, before you die, you want to understand why you lived in the first place, Darwinism is the one subject that you must study.

    ~ Richard Dawkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    The problem with biological determinants of race is that they are usually characteristics that gradate from one population to another - there's not really a defining line. The populations in, say, China and Ethiopia, most definitely have some differing genetic characteristics, but where in the space in between them that you choose to draw the line and say "You are definitely one race, and you are definitely another" is more or less arbitrary. It's rather like trying to distinguish individual groups in a ring species. You could if you wanted to, but you're probably not describing an actual, defined divide.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by adamd164
    But a population is a concept which really doesn't exist in Homo Sapiens, as in most other species. Constant interbreeding, immigration and emigration mean that the vast, vast majority of genetic diversity is between members of the species as a whole, as opposed to between specific groups within the species.
    maybe in the world as it is now, man's mobility is such that distinct populations become blurred through interbreeding
    however, go back 10,000 years and mobility was far more restricted, so during the first 90% of H.sapiens's existence i don't see a problem with local variants starting to become distinct from one another
    i also don't see a problem recognising the fact that a remainder of that distinction is still with us, even though it's probably disappearing fast
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1
    I think race is primarily a social construct. There are slightly different characteristics with each ethnicity, but not enough to warrant a special biological status in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    16
    Racism dooms itself, for it is characteristic of a primitive and backward way of thinking about society. However, I think that it is ludicrous to suggest that these "races" only vary in skin color. They have different ancestries, therefore they have different genetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    yawn....

    Here we go again, Humans trying to categorise things into black or white, (no pun intended).

    So those of you who believe in race, what race are you?.

    It is an individual thing, a person who believes in 'race' can himself categorise all his fellow humans into 'races' the only apparent reason for this seems to be to practice racial hatred.

    I am ashamed that the UK government pas passed 'race' laws, this means they too, believe in racism.


    Incidentally, the original question is flawed, I think it should either say
    "Does Racism exist" or "Should the human population be sub-divided into races"

    Then to the first I would say, yes, unquestionably, but to the second I would say no!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    i dont think the division of race is a way to divide for racial reasons, i dont see why humans cant be sub catagorised like any other species of animal, interestingly, the white european is in the same racial group as people from the middle east, both caucasoid's

    heres a link

    http://racialreality.110mb.com/racesofman.html
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Yes races exist, but I usually come last in them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    "We are all black when the lights go out.."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    it's time to worry when you start glowing in the dark
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    I'm prejudiced against very old rocks, mostly those formed on the sea floor, either by excrement filtering down onto the seabed mixing with seafloor crap and being fossilized (called Ophiolite) or just old fossilized crap ( Coprolite).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    33
    Race is simply the early stages of population differentiation due to genetic isolation, which in this case was brought about by the geographic isolation of different populations of early humans.

    Hypothetically, if left in isolation for a longer period of geologic time, say millions of years more, then the races may have even diverged enough to speciate, the same way all past life forms on earth have diverged. It's similar to what happened with the Galapagos finches, with primates, and even within our own genus homo, and in fact all of life since its inception.

    A parallel example is Brassica oleracea. This species of plant includes cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, etc. They're all part of the same species (Brassica oleracea), but they each still have readily apparent differences in phenotype, which of course are a result of genetic differences. The different subspecies are referred to as "cultivars," which seems like quite the same concept as "race."

    Biological evidence for race includes bone marrow transplantation. Finding a bone marrow match is possible only for people with similar racial backgrounds. Apparently the HLA antibodies in our immune systems didn't get the memo that "race is merely a social construct."

    If the word race is too loaded a word, fine, change the word, coin a new one--changing the label doesn't change the biology. If the details and nuances of race needs to be refined from a biological standpoint, fine, refine them--it doesn't change the overall concept.
    tridimity likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. These are the three distinct racial divisions. I have placed them in alphabetical order not out of any sense that one is superior to another. The features of the races vary greatly. Caucasoid people have fair skin and are of a medium build in general. Mongoloid people tend to be slighter and have darker skin tones and also tend to have more almond shaped eye sockets as well as more pronounced epicanthic folds. Negroid people tend to have very dark skin pigmentation, broad flat noses, large foreheads and average to above average height. This is primarily adaptation to environments. so from a biologic standpoint Yes race does exist.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    One thing i'v never beleived in is the word 'race' applied to people. It's supposed to mean sub species right?

    Life isnt a race, drink lilt and rum on tropical beaches. theres no need to compete, lets work together, slowly!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,092
    Of course they do. But "race" as defined by non-scientific means is not going to work. We need to look at the DNA distribution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroups

    dmwyant likes this.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    ^ Ummm... Yeah... What pyoko said...
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    it's time to worry when you start glowing in the dark
    Don't tell that to Aequorea victoria

    Yes, race exists insofar as there exists distinct geographically, genetically and culturally distinct groups of individuals across the world. However, all of these factors are amenable to change: global travel means that for a substantial portion of the human population, geographical boundaries are no obstacle; genetically, people of different races frequently merge genomes; and many areas have become multicultural with increasing migration across the globe.

    Fundamentally, we all are overwhelmingly one and the same; we all experience the same emotions and seek the same basic things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    it's time to worry when you start glowing in the dark
    Don't tell that to Aequorea victoria Yes, race exists insofar as there exists distinct geographically, genetically and culturally distinct groups of individuals across the world. However, all of these factors are amenable to change: global travel means that for a substantial portion of the human population, geographical boundaries are no obstacle; genetically, people of different races frequently merge genomes; and many areas have become multicultural with increasing migration across the globe.
    That's one possibility. Another possibility is that group members will continue to choose mates within their own groups, and mixed-race people will remain a minority. It seems like there are too many complex psychological, sociological, cultural, economic, and political interactions at play to be able to predict how it will turn out in the long term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Of course they do. But "race" as defined by non-scientific means is not going to work. We need to look at the DNA distribution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroups


    Such a hypothesis for the migration of the worlds human ancestors is wrong.

    Taking one section of a genome that may or may not derive, completely, progressively, as well as arbitrarily selecting a starting point (in time and/or location) for the origins of mutated genes, or mutations in genes, is not science either. These things are great for misleading people though, especially children but, and beyond that, these beliefs and these types of maps are useless.
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 7th, 2012 at 08:57 AM.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Race as applied to humans so often seems unscientific to me. Why is someone born into my community from parents who have lived here as long as mine considered an entirely different race just because their skin is a different color? If you apply race to ancestry, how do you even measure race? I mean, I came from German and Dutch roots, but that's only as far back as we can trace it. When do you stop before you determine race? It can't ALL just be based on skin color. That's a terrible way to determine the separation of individuals.

    Our biological response to race confuses me. Some people see race as a barrier between members of the species. One person of a certain race actually avoids someone of another race, wants them separate. Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Race as applied to humans so often seems unscientific to me. Why is someone born into my community from parents who have lived here as long as mine considered an entirely different race just because their skin is a different color?

    Racial differences are more than skin deep. If your neighbor who is a different race from you needed a bone marrow transplant, the chances of you being a matching donor for him would be slim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you apply race to ancestry, how do you even measure race?

    The same way genetic differences are measured between any two organisms: gene mapping


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I mean, I came from German and Dutch roots, but that's only as far back as we can trace it. When do you stop before you determine race? It can't ALL just be based on skin color. That's a terrible way to determine the separation of individuals.

    Nobody is saying race should separate people. Recognizing that race exists doesn't imply that people should use it to segregate themselves. They may or may not choose to. Same with sex. There are males, and there are females. Is that a terrible "way to determine the separation of individuals"? Should we just pretend there are no differences between males and females? Of course not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Our biological response to race confuses me.

    What exactly is a "biological response to race"? Are you talking about physiological responses when people talk about race? Increased heart rate? Dilated pupils?


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Some people see race as a barrier between members of the species. One person of a certain race actually avoids someone of another race, wants them separate.

    People will do what they will do. That doesn't mean we should stop seeking to better understand biological reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.

    It's not clear, but it seems like you're contradicting yourself here. At first you seem to be saying the concept of race is foolish, but then you say we should breed across racial boundaries. How can we breed across racial boundaries if, according to you, there's no such thing as race in the first place?
    tridimity likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    What I was implying is that throughout human history we have recognized race as a boundary between individuals. If we no longer recognized it and we bred without that boundary, we would have a more varied gene pool.

    I never said there was no race. I simply expressed my confusion toward the subject. I'm gathering information more than debating. Sorry if I worded it in a way that suggested otherwise.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    To me its <self-censored>, or I should say to be polite very ARBITRARY and quixotic. WHERE do you draw the lines? On the map? Which village is in that race and not on the other? WHAT is the exact time frame of Racial reference and Why? Why not 200 years from now when all of this will have been clearly been made meaningless, or 10000 years ago? What factors are magically anointed as relevant, why not Blood Type? Or immune system T-cell configuration? I dont have the time to explain, but to me the word and concept of race for humans is a <self-censored> anachronism. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What I was implying is that throughout human history we have recognized race as a boundary between individuals. If we no longer recognized it and we bred without that boundary, we would have a more varied gene pool.

    I never said there was no race. I simply expressed my confusion toward the subject. I'm gathering information more than debating. Sorry if I worded it in a way that suggested otherwise.
    religion, culture, tribe, sex, nose size, hair colour, eye colour, accent, weather you play football or rugby, lean to the right or left, gay or straight, smoke or not, tempremental disposition, are just a few other things that are often seen as a boundary or division between individuals.

    One Love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What I was implying is that throughout human history we have recognized race as a boundary between individuals. If we no longer recognized it and we bred without that boundary, we would have a more varied gene pool.

    I never said there was no race. I simply expressed my confusion toward the subject. I'm gathering information more than debating. Sorry if I worded it in a way that suggested otherwise.
    religion, culture, tribe, sex, nose size, hair colour, eye colour, accent, weather you play football or rugby, lean to the right or left, gay or straight, smoke or not, tempremental disposition, are just a few other things that are often seen as a boundary or division between individuals.

    One Love
    A part of me gets it and a part of me doesn't. I think that each of us are endowed with genetic imperatives. We consider them attractions. Some of us want an athletic mate, perhaps because we instinctually believe they are more capable of survival. Some people are attracted to money, maybe because it indicates success. So I can make a vague link between someone wanting a person with specific genetic characteristics and that perhaps those genetic interests manifest themselves in surface attributes (ie, skin color, nose shape, eye shape, muscle mass, etc).

    Does that mean it is a failing of mankind? I don't know. Is a craving for pickles when you're pregnant a failing or is it your body telling you something you can't interpret properly?

    I find this concept of race/no race very interesting and I'd like to know more about why our brains separate us when there is little reason to do so.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What I was implying is that throughout human history we have recognized race as a boundary between individuals. If we no longer recognized it and we bred without that boundary, we would have a more varied gene pool.

    I never said there was no race. I simply expressed my confusion toward the subject. I'm gathering information more than debating. Sorry if I worded it in a way that suggested otherwise.
    religion, culture, tribe, sex, nose size, hair colour, eye colour, accent, weather you play football or rugby, lean to the right or left, gay or straight, smoke or not, tempremental disposition, are just a few other things that are often seen as a boundary or division between individuals.

    One Love
    A part of me gets it and a part of me doesn't. I think that each of us are endowed with genetic imperatives. We consider them attractions. Some of us want an athletic mate, perhaps because we instinctually believe they are more capable of survival. Some people are attracted to money, maybe because it indicates success. So I can make a vague link between someone wanting a person with specific genetic characteristics and that perhaps those genetic interests manifest themselves in surface attributes (ie, skin color, nose shape, eye shape, muscle mass, etc).

    Does that mean it is a failing of mankind? I don't know. Is a craving for pickles when you're pregnant a failing or is it your body telling you something you can't interpret properly?

    I find this concept of race/no race very interesting and I'd like to know more about why our brains separate us when there is little reason to do so.
    distinguishing between mates is different from having a psychological division or boundary that makes you feel seperate from others.

    One theory is that in order to control the people you must divide the people... this is done by constructing, boundaries and divisions in the psyches of the people you want to control. It has nothing to do with the way our brains seperating us, our minds yes. Our minds can be manipulated quite easily. If you were only taught that an apparent difference between you and somebody else, was irrelevant, then to you it would be irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Ooh, so you're suggesting some kind of Big Brother action now? I'm curious to see where that goes, for better or worse.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Ooh, so you're suggesting some kind of Big Brother action now? I'm curious to see where that goes, for better or worse.
    I don't know how you got to that conclusion... Not through scientific processes i'll bet.

    big brother theory is a global one world order conspiracy idea, if you know what i mean... whereas manipulation of people can be done on a micro or macro scale. For example a father might install some ideas about being different or superior into his own daughters spyche becuase he knows she's a hotty and he doesnt want her mixing with the gypsie lads.

    An army officer or a freedom fighter might install an idea of differentness into his soldiers, so that they will be more inclined to kill the threat posed by the 'others' who he seeks to destroy.

    Take the class system... we all go to different schools and come out with different self identities, beleiving because we had a better education to them, we are better than them. etc etc

    Big brother himself is just as much under the influence of psychological mechanisms that make him feel different, as the rest of us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    33
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    There is an amazing amount of P.C. bullshit oozing through the cracks in this thread.

    Denying differences in race is as insane as denying differences in sex.
    As was said in the linked article "bones don't lie".

    As part of my training in archaeology, we examined bones from different races, and could spot the obvious differences within weeks of beginning our studies. And we were correct most of the time. Though the professor tossed us a few zingers that made fools of those who were absolutely certain of the conclusions derived from their observations.

    None of which means that people should be treated differently because of "race". Far better to treat people differently based on their culture. What insults people from one culture may be a compliment to people of a different culture. Sensitivity to the individual while practicing open minded fairness to all is the best approach. Long ago, I said that any business which makes decisions based on racism or sexism has earned the right to go bankrupt.
    KALSTER and pikkiwoki like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    it's time to worry when you start glowing in the dark
    Don't tell that to Aequorea victoria

    Yes, race exists insofar as there exists distinct geographically, genetically and culturally distinct groups of individuals across the world. However, all of these factors are amenable to change: global travel means that for a substantial portion of the human population, geographical boundaries are no obstacle; genetically, people of different races frequently merge genomes; and many areas have become multicultural with increasing migration across the globe.

    Fundamentally, we all are overwhelmingly one and the same; we all experience the same emotions and seek the same basic things.
    Although I seem to agree with most of what you are saying I need to add my verson to the debate.

    Fundamentally, we all are overwhelmingly one and the same;

    I really think it depends on what you mean with "we are one and the same" certainly not the same gene or DNA, I mean biologically now. If you mean culturally, we are not the same, we show the greatest differences in cultures. If you say we look the same, we do not especially in color. if you mean we have the same faculties we are not the same. If you say our functions are the same we could say yes and no. However we are the same in vices and vertues. We are the same because we breath in the same air, we stand on the same planet, we reproduce ourselves in the same way.

    We have to look at the body and take some examples from it. The heart, the lung, the liver, and all the other organs are not the same, however they work in harmony disregarding their place nature and capcity. Race itself does not mean anything in terms of function. Today we use race as a crotch to hide or promote our own validity. Some think they are superior to others and blame it on race. If I am a black man and live in Africa my race only becomes important when I am not in Africa.
    Last edited by Mother/father; August 10th, 2012 at 02:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There is an amazing amount of P.C. bullshit oozing through the cracks in this thread.

    Denying differences in race is as insane as denying differences in sex.
    As was said in the linked article "bones don't lie".

    As part of my training in archaeology, we examined bones from different races, and could spot the obvious differences within weeks of beginning our studies. And we were correct most of the time. Though the professor tossed us a few zingers that made fools of those who were absolutely certain of the conclusions derived from their observations.

    None of which means that people should be treated differently because of "race". Far better to treat people differently based on their culture. What insults people from one culture may be a compliment to people of a different culture. Sensitivity to the individual while practicing open minded fairness to all is the best approach. Long ago, I said that any business which makes decisions based on racism or sexism has earned the right to go bankrupt.
    Sculptor, I could not agree with you more especially when it comes to culture. Culture and our responcibility on the planet should be how we see ourselves. I am not really surre where this race thing came from. It suggest we are having a race to see who is better. I would think this is digression, or negative evolution ( If there is such a thing) Every thing in its own place and race goes out the window. Sadly we are not there yet, but getting there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There is an amazing amount of P.C. bullshit oozing through the cracks in this thread.
    Couldn't agree more. And with the rest of your post. I am NOT a fan of PC tiptoeing, just for its own sake.

    SO WHAT if there is a biologically significant variety of races? All it is, is very interesting if it is true, but making any more of it has nothing to do with the science. We are all different and some groups are different in ways that are more predictable. Very interesting and that is all.

    People are idiots.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    i'm sure that races exist, when understood as local populations with characteristics slightly different fromother populations
    Of course humans can be separated into biological races, populations separated on genetic grounds we define to be "races" for some reason.

    And of course humans are divided into races sociological grounds, a form of division that varies by society and within a society varies over time ( as when the Swedes and Irish that Benjamin Franklin regarded as members of the "black" race became members of the "white" race in the early 1800s in US sociology.) This division is often based on some detail of physical appearance considered important in a particular society, or ethnic heritage, as skin color or mother's religion or mode of dress (in the US it's skin color, in Brazil it's a complex combination of skin color and clothing/poverty, in Germany in the 1930s it was mother's religion or skin color, and so forth).

    The problems begin when the sociological races in a particular society are declared to have biological significance. I know of no society in which the sociological races align with the genetic or biological ones. In US sociology, for example, all dark skinned people from Australia, anywhere in Africa,even SE Asia regions, are lulmped into one race, and the light skinned people from Europe into another sociologically equivalent one. That makes no sense, cannot be consistently done, from a biological genetic population perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by pikkiwoki View Post
    I read this but I am not sure if the basic understanding of what is and what should be is addressed.
    Race has evolved in a direction guided by greed and possesion. People now accept themselves country to country by economics, mental prowess, military might, color and all the others. We do not nearly express ourselves in a collective way. As I said " we are racing" ) to where must be answered. It would be a different understanding to the mind to think of the human being in terms of quality rather than race, of culture rather than race. This mechanism is in place to hide something from showing up. So what, we have different cultures, but we are still family, it depends how one sees it. From earth perspective we are seen as a whole, it means everthing that happens to and on the planet happens to us. On the level of communication between ourselves we have seperated it into races and are racing against each other?
    We do not only now hate the races, but hate the colors too. We have divided the colors and have made them into the representation of wealth, hunger, wealthy, educated and the rest.

    To be honest with you right here on this forum, there are lots of people who as soon as they realise that another culture is on the forum they get rude and abusive. The question of race is real, and yet not real, if we were not different then we have become different. Through race we are demanding the death of the other, in other words we have turned on our selves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Race as applied to humans so often seems unscientific to me. Why is someone born into my community from parents who have lived here as long as mine considered an entirely different race just because their skin is a different color? If you apply race to ancestry, how do you even measure race? I mean, I came from German and Dutch roots, but that's only as far back as we can trace it. When do you stop before you determine race? It can't ALL just be based on skin color. That's a terrible way to determine the separation of individuals.

    Our biological response to race confuses me. Some people see race as a barrier between members of the species. One person of a certain race actually avoids someone of another race, wants them separate. Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.
    Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.

    I am looking at the present demographics on the planet and I see a vast diversity divided by race. I am wondering what you mean with wider genetic background, some how it sounds to me like one world order. The question is can we get rid of profiling the cultures by race? There is no problem with different cultures, there is however a problem identifying them by race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Although I seem to agree with most of what you are saying I need to add my verson to the debate.

    Fundamentally, we all are overwhelmingly one and the same;

    I really think it depends on what you mean with "we are one and the same" certainly not the same gene or DNA, I mean biologically now. If you mean culturally, we are not the same, we show the greatest differences in cultures. If you say we look the same, we do not especially in color. if you mean we have the same faculties we are not the same. If you say our functions are the same we could say yes and no. However we are the same in vices and vertues. We are the same because we breath in the same air, we stand on the same planet, we reproduce ourselves in the same way.

    We have to look at the body and take some examples from it. The heart, the lung, the liver, and all the other organs are not the same, however they work in harmony disregarding their place nature and capcity. Race itself does not mean anything in terms of function. Today we use race as a crotch to hide or promote our own validity. Some think they are superior to others and blame it on race. If I am a black man and live in Africa my race only becomes important when I am not in Africa.
    Mother/father,

    If you read the entirety of my post (which I suspect you did) you would realise that at no point did I insinuate that humans share one and the same "gene or DNA" or culture. The first line of my post begins, and I quote, 'yes... race exists insofar as there exists... genetically and culturally distinct groups of individuals across the world.' I can only interpret your response as a wilful act of ignorance of my true meaning and an attempt to cherry-pick bits of my posts and re-hash them out of context. At no point did I state explicitly, nor imply, that humans are phenotypically homogenous. Of course we are not; humanity is diverse. If you had chosen not to selectively quote 'Fundamentally, we are all one and the same' out of context but had followed up with the remainder of my sentence '; we all share the same emotions and seek the same basic things' - it might have helped in your understanding my true meaning (although I suspect that understanding my true meaning was never your goal).


    To re-iterate: We are all one and the same IN THAT we all experience the same emotions: we all experience elation, joy, excitement, sadness, anger and grief. We all seek love and a feeling of personal importance.

    To be honest with you right here on this forum, there are lots of people who as soon as they realise that another culture is on the forum they get rude and abusive.


    This forum is one of the most cosmopolitan and friendly corners of the internet that I personally have ever experienced, and I think that the overwhelming majority of members - if not all members - would agree. I would be seriously shoc​ked if you found any instance of racism here - in general, scientists are above that.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't know how you got to that conclusion... Not through scientific processes i'll bet..
    I just got it from the statement you made.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    One theory is that in order to control the people you must divide the people...
    You made it sound as though someone were implying to us that race was important so that they could divide our society and make us easier to control. It sounded very Orwellian and I was curious where you were going with it. It's deviating more toward social science, however, so I won't pursue it in the biology section.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.

    I am looking at the present demographics on the planet and I see a vast diversity divided by race. I am wondering what you mean with wider genetic background, some how it sounds to me like one world order. The question is can we get rid of profiling the cultures by race? There is no problem with different cultures, there is however a problem identifying them by race.
    Basically, I was suggesting that it might be possible to combat weaknesses in certain genetic lines by breeding in genetic lines which are resistant. If you have a people who are susceptible to a genetic disorder, by breeding in a people who are less susceptible, you make the first line stronger. I'm not suggesting forced genetic manipulation through breeding or anything. I'm just saying that if we didn't have a mental division of races, we might be more apt to mate with genetically different people which could strengthen our genetic lines.

    Again, I'm not a geneticist, but it seems like a sound principle to the laymen like me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    Although I seem to agree with most of what you are saying I need to add my verson to the debate.

    Fundamentally, we all are overwhelmingly one and the same;

    I really think it depends on what you mean with "we are one and the same" certainly not the same gene or DNA, I mean biologically now. If you mean culturally, we are not the same, we show the greatest differences in cultures. If you say we look the same, we do not especially in color. if you mean we have the same faculties we are not the same. If you say our functions are the same we could say yes and no. However we are the same in vices and vertues. We are the same because we breath in the same air, we stand on the same planet, we reproduce ourselves in the same way.

    We have to look at the body and take some examples from it. The heart, the lung, the liver, and all the other organs are not the same, however they work in harmony disregarding their place nature and capcity. Race itself does not mean anything in terms of function. Today we use race as a crotch to hide or promote our own validity. Some think they are superior to others and blame it on race. If I am a black man and live in Africa my race only becomes important when I am not in Africa.
    Mother/father,

    If you read the entirety of my post (which I suspect you did) you would realise that at no point did I insinuate that humans share one and the same "gene or DNA" or culture. The first line of my post begins, and I quote, 'yes... race exists insofar as there exists... genetically and culturally distinct groups of individuals across the world.' I can only interpret your response as a wilful act of ignorance of my true meaning and an attempt to cherry-pick bits of my posts and re-hash them out of context. At no point did I state explicitly, nor imply, that humans are phenotypically homogenous. Of course we are not; humanity is diverse. If you had chosen not to selectively quote 'Fundamentally, we are all one and the same' out of context but had followed up with the remainder of my sentence '; we all share the same emotions and seek the same basic things' - it might have helped in your understanding my true meaning (although I suspect that understanding my true meaning was never your goal).

    To re-iterate: We are all one and the same IN THAT we all experience the same emotions: we all experience elation, joy, excitement, sadness, anger and grief. We all seek love and a feeling of personal importance.
    To be honest with you right here on this forum, there are lots of people who as soon as they realise that another culture is on the forum they get rude and abusive.
    This forum is one of the most cosmopolitan and friendly corners of the internet that I personally have ever experienced, and I think that the overwhelming majority of members - if not all members - would agree. I would be seriously shoc​ked if you found any instance of racism here - in general, scientists are above that.
    No my friend I was not really refuting what you said but pointing out some of the points why we are different and others why we are not. And yes I have not met many on this forum who has expressed that kind of bias. However when I put where I am from it makes a difference how I am spoken to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Yet, genetically, we could have much to gain by breeding across racial boundaries. A unified race could end up with a wider genetic background.

    I am looking at the present demographics on the planet and I see a vast diversity divided by race. I am wondering what you mean with wider genetic background, some how it sounds to me like one world order. The question is can we get rid of profiling the cultures by race? There is no problem with different cultures, there is however a problem identifying them by race.
    Basically, I was suggesting that it might be possible to combat weaknesses in certain genetic lines by breeding in genetic lines which are resistant. If you have a people who are susceptible to a genetic disorder, by breeding in a people who are less susceptible, you make the first line stronger. I'm not suggesting forced genetic manipulation through breeding or anything. I'm just saying that if we didn't have a mental division of races, we might be more apt to mate with genetically different people which could strengthen our genetic lines.

    Again, I'm not a geneticist, but it seems like a sound principle to the laymen like me.
    Can you imagine what we would be able to accomplish if we did not have inequitable division. It does not mean we have to interbreed to acheive certain things. The diversity of cultures is the thing to maintain. I would like to love people in general and have no hangups, just people and culture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I completely agree. To anyone with a scientific mind, it makes no sense to divide ourselves based upon perceived differences when, in the end, we're all social creatures who seek unity.

    Still, I think this thread is more about the science of race, not the perception of race. There are real biological differences between us, but we have to balance scientifically accepting those differences while trying to social fight the recognition of those differences. It's a very weird area that almost seems to bridge social science and biology.

    I like this thread.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    I would be seriously shoc​ked if you found any instance of racism here - in general, scientists are above that.
    The OP is an instance of the sociological race divisions - which are racism, pure and simple - permeating this forum.

    So are almost all of the diatribes against a supposed "PC" censoring of otherwise more realistic discussion, common on this forum.

    The naive extension of sociological race to biological significance is quite common among scientific types, self-styled anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Absolute nonsense Iceaura. Why should the existence of race automatically imply racism or devision? It's almost like you are trying to manufacture some moral issue so you can gripe about it, just like so many PC sensitive types. Yes, there are those who use differences as basis for devision or xenophobic hatred, but what the hell does that have to do with objective, scientific differences?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    One thing i'v never beleived in is the word 'race' applied to people. It's supposed to mean sub species right?

    Life isnt a race, drink lilt and rum on tropical beaches. theres no need to compete, lets work together, slowly!
    QFY, I'm not sure race means sub species in its definition. It was defined by people like Bob Marley as "Rat Race" more like racing to see which one is going to win. My question is, win what? I think we still have to define what is meant realistically by sub-species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kalster
    Absolute nonsense Iceaura. Why should the existence of race automatically imply racism or devision?
    The creation of sociological races is itself social division into social categories called "races" independent of biological reality or any physical coherence other than whatever physical trait is the social key. That is racism, by definition. It is division, by definition.

    How could you possibly recognize a sociological, non-biological race (such as the "black" race, in the US), in a non-racist society? There would be no way to tell who was in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kalster
    It's almost like you are trying to manufacture some moral issue so you can gripe about it, just like so many PC sensitive types. Yes, there are those who use differences as basis for devision or xenophobic hatred, but what the hell does that have to do with objective, scientific differences?
    As I observed above, you can spot the racism around here by tracking the use of bogus language such as "PC".

    If you were bothering to keep objective, scientific matters in mind, you would never have come up with that language. What does objective, scientific classification - such as I refer to in contrasting biological race with sociological race - have to do with "PC"? Where is my "PC" ?

    You have a situation, in the US, in which Michelle and Barack Obama are in the same sociological race, and it is the "US black" race. Their closest shared genetic or biological heritage is northern European "white", barring a possible but very small contribution from a possibly Central African ancestor of Obama's ("white") mother. Aside from the "white" genetics, from a biological pov they are probably (statistically) about as far apart (Kenya vs Congo) as any two people on the planet. If they were being classified biologically into the same category, they would both be "white" together. The name for that bizarre situation is "racism".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    You don't use the word racism in the same way as me. I've always thought that term was reserved for a superiority bias between races, not simply differentiating them.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    You don't use the word racism in the same way as me. I've always thought that term was reserved for a superiority bias between races, not simply differentiating them.
    Yes, I see that too. He doesn't use racism the same way as most other people, which is unusual. Why would that be Iceaura?

    Yes, there are differences, culturally and biologically and guess what, people of a particular culture tend to group together. I don't quite understand your point of view then. Should we just be one large homogeneous society or something?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by flick montana
    You don't use the word racism in the same way as me. I've always thought that term was reserved for a superiority bias between races, not simply differentiating them.
    Same thing, sociologically. I know of no examples of sociological differentiation by socially defined race that does not involve "superiority bias", inherently in the process - we have one reality of racism, an inevitable aspect of its separation from physical reality.

    The term usually refers to assigning characteristics to individuals based on, and a constituent part of, their classification into a sociological race - one and the same coherent judgment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Of course they do. But "race" as defined by non-scientific means is not going to work. We need to look at the DNA distribution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroups


    Such a hypothesis for the migration of the worlds human ancestors is wrong.

    Taking one section of a genome that may or may not derive, completely, progressively, as well as arbitrarily selecting a starting point (in time and/or location) for the origins of mutated genes, or mutations in genes, is not science either. These things are great for misleading people though, especially children but, and beyond that, these beliefs and these types of maps are useless.
    There is strong genetic evidence for this migration. It was the result of many years work. You have scientific proof of your claim?
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by flick montana
    You don't use the word racism in the same way as me. I've always thought that term was reserved for a superiority bias between races, not simply differentiating them.
    Same thing, sociologically. I know of no examples of sociological differentiation by socially defined race that does not involve "superiority bias", inherently in the process - we have one reality of racism, an inevitable aspect of its separation from physical reality.

    The term usually refers to assigning characteristics to individuals based on, and a constituent part of, their classification into a sociological race - one and the same coherent judgment.
    I'm confused. You're saying that me noticing that a black person has a different skin tone than me, thus classifying them as a separate race from my own, is the same as me associating darker skin with biological inferiority?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There is an amazing amount of P.C. bullshit oozing through the cracks in this thread.

    Denying differences in race is as insane as denying differences in sex.
    As was said in the linked article "bones don't lie".

    As part of my training in archaeology, we examined bones from different races, and could spot the obvious differences within weeks of beginning our studies. And we were correct most of the time. Though the professor tossed us a few zingers that made fools of those who were absolutely certain of the conclusions derived from their observations.

    None of which means that people should be treated differently because of "race". Far better to treat people differently based on their culture. What insults people from one culture may be a compliment to people of a different culture. Sensitivity to the individual while practicing open minded fairness to all is the best approach. Long ago, I said that any business which makes decisions based on racism or sexism has earned the right to go bankrupt.
    The problem is that, historically, people from different cultures usually were also from different races. The overlap was overwhelming because travel and communication had been so poor over so much of history that groups which were cut off from the rest genetically also spoke different languages and worshipped different gods. The problem in the present is coming to terms with the idea that new technology has caused the two to no longer overlap. A genetically African person could grow up in a white community and be 100% ethnically white.

    Unfortunately modern society is doing an absolutely horrible job of doing this. It still lumps the two together. I'm constantly hearing anti-racist advocates complain about the "whitening" of black America, and how black people need to continue speak with ebonics, or hispanic children need to retain their ability to speak Spanish ... because it's being true to "who they are". It's still not yet become about who they choose to be. Instead, other members of their genetic race tell them that they have an identity from the moment they're born and it's their duty to live up to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post

    The problems begin when the sociological races in a particular society are declared to have biological significance. I know of no society in which the sociological races align with the genetic or biological ones. In US sociology, for example, all dark skinned people from Australia, anywhere in Africa,even SE Asia regions, are lulmped into one race, and the light skinned people from Europe into another sociologically equivalent one. That makes no sense, cannot be consistently done, from a biological genetic population perspective.
    Or the opposite: when people's biological race is declared to have social significance. (Or they're told that it should have a social significance and there's something wrong with them if they choose not to honor that.)

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kalster
    Absolute nonsense Iceaura. Why should the existence of race automatically imply racism or devision?
    The creation of sociological races is itself social division into social categories called "races" independent of biological reality or any physical coherence other than whatever physical trait is the social key. That is racism, by definition. It is division, by definition.

    How could you possibly recognize a sociological, non-biological race (such as the "black" race, in the US), in a non-racist society? There would be no way to tell who was in it.
    Now that's a complicated question. And it does a fine job of bringing to light the problem. How do we untangle the race vs. culture issue if it's going to be a deciding factor in a presidential election?

    What if Obama were 100% genetically black (he isn't), but culturally "white". Would black people be getting proper representation by voting for him?

    What if it's the other way around, and he were 0% genetically black, but culturally "black" all the way?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Now that's a complicated question. And it does a fine job of bringing to light the problem. How do we untangle the race vs. culture issue if it's going to be a deciding factor in a presidential election?

    What if Obama were 100% genetically black (he isn't),
    The whole point was that there is no such thing as a single "black" genetic race. it's a nonsense category. If there are genetic races, Michelle and Barack Obama belong to different ones, or they are white together - your choice. Their closest genetic similarity is their shared European ancestry. If there are coherently definable genetic human races Africa harbors three or four of them, they are as dissimilar as races get, and those two people would be classified into different ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax" ] Or the opposite: when people's biological race is declared to have social significance [/quote] I can think of no examples of a coherent biological race being assigned sociological significance. That kind of scientific sophistication has not permeated any society I know of.
    [quote="kojax
    The problem is that, historically, people from different cultures usually were also from different races.
    That is false, as stated. Most different cultures split members of what would be the same biological race. That was even more true in the past, when a hundred miles' travel could easily put one into a different culture.

    Stated the other way around, that most of what would be different biological races also have different cultures, it is probably true still. But there are so many more cultures than consistently definable biological races that it hardly matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by flick
    I'm confused. You're saying that me noticing that a black person has a different skin tone than me, thus classifying them as a separate race from my own, is the same as me associating darker skin with biological inferiority?
    No: its the fact that such classification is a sociological norm in your society, that you noticing skin tone is exactly the same as you classifying the person by race in your society and your automatic mental pattern application, that rests on something like that - a "superiority bias" or whatever the term was, biological or otherwise. And that is true of all societies that classify humans into races as part of the structure of the social order, as far as I know. That's the reason, the motive, in a metaphorical sense of a society having reasons and motives, for the classification.

    Without it, without the societal classification inculcated into each member as part of their membership, you noticing a skin tone difference would not be the same as you classifying the person by race. It would be an individual assessment, with no category implied - like ear lobe shape. Whether you associated biological inferiority (or superiority) with it would be a personal assessment of your own, not a commonality shared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by flick
    I'm confused. You're saying that me noticing that a black person has a different skin tone than me, thus classifying them as a separate race from my own, is the same as me associating darker skin with biological inferiority?
    No: its the fact that such classification is a sociological norm in your society, that you noticing skin tone is exactly the same as you classifying the person by race in your society and your automatic mental pattern application, that rests on something like that - a "superiority bias" or whatever the term was, biological or otherwise. And that is true of all societies that classify humans into races as part of the structure of the social order, as far as I know. That's the reason, the motive, in a metaphorical sense of a society having reasons and motives, for the classification.

    Without it, without the societal classification inculcated into each member as part of their membership, you noticing a skin tone difference would not be the same as you classifying the person by race. It would be an individual assessment, with no category implied - like ear lobe shape. Whether you associated biological inferiority (or superiority) with it would be a personal assessment of your own, not a commonality shared.
    I'm not so good with social sciences, I'll admit. I don't understand the connection you're trying to make between me noticing physical differences and that somehow applying to a person's race. Sorry.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by montana
    I don't understand the connection you're trying to make between me noticing physical differences and that somehow applying to a person's race. Sorry.
    Well, I can't make you think. But that's not really the issue, is it.

    If you recall, you posted this Fox question recently:
    You're saying that me noticing that a black person has a different skin tone than me, thus classifying them as a separate race from my own, is the same as me associating darker skin with biological inferiority?
    in which we see that the connection between you noticing skin tone and you classifying a person by race is in fact something so familiar to you that you take it for granted, something you assume as the basis of your own posts here,

    and not a connection you can honestly fail to "understand" when it's pointed out.

    There's beginning to be quite the cadre of Fox posters like that around here. So much for any opportunity to actually discuss these kinds of issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    If a doctor notices some symptoms of sickle cell anemia, along with the patient's skin tone, hair texture, and some other features, would that make the doctor a racist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post

    There is strong genetic evidence for this migration. It was the result of many years work. You have scientific proof of your claim?
    It is unfortunate that many years of work went into playing politics by coming up with that useless map under the name of science but, mtdna is only a small fraction (just 37 genes) and arbitrarily picking or speculating about their origin location/s absolutely insures that any claim based on mtdna concerning human origins and migration is not be be taken serious.

    There are about 3 billion base pairs in a single cell. There are only about 16,000 base pairs of mtdna in a single cell. The origins, places in time and migrations concerning humans and their DNA is not found in speculation concerning a few genes, it is found in the complete DNA of humanity as a whole. Human DNA shows places of origin and migration from all over Eurasia and Africa, both old and new, and a map showing the human journey, human migration, if it is going to be based on science, would have arrows pointing and flowing in all directions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by flick montana
    You don't use the word racism in the same way as me. I've always thought that term was reserved for a superiority bias between races, not simply differentiating them.
    Same thing, sociologically. I know of no examples of sociological differentiation by socially defined race that does not involve "superiority bias", inherently in the process - we have one reality of racism, an inevitable aspect of its separation from physical reality.

    The term usually refers to assigning characteristics to individuals based on, and a constituent part of, their classification into a sociological race - one and the same coherent judgment.
    I think iceaura makes a very interesting point here. Though I can see where flick is coming from too.

    The thing is ice... the 'races' do have different characteristics that we can see. like skin colour and facial features as well as hair type. I don't see it as racist to distinguish these differences.

    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person... so how is that comment racist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    You have a situation, in the US, in which Michelle and Barack Obama are in the same sociological race, and it is the "US black" race. Their closest shared genetic or biological heritage is northern European "white", barring a possible but very small contribution from a possibly Central African ancestor of Obama's ("white") mother. Aside from the "white" genetics, from a biological pov they are probably (statistically) about as far apart (Kenya vs Congo) as any two people on the planet. If they were being classified biologically into the same category, they would both be "white" together. The name for that bizarre situation is "racism".
    I have noticed that you are the only one who mentioned Obama's race. No one else gives a damn, in fact his white ancestry is more likely to be pointed out by his political opponents than his supporters. His supporters find it a convenient club to use against Republicans - if you don't like Obama's policies, then you must be a racist.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,590
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    anecdote:

    a classmate of my brother's named paul lindblad tanned really dark, one day at the town pool, Paul was to join us, but the woman at the gate told him that "this was a segregated pool", forget that his family was origionally from France, skin tone mattered. his sister, my brother, and several other of his classmates finally convinced the woman to let him into the pool enclosure, so what did paul do? he lay in the sun deepening his tan

    To all appearances, black indeed, but not negroid. Sometimes the eye of the beholder misleads. I have known several people who would be classified as negroid who's skin was lighter than Paul's in summer. (winter however, was a different matter)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,590
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".
    Please elaborate...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".

    You would be correct. Skin color/tone does not belong exclusively to those of european decent or sub-saharan african decent. There are many who are classified as being white who are darker than many who are classified as being black and vice-versa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".

    You would be correct. Skin color/tone does not belong exclusively to those of european decent or sub-saharan african decent. There are many who are classified as being white who are darker than many who are classified as being black and vice-versa.
    So there are caucasians who are darker in skin tone than negroids? (I hope thats the correct terminology)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Yep. Some Indians for example, who are caucasian, are darker than some who are classified as black.

    200_sinbad.jpgpin08_lhi83jnc.jpg
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    ...
    So there are caucasians who are darker in skin tone than negroids? (I hope thats the correct terminology)
    close enough, and it beats the hell out of "black and white"
    black---native australians,---are they negroid?
    really dark southern indians(from india), are they negroid?
    how about the khoi/san people of southern africa, are they negroid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".

    You would be correct. Skin color/tone does not belong exclusively to those of european decent or sub-saharan african decent. There are many who are classified as being white who are darker than many who are classified as being black and vice-versa.
    So there are caucasians who are darker in skin tone than negroids? (I hope thats the correct terminology)
    Most/many view caucasians as being the indigenous peoples of europe, west asia, north africa and india.... I would have to say the answer to your question is yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".

    You would be correct. Skin color/tone does not belong exclusively to those of european decent or sub-saharan african decent. There are many who are classified as being white who are darker than many who are classified as being black and vice-versa.
    So there are caucasians who are darker in skin tone than negroids? (I hope thats the correct terminology)
    Most/many view caucasians as being the indigenous peoples of europe, west asia, north africa and india.... I would have to say the answer to your question is yes.
    North african? like egyptians? they are not caucasians surely! if so does this mean 'white' people are aryans?

    which negroids are lighter than europeans? and which europeans aka white people are darker than which negroids? Can I say black people instead of negroid? because i think it sounds better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Aryan? No. Yes, Egyptians are Caucasians. Some Indians are darker than some Negroids (like the San). Like Sculptor said.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Of course race exists otherwise people wouldn't say someone is white or someone is black, what I don't understand about race though especially between black and white is who decides where the dividing line is drawn. How white do you have to be, to be white? or how black do you have to be, to be black? Who decides and how? is it how you look to other people or is it what you believe yourself to be?

    If you're of mixed race are you black or are you white?

    Whilst in a world where we are all trying to see beyond race and colour and just see people these questions may seem irrelevant, however sadly people's whole futures can sometimes depend on it. Just for example imagine you have a person of 15/16 white hereditary and 1/16 black hereditary are they still considered acceptable for fulfilling minority only positions?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    our president, for instance 50/50
    Is Obama black? or white?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,590
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Please elaborate...
    Elaborate on what?

    I just can't imagine who would make a claim like:
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    1) How do you define "black"?
    2) How do you define "white"?
    3) What evidence do you have for the above statement?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Every single black person has darker skin than every single white person...
    That is obviously not true. Unless you are defining "black" and "white" purely on terms of some arbitrary threshold of skin tone. And is that before or after exposure to the sun for some arbitrary number of hours?
    I don't even know if your trying to be funny anymore strange. I hope you are.
    I cannot imagine why you would think I was trying to be funny. I was simply pointing out that your statement is, obviously and trivially, false.

    The only way your statement could have any truthiness at all is if you use completely non-standard definitions of "black" and "white".

    You would be correct. Skin color/tone does not belong exclusively to those of european decent or sub-saharan african decent. There are many who are classified as being white who are darker than many who are classified as being black and vice-versa.
    So there are caucasians who are darker in skin tone than negroids? (I hope thats the correct terminology)
    Most/many view caucasians as being the indigenous peoples of europe, west asia, north africa and india.... I would have to say the answer to your question is yes.
    North african? like egyptians? they are not caucasians surely! if so does this mean 'white' people are aryans?

    which negroids are lighter than europeans? and which europeans aka white people are darker than which negroids? Can I say black people instead of negroid? because i think it sounds better.
    North Africans are caucasians. This includes Egypt, Libya, etc...

    Aryans are an ancient tribe from asia. Hinduism was their religion and india is where they are mostly known for being thousands and thousands of years ago. Many indians are the decedents of this tribe, and to this day, they still practice the same religion. Iranians, kurds and some west asians and asians are the decedents of Aryans as well, but europeans, for the most part, are not aryans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    I have noticed that you are the only one who mentioned Obama's race. No one else gives a damn, in fact his white ancestry is more likely to be pointed out by his political opponents than his supporters. His supporters find it a convenient club to use against Republicans - if you don't like Obama's policies, then you must be a racist.
    And my observation that one can spot the racism on this forum by the use of "PC" and so forth is once more validated.

    What a truly disgusting piece of racially bigoted trolling that is, eh? Should we dignify it by responding, or merely wait for competent moderation to remove it with a sharp warning to the poster?

    Joke, of course. Around here, no harm - that is acceptable "scientific" posting on this forum, receiving "likes" from the moderators and everything.

    So: The notion that people who spend a whole lot of time and effort pointing out his "white" ancestry don't give a damn about his race is basically comical, and we can let it stand as typical Harold, one of our several resident forum racists with no self-awareness at all.

    As far as people pointing out that Obama's obvious and unarguable membership in the US sociological "black" race (in Brazil he might well be "white", different sociology there) is a serious problem for the racial bigots that currently make up the Republican voting base, that's just a trivially obvious fact. Not only are we confronted daily with their language and otherwise inexplicable personal hostility

    (Saturday night on my job, three guys I meet occasionally sitting around talking about how they don't "vote outside their race" - just the latest. Should I keep a diary here, of such conversations overheard?)

    but it's part of the explanation for their almost complete, even willful, ignorance of his policies and unconcern about actual political events, their focus on his personal attributes and ancestry, and their willingness to believe the most ridiculous crap about him if it fits in with the standard US bigot stereotypes about "black" people. Secret Muslim? We had just this last week a column in my local newspaper written by my Congressional representative on his secret favoring of Islam over Christian family values and US national security. She is favored to win re-election this year, and her voting base is racially bigoted to the core - I meet them every day, and if anyone here doubts a word of this, wants a daily quote illustrating that, if Harold isn't enough by himself, I'll start a thread.

    As far as using a famous pair of (US) sociologically "black" people to illustrate the biological absurdity of sociological race, that was a matter of convenience - I could have used Barack Obama and George Foreman, or the guy who just won the Olympic marathon and the guy who just won the Olympic 100 meter sprint ( I do this without even checking, I don't even know who won those races, in great confidence that they are both "US black", and one was Central West African while the other was Northern East African in biological "race"), but a pair often photographed together and well known for the details of their US racial identity is perfect for the illustration.

    a classmate of my brother's named paul lindblad tanned really dark, one day at the town pool, Paul was to join us, but the woman at the gate told him that "this was a segregated pool", forget that his family was origionally from France, skin tone mattered
    I once dated a woman who changed US race from winter to summer every year - her heritage was Ashkenazi Jew, and she had frizzy black hair etc. but a fairly strong "US white" nose. She was well-traveled and intelligent, and an interesting person to talk to on the subject of racial bigotry in the US - for one thing, she had worked at various times as a "waitron" (her term) at big political fundraisers and the like, in both races. She had had several odd experiences, especially just after the transition (after the second spring weekend on the beach, say), when she had forgotten which race she had become until reminded by some stranger's treatment of her.
    Last edited by iceaura; August 13th, 2012 at 03:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    I have noticed that you are the only one who mentioned Obama's race. No one else gives a damn, in fact his white ancestry is more likely to be pointed out by his political opponents than his supporters. His supporters find it a convenient club to use against Republicans - if you don't like Obama's policies, then you must be a racist.
    And my observation that one can spot the racism on this forum by the use of "PC" and so forth is once more validated.

    What a truly disgusting piece of racially bigoted trolling that is, eh? Should we dignify it by responding, or merely wait for competent moderation to remove it with a sharp warning to the poster?

    Joke, of course. Around here, no harm - that is acceptable "scientific" posting on this forum, receiving "likes" from the moderators and everything.

    So: The notion that people who spend a whole lot of time and effort pointing out his "white" ancestry don't give a damn about his race is basically comical, and we can let it stand as typical Harold, one of our several resident forum racists with no self-awareness at all.

    As far as people pointing out that Obama's obvious and unarguable membership in the US sociological "black" race (in Brazil he might well be "white", different sociology there) is a serious problem for the racial bigots that currently make up the Republican voting base, that's just a trivially obvious fact. Not only are we confronted daily with their language and otherwise inexplicable personal hostility

    (Saturday night on my job, three guys I meet occasionally sitting around talking about how they don't "vote outside their race" - just the latest. Should I keep a diary here, of such conversations overheard?)

    but it's part of the explanation for their almost complete, even willful, ignorance of his policies and unconcern about actual political events, their focus on his personal attributes and ancestry, and their willingness to believe the most ridiculous crap about him if it fits in with the standard US bigot stereotypes about "black" people. Secret Muslim? We had just this last week a column in my local newspaper written by my Congressional representative on his secret favoring of Islam over Christian family values and US national security. She is favored to win re-election this year, and her voting base is racially bigoted to the core - I meet them every day, and if anyone here doubts a word of this, wants a daily quote illustrating that, if Harold isn't enough by himself, I'll start a thread.

    As far as using a famous pair of (US) sociologically "black" people to illustrate the biological absurdity of sociological race, that was a matter of convenience - I could have used Barack Obama and George Foreman, or the guy who just won the Olympic marathon and the guy who just won the Olympic 100 meter sprint ( I do this without even checking, I don't even know who won those races, in great confidence that they are both "US black", and one was Central West African while the other was Northern East African in biological "race"), but a pair often photographed together and well known for the details of their US racial identity is perfect for the illustration.
    Ice, I hate to say this but your anger is unjustified and your ideology is not sound.. It is destructive to ones own sound judgement and being. I know you are capable of understanding you are writing things in this thread based on an implanted emotional bug (I don't know who or what put it in you) rather than rational and critical thinking.

    If its a matter of racism, all races do it, and yes, it can and often does lead to things that are vial and foul. However, I do not get the impression or message from your posts that you are worried about racism, but rather, you are, perhaps inadvertently, projecting anger towards/on others?
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 13th, 2012 at 03:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    I have noticed that you are the only one who mentioned Obama's race. No one else gives a damn, in fact his white ancestry is more likely to be pointed out by his political opponents than his supporters. His supporters find it a convenient club to use against Republicans - if you don't like Obama's policies, then you must be a racist.
    And my observation that one can spot the racism on this forum by the use of "PC" and so forth is once more validated.

    What a truly disgusting piece of racially bigoted trolling that is, eh? Should we dignify it by responding, or merely wait for competent moderation to remove it with a sharp warning to the poster?

    Joke, of course. Around here, no harm - that is acceptable "scientific" posting on this forum, receiving "likes" from the moderators and everything.

    So: The notion that people who spend a whole lot of time and effort pointing out his "white" ancestry don't give a damn about his race is basically comical, and we can let it stand as typical Harold, one of our several resident forum racists with no self-awareness at all.

    Well to be honest there doesn't seem any racism there to me, to me racism is discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, their race being the only reason for the discrimination.

    I think is all about politics and trying to gain politcal advantage and the races of candidates were reversed then so would the argument be, it is just one of many things that can be used for political advantage and really has very little to do with race.
    Any reasonably intelligent person, who has not suffered some form of brain washing, is not going to be a racist be the whole idea is ridiculous and people trying to suggest others are racist is equally ridiculous in most cases. Usually people just using the term as an insult if someone's said or done something they don't like.
    gonzales56 likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    Ice, I hate to say this but your anger is unjustified and your ideology is not sound.
    Instead of simply asserting vague and general stuff like that, try actually showing, say, the unsoundness of some small part of my ideology - in this thread, an unsoundness relevant to the existence of race would be appropriate. You would begin by accurately describing that aspect of my ideology.

    Good luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christoglitz
    Well to be honest there doesn't seem any racism there to me, to me racism is discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, their race being the only reason for the discrimination.
    Why do you think so many "opponents" of Barack Obama think he was born in Kenya, is secretly a Muslim, did not write his autobiography, did poorly in school, did poorly in college, did poorly in law school, is newly promoting an expansion of welfare payouts without work requirements, is not very intelligent, etc etc etc?

    Why do you think real time audience polling of Obama's practice debates showed that he lost support whenever he showed even a hint of anger?

    Why do you think the geographical areas of most opposition to Obama in the US, and the geographical areas covered by the Confederacy and its allies in the Civil War, so largely overlap?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    Ice, I hate to say this but your anger is unjustified and your ideology is not sound.
    Instead of simply asserting vague and general stuff like that, try actually showing, say, the unsoundness of some small part of my ideology - in this thread, an unsoundness relevant to the existence of race would be appropriate. You would begin by accurately describing that aspect of my ideology.

    Good luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christoglitz
    Well to be honest there doesn't seem any racism there to me, to me racism is discriminating against someone on the basis of their race, their race being the only reason for the discrimination.
    Why do you think so many "opponents" of Barack Obama think he was born in Kenya, is secretly a Muslim, did not write his autobiography, did poorly in school, did poorly in college, did poorly in law school, is newly promoting an expansion of welfare payouts without work requirements, is not very intelligent, etc etc etc?

    Why do you think real time audience polling of Obama's practice debates showed that he lost support whenever he showed even a hint of anger?

    Why do you think the geographical areas of most opposition to Obama in the US, and the geographical areas covered by the Confederacy and its allies in the Civil War, so largely overlap?

    Yet another rant about your hatred and conspiracy theories concerning bad and evil people (white people?) who dare dislike Obama... And you ask me what is not sound about your hate message?

    What should we do with these people in the states who do not love and support Obama? What do we do with the people who call him stupid? Do you decide that or are you just helping to spread hatred, and with some ignorance, others and their anger can do something to them?
    Last edited by gonzales56; August 13th, 2012 at 04:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    And you ask me what is not sound about your hate message?
    I'm asking you to describe it, so we can see whether you know what it is,

    and then critique the relevant aspect of it, so we can see what you think is "unsound" about it.

    I don't think you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    And you ask me what is not sound about your hate message?
    I'm asking you to describe it, so we can see whether you know what it is,

    and then critique the relevant aspect of it, so we can see what you think is "unsound" about it.

    I don't think you can.
    I just did but, you are so wrapped up in it you cant even see it. I like you Ice, you bring some good reading to this forum but, IMO, you are out there on this one. I surely do look forward to reading your other posts on other topics though, they are, like I said, usually pretty interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    I just did but, you are so wrapped up in it you cant even see it
    It's quite true that I see nothing in your posts that describes any aspect of my ideology, or critiques any aspect of it relevant to this thread. I see only your opinion of it as hateful, ranting, conspiracy theory, etc. If your opinion of it as hateful, etc, were enough to declare it "unsound", sight unseen, without even knowing what it was, we might have something - but I do not necessarily trust your judgment in the matter. I don't think you have much of a clue about what my ideology actually is, you see.

    I have said nothing about people in general who "dare" to dislike Obama, for example - I don't think very highly of his Presidency myself, and don't enjoy his speeches much, but haven't met the man personally. For all I know, the people who have find him a pluperfect asshole for good reason. But dislike of the man does not explain the widespread belief that he is a secret Muslim, or that he is a fraud who did poorly in school and was only rescued by affirmative action, or that he and his wife hate white people, or that he was really born in Kenya, or any of the other bizarre crapola beliefs about the guy so prevalent in the US. Racial bigotry does. And I run into such racial bigotry among people who hold those beliefs very, very often. So - - -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by montana
    I don't understand the connection you're trying to make between me noticing physical differences and that somehow applying to a person's race. Sorry.
    Well, I can't make you think. But that's not really the issue, is it.

    If you recall, you posted this Fox question recently:
    You're saying that me noticing that a black person has a different skin tone than me, thus classifying them as a separate race from my own, is the same as me associating darker skin with biological inferiority?
    in which we see that the connection between you noticing skin tone and you classifying a person by race is in fact something so familiar to you that you take it for granted, something you assume as the basis of your own posts here,

    and not a connection you can honestly fail to "understand" when it's pointed out.

    There's beginning to be quite the cadre of Fox posters like that around here. So much for any opportunity to actually discuss these kinds of issues.
    I'm trying to remain civil as I prefer debate over the baser arguing for which you seem to so fond.

    Talking down to someone who can't understand what you're trying to get across is not particularly polite or constructive. I'm a little tired of you trying to define your argument by either hinting at me being ignorant or making assumption about how I form my opinions.

    Thus far, I've seen you offer nothing of substance to the topic at hand except getting on peoples' nerves. I'm done trying to discuss anything with you until you come up with something substantial.
    Lynx_Fox, KALSTER and Paleoichneum like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    I just did but, you are so wrapped up in it you cant even see it
    It's quite true that I see nothing in your posts that describes any aspect of my ideology, or critiques any aspect of it relevant to this thread. I see only your opinion of it as hateful, ranting, conspiracy theory, etc. If your opinion of it as hateful, etc, were enough to declare it "unsound", sight unseen, without even knowing what it was, we might have something - but I do not necessarily trust your judgment in the matter. I don't think you have much of a clue about what my ideology actually is, you see.

    I have said nothing about people in general who "dare" to dislike Obama, for example - I don't think very highly of his Presidency myself, and don't enjoy his speeches much, but haven't met the man personally. For all I know, the people who have find him a pluperfect asshole for good reason. But dislike of the man does not explain the widespread belief that he is a secret Muslim, or that he is a fraud who did poorly in school and was only rescued by affirmative action, or that he and his wife hate white people, or that he was really born in Kenya, or any of the other bizarre crapola beliefs about the guy so prevalent in the US. Racial bigotry does. And I run into such racial bigotry among people who hold those beliefs very, very often. So - - -
    Obama's actions and up bringing leads some people to believe he has, at least, some muslim leanings/sympathies, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a half breed. His father could have very well been an iranian and those concerns/allegations would still be the same. Your claims and cries of racism concerning this matter is just wrong.

    Republicans and democrats call each other stupid and attack each other all the time. I see nothing new concerning Obama. All I really see is actual racist trying to build up hatred and intolerance for anyone who is not black and who speaks up, out or against obama in life or in the political realm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    For all I know, the people who have find him a pluperfect asshole for good reason. But dislike of the man does not explain the widespread belief that he is a secret Muslim, or that he is a fraud who did poorly in school and was only rescued by affirmative action, or that he and his wife hate white people, or that he was really born in Kenya, or any of the other bizarre crapola beliefs about the guy so prevalent in the US. Racial bigotry does. And I run into such racial bigotry among people who hold those beliefs very, very often. So - - -
    Does this mean that Bill Clinton actually did murder Ron Brown and Vince Foster (since we cannot attribute those conspiracy theories to racism)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by montana
    Talking down to someone who can't understand what you're trying to get across is not particularly polite or constructive.
    Calling you on this tactic of yours is not intended to be polite, and constructive went out the window with you several posts ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by montana
    I'm done trying to discuss anything with you until you come up with something substantial.
    You have never made the slightest attempt at honest discussion of this issue, have never dealt with the substance of any of my posts. You want to discuss substance? there's a backlog clear to my first post on the matter of biological vs sociological race. If you have actually decided to refrain from further posting in your current manner, I will confess my surprise - after the event.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    Obama's actions and up bringing leads some people to believe he has, at least, some muslim leanings/sympathies, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he is a half breed.
    Now we're getting "half-breed", from the self-described non-racists. And then some weird assertion about unspecified "actions" that lead "some people" to believe he has "at least, some muslim leanings/sympathies", on top of the assertion that his upbringing has nothing to do with the "fact that he is a half breed". Nah, no racists here on this "scientific forum" - not a trace of 'em.

    "Half breed" is standard bigot talk for Red/White crosses, btw, not Black/White. The technical, scientific term appropriate to this forum you seem to be looking for - the one used at the slave auctions in the US and throughout the southern and Caribbean plantation culture into the mid 1900s - is probably "mulatto", or maybe "high yellow" in Obama's case. For his wife it's just nigger, like normal.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez
    Republicans and democrats call each other stupid and attack each other all the time. I see nothing new concerning Obama.
    Self-awareness, like a sense of irony, is not in the mental tool kit of the faction that thinks Obama might really be a secret Muslim born in Kenya and educated in madrassa - because of his "actions" and "upbringing", don'tcha know.

    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Does this mean that Bill Clinton actually did murder Ron Brown and Vince Foster (since we cannot attribute those conspiracy theories to racism)?
    Perfectly timed, guy - right after a bunch of your buddies brought up the topic of constructive contribution.

    (It was Hilary, in the original version, who put out the hit, btw. The foul treatment that woman received from your kind - racial bigotry and misogyny are so often twinned a reasonable person might look for common causation - was kind of a shock, at the time, but we're used to it now. )

    Brings up an interesting point, though - Bill Clinton, as has been been widely noticed and discussed for many years now, is very close in style, culture, and "upbringing", to the US "US black" norm. Obama, on the other hand, is as many have noted, not. So we have what amounts to a test of the claims of these folks: are they really, as they claim, setting race aside, finding their inspiration in the "culture"? Clinton was quite viciously persecuted and maligned throughout his tenure in office, with bizarre fantasies and idiotic claims getting mainstream media amplification - were they the kinds of slanders and claims we associate with disparagements of "US black" culture, as Obama's (with much less cultural connection, but darker skin) are?

    Did they, for example, as with Obama, suspect Clinton of being a secret Jew, because of his well known educational milieu, coupled with his actions and sympathies favoring Jewish financiers and the State of Israel? Did they spread rumors he refused to take his oath on a Bible and demanded a Torah instead? Did they question his educational credentials and suspect his grades etc were substandard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Bill Clinton, as has been been widely noticed and discussed for many years now, is very close in style, culture, and "upbringing", to the US "US black" norm.
    Oh, yeah. That's right. Clinton was the "first black president" so your racism theory is intact!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Racism is judging a whole race to be inferior. This is known to be wrong thinking and not very nice.

    Judging individuals to be inferior, for whatever reason, is the same except on a smaller scale.

    Those who judge individuals as inferior have no high ground from which they can preach about the wrongs of racism.

    Bigotry is bigotry, it comes in many shapes and forms, in some cases we are even encouraged to judge ourselves as better than others.

    It's good that people fight against racist bigotry, but if one becomes a bigot in the process, then it becomes a hypercritical farse.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    you guys are a real hoot when you get into silly arguements(you know this of course?)

    speaking of race
    maybe we should consider hybreds with neanderthals and denisovans and... unknown etceteras......
    if we're talking percentages, what race are we, really?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Humans.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Humans.
    Brought back a memory(and a smile). When i registered my sons at the local gradeschool, the form asked which race, and I wrote "human".
    KALSTER and Flick Montana like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Humans.
    Brought back a memory(and a smile). When i registered my sons at the local gradeschool, the form asked which race, and I wrote "human".
    So you're the reason they changed the question to ethnicity!

    I had to redo an application form today that i last filled in 11 years ago... I chuckled when I saw I had put 'lesbian' as my 'sexual prefference' (i'm male ofc)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Racism is judging a whole race to be inferior.
    Racism is sociological classification of human individuals by assigned race.

    They can be classified as inferior, sure. Or superior. Or universally different in some ostensibly neutral way that is affixed to all individuals in the sociologically assigned race. Regardless, the result is an injustice perpetrated upon the individuals.
    Those who judge individuals as inferior have no high ground from which they can preach about the wrongs of racism.
    1) Pointing out the existence and wrongs of racism does not require high ground. It's not a game of king on the hill, its an analysis. The worst child-molesting friend-betraying petty thief creep on the planet can point out the existence and effects of racism, and the question is not whether they are a better person, but whether they are right.

    2) Judging individuals in themselves, on the same criteria as everybody else, for what they individually say and do, as "inferior", may be a bad idea, but it's one of the polar opposites of racism. It's not the same thing, at all.

    " - - - not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character" or something like that, from Martin Luther King.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    you guys are a real hoot when you get into silly arguements(you know this of course?)

    speaking of race
    maybe we should consider hybreds with neanderthals and denisovans and... unknown etceteras......
    if we're talking percentages, what race are we, really?
    Differing Modern human populations are genetically diverse/divergent with enough unique genetics to be scientifically classified into races, and they are. Add in all the other points of origin for genes, and their variety, and it becomes very clear that modern humans also descend, for the most part, from multiple ancient sub-species of humans/hominids as well.

    Science will sort it out but, there are genetic differences between divergent hominid populations, and there has been for millions of years. Modern Humans did not start the variety or the divergence, we inherited it, and it will be in our lineage well after our specific kinds of human/hominids are gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •