Is this the best definition of race ever?
- Thread starter classical_hero
- Start date
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Yeekim that was the biggest non sequitor of logic I have seen on this forum in a while.
What about the mindset "God forbid we acknowledge there be some easily noticeable differences in how people look, for that surely is just an inch from kick-starting another Holocaust!"?
Also, I am thrilled to know how you understood the sentence: Relative distance from the equator in which your ancestors lived is an absurd way to try to judge any human.
Also, I am thrilled to know how you understood the sentence: Relative distance from the equator in which your ancestors lived is an absurd way to try to judge any human.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Forma never said acknowledging race had anything to do with racist groups. I have no freaking clue how you made that leap. I'm still completely baffled.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
yes they do, just see my sig
So if I´m saying that King is black, I am judging him? Seriously, WTH?
i initially read it the same way, but i suppose u can read it in that only the "racists" use this criteria to "judge" people, which is quite absurd....
me, Aug 06, 2010
i think people are using "race", "ethnicity" and/or perhaps "culture" interchangeably....
IIRC, in my biology classes (way back in the early 80's), there were 3 accepted human races, the caucasians, negroids and mongoloids.....i dont recall being taught that any one was "superior" to any other, but there were genotypic and phenotypic differences amoungst them....
also, i recall a theory that our DNA was "hardwired" to unconcsiously be attracted to the most "fit" mate, but the definition of the most fit ALSO included "most like".....that is why u can put 100 chimps, dolphins or cardinals in a room and you would have a great deal of difficulty making one individual out from the others, but put 100 humans in a room and the process becomes VERY easy....we are hardwired to notice the slightest, milimetric differences, especailly in faces.....if this trait is "hardwired" into our DNA, could this be a factor to argue that racism itself is "hardwired" in our DNA? in a way, it makes little sense that DNA would cause attraction to "most like", since we know that genetic diversity is actually what makes a species stronger
, perhaps environment plays a more important part, that is, you become atrtracted to those whom make you feel most secure in any case, as more mixing of the races occur, the less the biological definitions fit...as for the political definitions, well, each group has it's reasons to classify people.....
Well, this thread so far has entirely been about acknowledging race, with noone judging people based on their race. I was reading that post in the context of the thread so far.
By the way, the entire thread is also hilarious in the context of other threads we've had in OT. Fervent supporters of Affirmative Action now claim races do not even exist.
Or what about that much-loathed "racial profiling" by the police? Or why should we care about how many black firemen or cops there are, if the whole thing is only about some skin pigmentation - a completely irrelevant detail? This isn't even doublethink, that stuff borders on schizophrenia.Yes, judging people based on race is stupid. Acknowledging races exist is something else entirely. Now, if the current trends of globalization continue, "mixed" is likely going to be the most common race description and that is probably good for the gene pool. Doesn't refute the existence of races though.
Racial-profiling involves that 'judgement' that you acknowledge as idiotic. As you said, acknowledging that there are differences between people is quite fine, but applying some sort of hierarchy based on that is truly absurd and dangerous. 'Racial profiling' does just that, by casting suspicion on someone simply because of their race.
Indeed, but by acknowledging that "racial profiling" exists, we also admit that "races" exist, right? One can't complain about "racial profiling" while simultaneously maintaining there is no such thing as "race".
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
It doesn't matter that race is a non-factor biologically, but it has very real ramifications. Here's a blog post that might hopefully convince you that we are not "beyond racism" in the 21st century by any scope of the imagination:
Slavery has ended. Blacks got the right to vote. Jim Crow is over. The KKK is laughed at around the world. Lets not forget Affirmative Action. Whites, Asians, Indians, Hispanics, and everybody seems to have a black friend or two…maybe even one or two of their best friends are black.
And yet, everyone hates black people just as much as they ever have.
Figure 1:
I was driving to XS in Baltimore last night with two people I consider to be good friends of mine – Chi (a Chinese woman) and Rohit (an Indian – red dot, not feather – man). Two subjects came up during the trip that made my blood absolutely boil:
1. Rohit asked Chi why Asian girls prefer to date white men. Her answer was refreshingly direct:
“Because white people are superior – throughout history they’ve been the dominant culture and have displayed their superiority on the world stage.”
Who knew that 600 years of manipulation and genocide would eventually earn the designation ‘superior’? Who also knew that it would be so effective as to make members of other races be racist FOR you? I sure as hell didn’t.
2. Rohit loves black women, and this is no secret to anyone. Yet, he won’t date them. Chi asks why that is. Rohit’s response:
“Because my mom would kill me. She’d prefer I date an Indian girl. It’d be OK to a lesser extent if I dated a white girl. Black girls are unacceptable to her, and it’s ironic, because her best friend is black.”
I’ll address each of these two comments in turn.
Chi’s comment wasn’t anything unexpected. The average Asian girl will give the disingenuous response that they prefer white guys because Asian guys are dorky and Asian girls are hot enough to do better (nevermind that one Asian girl pictured on the site has Frog Ass and the other can’t be more than 4’10″.
This, of course, leaves the door wide open to ask them “why not date black guys?”…but I tend not to do this because I can only get so angry before I start shooting people. If you do ask this question, though, the girl will invariably blame her parents, saying that dating a black person would be unacceptable to them – which is a half-truth, because the Asian girl hates black people just as much as her parents. That way, the Asian girl gets to BE a racist (acceptable) without having to BE CALLED a racist (unacceptable), while at the same time faulting their parents for being old fashioned (extremely acceptable).
On to Rohit’s comment.
Rohit’s mother is living proof that having black friends, even close black friends, does not mean you aren’t a racist. Instead, the criteria is this:
No matter what any of the circumstances are about you and your life, you are a racist if any one of the following are true:
1. You have a problem with your children marrying/dating a person outside of their own race, unless that person is white
2. You have a problem with yourself marrying/dating a person outside of your own race, unless that person is white
It’s that simple, and it’s also why I’ve labeled the title image of this post as ‘’. Ads and other crap celebrating diversity are shoved down our throats until our stomachs are sore. We routinely interact with and befriend members of other races. We’re polite to each other (usually…see Fig. 2), learn each others names, and even have thoughtful conversations with one another. Then we’re tricked into thinking that we’re enlightened because public displays of racism are no longer acceptable. But it means absolutely, positively nothing…because when it comes down to it, the likelihood is that all but maybe one or two of the douchebags in Figure 1 would be ENRAGED if their children dated the children of the others.
I’m actually forced to respect KKK members to some degree, because as racist as they are, at least with them you know where you stand. Seriously, what’s worse? Someone who’s racist against you outright and lets you know it, or someone who pretends not to hate you because it’s socially acceptable and makes them feel better about themselves? I’ll take an honest racist over a lying racist any day of the week. I heard those Klansmen know how to party.
aneeshm
Deity
Self-identification is an excellent for finding out what someone wants you to think they self-identify as. It's not that useful for a concept which it is in large measure possible to objectively assess, like race/ancestry, or genetic propensity to a given disease, or something of this nature.
Tricky and pointless...
aneeshm
Deity
And in practice, the gene pools of humans and our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, are at least 95% identical, and at most 98.5% identical. That does not preclude their being massive differences between us.
To take an example of a single gene which has huge effects, we have [wiki]FOXP2[/wiki]. It is very unwise to assess the importance of allele differences based on their number, as right now, the specific links between genes and intelligence have not been established. We presume such links must exist because all other mechanisms (short of divine intervention, or something equally improbable) to explain the extremely high heritability of intelligence have been ruled out by a series of increasing sophisticated experiments. (The increasing sophistication was driven by the increasing standards of proof imposed by self-professed 'anti-racists' on the researchers in order to enable them to ignore conclusions they did not want to be true.)
Further, the question is not merely about the 'existence' of an allele in a 'pool', but of its relative frequency. Not only that, but 'existence' is a misleading metric in another sense. A 'cluster' of alleles can be used to identify race with increasing certainty. It may not be possible to do so with any accuracy looking at a single position of probable difference, but the more sites of potential difference you cover, the more accurate your assessment gets, to the point where it is possible to pinpoint race with accuracy sufficient for all practical purposes.
As of now, as I said before, the exact genetic mechanisms behind intelligence have not been identified. What has been identified is the heritability of the trait. I haven't bothered to keep up with the field, but I think there are people working on chronicling the allele differences and their frequencies you mention. Putting these two together, it is quite possible that, if this research is not banned by those who deny the basis of its existence, the genetic mechanisms underlying intelligence will be finally found, if not understood, and this question laid to rest, conclusively, once and for all.
That's not right; that's not even wrong. An analysis of the corporato-statist, soul-enslaving, liberty-crushing evel fascists falls far enough outside the realm of intelligent discussion on race/ancestry and genetics that I think it deserves a thread of its own. (I encourage you to make such a thread; I will be most glad to completely ignore it.)
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Here in France I've always learnt at school that there was one human race and that genetical differences were too small between human groups to distinguish them into several races.
Then the Internet came in and I met Americans who told me the world was divided in 3 races : caucasians, asians and africans. Then I asked them... where do you put Arabs, Indians, American natives, Polynesians or Aborigenese people? You just can't divide the world this way. The 3 "primary colors" Americans believe in are just a myth.
Oh and by the way, Obama is as white as he's black.
Then the Internet came in and I met Americans who told me the world was divided in 3 races : caucasians, asians and africans. Then I asked them... where do you put Arabs, Indians, American natives, Polynesians or Aborigenese people? You just can't divide the world this way. The 3 "primary colors" Americans believe in are just a myth.
Oh and by the way, Obama is as white as he's black.
aneeshm
Deity
Agreed. But it is equally absurd to assert that 'relative distance from the equator' (or, rather, different ancestry) has no effect on the statistical distribution of traits within the said population, or that all ancestral groups must have, contrary to all theory and empirical evidence, exactly the same distribution of all the traits that we have decided are in some way important. (This, by the way, is why asserting black prowess in some sports is uncontroversial, but asserting the same prowess with respect to, say, Ashkenazim intelligence leads to a massive storm of reality-denying protest.)
Since when is this an "American" thing? The thread was started by an Australian and the main person arguing about races is an Indian.
aneeshm
Deity
Well, then, they were wrong. Well-intentioned, but still wrong.
Then the Americans who have this view are also wrong. (Not as wrong as your teachers, I would say, but still closer - if only by a very small amount - to the truth.)
That is correct; he is a mulatto.
aneeshm
Deity
I'll address the meat of what you have written:
1. I would not forbid marriage outside my ancestral group to my (hypothetical) children (unless there are other reasons for it - the particular individual is unsuitable completely independently of any ancestral factor), but I would without hesitation inform them of where the statistical distribution of traits stands within that group, and what the ramifications are for their potential children, and then let them decide.
2. Let's separate 'dating' and procreation here. I have no serious objection to unproductive sexual activity with pretty much any race, but when it comes to the question of your genetic legacy, it is extremely important to know what effects the ancestry of your partner can have on your children's prospects. Effectively, this means that you have one more thing - ancestry (and its consequences) - to consider when evaluating a potential mate, in addition to the other indicators already used.
ADDENDUM: And ref. the response of the woman, it is of course to be expected - women (and men, for that matter) have an innate desire to 'mate up' the genetic value chain. If they perceive that a particular trait - in this case, being white - is 'up', this is the behaviour you will get. I have seen many variants of this based on local indicators of social status. In fact, I've seen instances where the same characteristic which is a plus in one scenario is a negative in another. The best and most potent example I can think of is penis size. Classical Greco-Roman civilisation considered a large penis a mark of barbarism, which is why the penises on classical sculptures appear smaller than normal. Today's America, however, considers a large penis a sexual positive, which is why spam targeting this cultural niche regularly inundates any e-mail inbox unfortunate enough to be unprotected by a spam filter.
I certainly wouldn't want to up the statistical risk of my kid having a career in a call center.
Even assuming this should be taken at face value and is not just a really questionable writer's own rage and bias about something stupid, it's full of loopholes.
By these criteria, white people who don't like dating black people are fine, for instance. Really this boils down to wanting to mandate that Asians (or Hispanics or Native Americans) should want to date black people (or each other, but some of those minority groups are rather small that to look at statistical likelihoods it hardly matters), which is an odd and fruitless position.
By these criteria, white people who don't like dating black people are fine, for instance. Really this boils down to wanting to mandate that Asians (or Hispanics or Native Americans) should want to date black people (or each other, but some of those minority groups are rather small that to look at statistical likelihoods it hardly matters), which is an odd and fruitless position.
