# General Discussion > Opinions >  Racism, facists, and seperatist movements.

## Winter

What are your thoughts on these topics?

----------


## TyPe-ZeRo

Racism is wrong. Facism is like Monarchy and that hasn't been around for awhile, but i'm sure it exists somewhere. Depends on what you mean though

----------


## Winter

I was going into the doctrine of ethnic facism, which basically corellates elitism through ethnic pride, and domination based on ethnic supremecy.

You gave an answer I wanted to hear though, that racism is wrong.

Now, what exactly makes racism wrong? What exactly about it, is bad? Is it the unfairness, the ignorance, what exactly?

----------


## King of Tokyo

A racist is ignorant, plain and simple. Completely misinformed and they disgust me, nothing gets my blood boiling more than a racist, nothing. And it's easy to get me angered with a simple comment because of the person I am. My mom is half caucasian and half african-american and my dad is caucasian, So I'm a quarter, couple that with my love for asian culture, and you've got someone who will drop you for making an ignorant racist comment about any race.  :Smiling:

----------


## Winter

So King, you hate racists, is that safe to say?

----------


## King of Tokyo

> So King, you hate racists, is that safe to say?


Hate is a strong word. I do say I think they are terribly wrong in their beliefs, if they changed their views, I would have no problem with them. But anyone who judges people on the color of their skin is no friend of mine.

----------


## Winter

Okay, I want to continue this, but I gotta go to work...bleh.

Lousy night jobs.

----------


## TyPe-ZeRo

I believe it is ignorance and the intolerance of different ideas. Thats why schools should try to show more tolerance toward's differences in nationality and such in other countries. Things that make me are those neo-nazi's. It's just so stupid. Also gangs. It's all pointless.

----------


## King of Tokyo

Neo-nazis.. Man they disgust me.. I watched American History X.. And I was really getting very angered by the nazis.. It's a powerful movie worthy of praise, but I was really angered to think that there is people who live their life like that.

----------


## TyPe-ZeRo

I also watched American History X, Is that based on a true story? It did make me happy when the man changed his ways

----------


## Satori

I think racists and fascists are extremely fearful people, and that fear manifests in all sorts of ways, such as hatred, bigotry, etc. I think the most upsetting factor about people like that is their utter lack of humanity. Just my two cents ...  :Sou ka:   :Victory:

----------


## canadian_kor

Racism and fascism are wrong...just as wrong as governments taking away people's freedom of opinion, livelihood, and liberty for the benefit of people who work at McDonalds, peasant farmers, and panhandlers.

----------


## blessed

nazi's and rasists. yeah, their mind is clouded by fear, and fear leads to hate, hate leads to sufferng, sufferning leads to anger. anger leads to.. the dark side. hehe.
They are just really dumb-ass people angry at the fact that short distance olympic track events are nearly always won by black people.
No, on a cerious point, they are way out there. Should seek education in England... that'l change 'em.

separatist movements? hard one. I'm pro-globalization, and think that whatever happens, the world will unite in due time, so from that point of view, separatism is only a short term deal. but if there really are issues in countries and they separate peacfully, then fine: Czechoslovakia split in 1993, that was fine. but (this is a bit funny in my mind) now they are both in the EU, and obliged to enter EMU whith only one step to go to political integration. 

I don't really like the Chechen's approach, cause they blow up appartment blocks in moscow, doesn't really make my heart bleed for their cause.

It also depends whether the country will start getting separatist movements all over the place and hence split into a dozen or more "lesser" countries. Although i could theoretically support all of their causes, i know that no government in their right mind will let that happen. (This is one of the reasons, I think, why Russia doesn't want to loose them).

----------


## 60Yen

Pfff, my opinion on racism is that I think that it's crap. People are different and I think we should admire those differences, hell, it would be boring if we were all the same :). 

Facism, hmmm, depends in what form it comes. Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority as well. 

Hmmm, seperatists? Ah well, I guess some culturebridges can't be crossed, or at least, not yet. For example, look at Iraq. They distrust eachother (Kurds/Sadr-Guys etc! Should we make one state, bathing in blood?

----------


## Winter

I almost liked what Rocklee said, but I think that it was a bit extreme.

I dont think its fair to label all the replyers as racists; just sharing a miniscule level of the similar intolerence that it takes to become a racist...but not racists themselves.

So many agree that racism is wrong, and bad and all that. Its wrong to not tolerate other ethnicities. Schools should promote tolerance, yadda yadda.

You know whats odd though? I've been doing a personal surveyance of this for some time, and find that while people condemning racism as intolerant, are also on the same level of not willing to accept the beliefs of others either.

This sword swings both ways pretty efficiently, I'd say.

"Racists hate entire races regardless of what kind of person they are."

Not entirely true.

Many White Supremecists, ethnic facists, and the like believe that racial cleansing is scribed in the destiny of humanity *Thule scriptures, White Man's Bible, Nature of Man, and to some context, the King David's Old Testament*. 

Some believe that their racist attitudes arent hateful. They merely believe that the three distinct human races should remain seperate for the good of the species as a whole *obviously contridicting the evidence of diversion=evolutionary productivity*.

And here is a real tricky thing. I had a best friend whom was a decendant of a Grand Wizard of the triple K. Funny thing is, I met this Grand Wizard, and he was incredibly kind, sincere, and accepting of me for being the multi-ethnic person that I am. He explained to me that his Klan didnt preach hatred for other races, but rather, did its best to re-direct the folly of the old Klan, in that the new Klan was a caucoid pride group. 

Regardless, my initial point is that while many racist factions *not all, but many* preach condemnation of other races, to willfully disaccount these peoples beliefs, and to harbor some sort of animosity toward them simply because of their beliefs, is just as intolerant as the intolerance that they preach.

In the end, is it really anyones duty to tell someone what they have a right to believe? *provided of course, that their beliefs do not result to violence*


"I believe the Jews are the blight of the White man!"

"Oh yeah? Well I believe your ignorance and intolerance are dispicable, and you are evil bad people!"

Is either mindset not guilty of a level of intolerance, and ignorance?

----------


## King of Tokyo

Sorry, If someone is going to believe they have a superior race or make broad generalizations about races then I simply cannot agree with them. Never have I thought that someone who is simply proud of their race and is good natured is a bad person, but I hate to break it to you that there are _alot_ of racists who are very extreme about it. 

If races were kept separate, then I doubt anyone of the forum would be alive, no one is 'pure' one race. The separatism is stupid, it would solve nothing. Plus if you think african-americans shouldn't be here (not saying you do) than blame white men, they brought them over on slave ships, they would be in africa if it wasn't for slave traders.

It's pointless to debate you about this, as I could tell from before I posted that you were leaning more towards supporting racism to an extent. Which is why I do believe you asked if I hate racists, hoping I would say yes and then you would say I was just as bad as them, but I am not. Like I said, It's a bit pointless to argue with someone who doesn't share the same views as you. I hope you don't support any type of discrimination. I have a lot more to say, but I don't want to argue..

----------


## Winter

I support accepting beliefs, whether popular or not.

"But anyone who judges people on the color of their skin is no friend of mine."

Comments like that are a bit harsh, arent they? Just because of what they belief, you will not allow them to be a friend.

And there is a point in debating this. I want to understand. I want to know how different people differ on topics, and understand the logic in which people can summon up to back their differences of opinions.

----------


## King of Tokyo

It's a bit harsh? Racists aren't exactly befriending people of other races, infact many harass others of different races, which is much worse than me simply letting them live their life and not associating with them. Also, I would not befriend a racist because we simply would not get along. Imagine me hanging with someone who would call me a "Nigger Lover"? Or harassing me for having African-American blood? Yeh, Trust me it wouldn't work. I just don't think your points have any merit, You seem to be ignoring the greater of the two evils. 

And ahh you're getting me into this again.. I hate arguing.. Actually that's not true I actually enjoy it in some circumstances, like if the person even has a chance of seeing the light, but you don't seem to.. and now.. I don't feel like basically typing to a brick wall.

----------


## mad pierrot

From my own personal experience:

There are Philipinos, Europeans, and Pakistanis in my family. It just so happens that the some of my relatives of European descent are extremely racist. And it just so happens that some of the Pakistanis in my family are very anti-Christian. I love both sides of the family. Just last week there was a wedding in my family. Despite the fact that there were strong difference of opinions, both sides remained civil. So, despite the racism and bigotry, strong difference of beliefs, both sides got along.

Only because of _respect._ Which, of course, depends on the person.




> I think the most upsetting factor about people like that is their utter lack of humanity.


Heh, but isn't it our inherent humanity which screws things up?

----------


## Satori

> Heh, but isn't it our inherent humanity which screws things up?


Not in my opinion. When people are humane, they tend to be loving and tolerant. When people are inhumane, they tend to be fearful and intolerant. Just my opinion, for what it's worth ...  :Smiling:

----------


## mad pierrot

Humanity as in the act of being human, not benevolent. As is, what being a human _is_ open to debate. I tend to agree with to err is human.

----------


## Satori

> Humanity as in the act of being human, not benevolent. As is, what being a human _is_ open to debate. I tend to agree with to err is human.


I was going to add that I thought you might be referring to "human nature," but wasn't sure if I needed to clarify. I was actually referring to a person's humanity, such as their heart, compassion, and ability to feel for their fellow human being. According to the dictionary, "humanity" is defined as: 1) the human race; 2) the condition or quality of being human or humane. The dictionary defines "humane" as: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for human beings and animals. So that's what I was referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you were referring more to human nature--that it's human nature to err and make mistakes. Did that make sense?  :Doubt:

----------


## TimF

Sadly I used to be racist from the time I was about 10 to the time I was 17 I didnt go out doing hate crimes or anything dont get me wrong I just strongly looked down on other races and the reason for this was my brother and his bestfriend were shot and killed on mothers day and I was young at the time and my anger clouded my judgement for 7 long years. Then I got into some trouble and had to be sent to a boys reform home where I would have no contact with my family and when I got there, there were only 5 white kids (including myself) the rest were black or hispanic well when I got there I wouldnt talk to anyone the first few days and I would only make sarcastic comments to people that others who were not on the recieving end found funny. Then one day when I was curled up in a chair in the corner and a group of black and hispanic kids walked up to me and asked "Do you want to play some ball?" and I was like "Who all is comming?" and they said "Just us" (I was kind of hoping there would have been some whit kids) I was bored anyway so I said ok so I went out and we balled and they gave me the nickname shaq and a few others after that and after awhile we started to become really good friends and then when my court date came and they told me I had to stay a little longer I was crushed but when I got back to the facility I was welcomed back by people that called me their friend. They would say stuff like "Tim is my boi!" or "Tim is my young bull" (I think that is how you pronounce it lol  :Laughing:  ) But then the day I left I everyone was really sad saying stuff like "Its going to be dull around her without you." and then hugs and handshakes were given (when I fist came in I never dreamed I would have huged a black or hispanic person) and to this day I think about my friends I met in that facility everyday thinking about how much I miss them and how I would have never known what true friendship was if I didnt go there. So I guess what I am trying to say is "People dont hate other people they might just turn out to be the best friends you could ever ask for." So anyway thanks for listening.

----------


## Bounty Hunter

> My mom is half caucasian and half african-american and my dad is caucasian, So I'm a *quarter*,


I feel sorry for you. You shouldn't say that your "*quarter*".
Just to correct you, you should say that your *MIXED* raced.
Mixed race people don't like to be called quarter or half caste cause it makes them feel half a person and its wrong in this day and age. 

If you say that you "quarter" then it sounds like your a quarter of a person.
and this goes beyond race, if you think about it really deeply it will make much more sense.
(Do you or anyone else understand this?)

Mixed race is the right way.

And you might be asking yourself how would a white boy know this?
well to answer this. I have been raised in a "Mixed" family and i know the right terms to use and or terms which i hear alot of people use which i don't use cause their the wrong terms.

So King of Tokyo you should give yourself more respect.

And if you do not already know am not a racist and i don't like racist.

----------


## King of Tokyo

Well most considered mixed are half. And since I'm not fully half I was simply explaining that I am technically a quarter. But I do consider myself mixed, I just may use a different term in different situations. Even though this has nothing to do with the current topic being discussed between me and RockLee.. Heh.

----------


## Satori

> Sadly I used to be racist from the time I was about 10 to the time I was 17 I didnt go out doing hate crimes or anything dont get me wrong I just strongly looked down on other races and the reason for this was my brother and his bestfriend were shot and killed on mothers day and I was young at the time and my anger clouded my judgement for 7 long years. Then I got into some trouble and had to be sent to a boys reform home where I would have no contact with my family and when I got there, there were only 5 white kids (including myself) the rest were black or hispanic well when I got there I wouldnt talk to anyone the first few days and I would only make sarcastic comments to people that others who were not on the recieving end found funny. Then one day when I was curled up in a chair in the corner and a group of black and hispanic kids walked up to me and asked "Do you want to play some ball?" and I was like "Who all is comming?" and they said "Just us" (I was kind of hoping there would have been some whit kids) I was bored anyway so I said ok so I went out and we balled and they gave me the nickname shaq and a few others after that and after awhile we started to become really good friends and then when my court date came and they told me I had to stay a little longer I was crushed but when I got back to the facility I was welcomed back by people that called me their friend. They would say stuff like "Tim is my boi!" or "Tim is my young bull" (I think that is how you pronounce it lol  ) But then the day I left I everyone was really sad saying stuff like "Its going to be dull around her without you." and then hugs and handshakes were given (when I fist came in I never dreamed I would have huged a black or hispanic person) and to this day I think about my friends I met in that facility everyday thinking about how much I miss them and how I would have never known what true friendship was if I didnt go there. So I guess what I am trying to say is "People dont hate other people they might just turn out to be the best friends you could ever ask for." So anyway thanks for listening.


What a wonderful story! Thanks for sharing it with us!! I love stories like that.  :Smiling:

----------


## Glenn

> And I hope this isn't locked as is every thread where I start to form a solid opinion and people deem it getting "out of control".


The opinion isn't the problem; it's the way in which you and, for some reason, everyone I've ever seen arguing with you go about it. There is no need for personal attacks. I don't mean this just against you, by the way. I think that both you and RockLee need to take a step back and try to be more respectful of each other and the other members of the forum. It seems as though you don't think that this is getting out of control. This makes me wonder what you think out of control is.

I don't want this thread to be locked; I do want people to comment on Winter's points about being close-minded. However, if people are going to continue to attack each other, then this thread will be locked.

----------


## King of Tokyo

> The opinion isn't the problem; it's the way in which you and, for some reason, everyone I've ever seen arguing with you go about it. There is no need for personal attacks. I don't mean this just against you, by the way. I think that both you and RockLee need to take a step back and try to be more respectful of each other and the other members of the forum. It seems as though you don't think that this is getting out of control. This makes me wonder what you think out of control is.
> 
> I don't want this thread to be locked; I do want people to comment on Winter's points about being close-minded. However, if people are going to continue to attack each other, then this thread will be locked.


Ok.. But I haven't made any personal attacks, maybe RockLee has, but I haven't. Plus he is so arrogant in thinking he is right, when clearly he is not, I can understand when someone says something and proves me wrong, but he is just responding for the sake of responding, it's not actually debunking anything I'm saying.. He sounds more racist-supporting with each post he makes.. Bit annoying. But I will keep this civil, as I don't believe I have turned this thread into personal attacks. 

 :Smiling:

----------


## Glenn

Alright, back to the discussion. Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are? I suppose that some could be. However, I think that being intolerant of some things is a good thing. For example, should we be tolerant of rapists? I doubt that anyone would think so.

So, why should we tolerate racists? I guess it depends on the racist. It seems that from what both Winter and MP have said, there are some people who just believe that the different races should live separately. I don't agree with that, and would argue with them on that, so perhaps that makes me intolerant of that viewpoint. Do I think that they shouldn't have it? Sure I do. There are just too many things that we can gain from working together as a species that I believe would be lost if we just split up. Also, it seems to me that this is logistically impossible. There are so many people of mixed race in today's world that it would be extremely difficult to split us up into the "big three." Does that make me a bigot? Perhaps tolerating a racist and agreeing with one are two different things.

Now, as for racism, I think that that should not be tolerated. Why? Because as far as I can see, it is ugly and causes nothing but hurt. To me, that means that it falls under the "should not be tolerated" category.

----------


## Satori

> Alright, back to the discussion. Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are?


I can only speak for myself, but just because I recognize another's intolerance does not mean that I am intolerant myself. For instance, the KKK would be considered intolerant of blacks, gays, etc., but that does not mean that those of us who recognize their intolerance are necessarily intolerant of them and the views they hold. Those of us who believe in the First Amendment and free speech will still defend the views of those we disagree with, no matter how outrageous. That is why the ACLU has even defended the KKK on various occasions.

I'm all for keeping freedom of speech in this country the way it is under the First Amendment:




> Freedom of speech means that we have a right to advocate ideas. This guarantee is not confined to an expression of ideas that are conventional or shared by the majority. Freedom of speech and of the press permit us to exchange ideas for bringing about political and social changes desired by the people and to keep the people fully informed about the acts or misconduct of public officials. All ideas must be protected, no matter how unpopular they may be. An unorthodox or controversial idea is entitled to as much protection as any other, unless it conflicts directly and immediately with vital national interests. All persons living under our legal system have the right to hold, express, teach or advocate any opinion, and to join with others to express it, although the opinion may be repugnant to the vast majority of the citizens.
> 
> However, this right is not an absolute right. The first amendment does not give anyone the right to speak or write in a way that injures another person or his property, that corrupts public morals, that incites criminal activity, or that advocates a specific action for overthrowing the government by force....
> _The Meaning of the Constitution_, 2d Ed. (1987), p. 59



There are even exceptions to the free speech amendment. For instance, one is not allowed to incite immediate criminal activity:




> Although a person may express any political theory he wishes, speech or writing that incites others to acts of violence is not protected by the Constitution if it is likely that violence will result. Speech of this type is known as "seditious speech." However, the advocated act must be specific and immediate in order to constitute sedition. In order for speech to be restricted in the national interest, there must be a "clear and present danger" to an interest the government must protect, such as defense of the country, and it must be shown that the speech would have incited direct and illegal action.
> 
> Examples: 1. Henry Hoe stands on the street corner and makes a speech objecting to our government's policy in Latin America. He says that the President is a nitwit. This is permissible, because freedom of speech is designed to protect anyone's right to criticize the actions of the government.
> 
> 2. Joe also stands on the corner and also makes a speech protesting the government's activities in Latin America. He says that the way to end the problem is to shoot everyone who works for the National Security Council. This speech is also not seditious because Joe has not advocated any immediate and specific act of violence.
> 
> 3. In the example above, Joe continues by saying that he has guns and ammunition at his house on the corner and that his listeners must come with him, get the guns, and be off on his bus to Washington. He says that they will be on their way in half an hour to kill everyone who works for the National Security Council. Joe may be arrested for sedition.
> _The Meaning of the Constitution_, 2d Ed. (1987), pp. 59-60



So while I may find another person's opinions repugnant, I will absolutely protect their right to express those opinions. In my opinion, when we start restricting free speech, we embark upon a very slippery slope.

I'm with the ACLU -- speech, unless specifically and reasonably related to the incitement of a specific unlawful act must be protected from any and all government prohibitions.

The classic ACLU case was its support of the Neo-Nazi parade through Skokie, Illinois -- the home of many survivors of the Holocaust. And yes, as vile, hateful and spiteful as the parade was, the ACLU was right in supporting their right to assemble, speak and "petition their government" even though it hurt the residents of Skokie.

Here's a link to an article on the ACLU's representation of the KKK in another case:

http://archive.aclu.org/news/w032197a.html

And here is what the ACLU had to say on the matter:




> "What people need to understand," said Witold Walczak, Executive Director of the Pittsburgh ACLU chapter, "is that a few hateful, reprehensible, offensive comments are a small price to pay for First Amendment freedoms.
> 
> "The answer for hateful speech is more speech," Walczak told the Post-Gazette. "And that's exactly what the good citizens of Pittsburgh are doing. They're organizing these wonderful rallies.
> 
> "That's the beauty of this country," he added. "If you don't like what somebody else is saying, raise your own voice in opposition."



I remembered this case because I was so shocked that the ACLU would have represented a group like the KKK, but as you can see from the article, it was to protect our freedoms.

So to say that those of us who recognize the intolerance of racists and fascists are intolerant ourselves is simply not true. Sure, there may be a few exceptions, but to make a blanket statement like that is not a fair assessment, IMO.

----------


## PopCulturePooka

I'm about as leftist, liberal, hippy etc as they come.


I'm DEFINATELY not a fan of racism. No way. Especially institutionalised racism.
But I have a few questions for those who detest racists:

1) What are your views on religion. Especially Islam or Christianity. I've met a few people who are very anti-racism but say some of the most horrifying things about muslims or christians. Is this intolerance of organised religion any different to intolerance based on race?

2) What about reverse racism? Is it right that the majority should be treated unfairly to ultimately make things easier for a minority?

3) Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified. But I will give you an example.
The Sydney gang rapes in Australia.
A few girls in their teens (13-18) were abducted by lebonese/turkish gangs in the sydeny area and taken to multiple locations were they were repeatedly raped by many men.
One girl, 14, was taken to 4 or so locations in one day. Each location had at least 3 guys waiting for her.
The accused admitted the girls were selected because they were blonde caucasians and some of the girls testified that they were only getting raped because they were white girls and this was some odd form of 'revenge'.
When arrested the lebonese community around Sydney flocked to the boys defence desptie overwhelming evidence of guilt, stating that the arrests were just racist police picking on Muslims. When most of the guys were convicted there was near riots on the streets.
Now does this justify *ME* hating Lebonese? Hell no.
But the does justify the victims hating and mistrusting Lebonese/turkish? Huge life altering and severly traumatic events were inflicted on the girls by members of one community (racial community in this instance) and the girls were told it was happening because of race. Then these girls were called sluts and whores by a community that tried to free the rapists.
Can anyone then fault these girls if their perceptions towards lebonese are far less than positive?
Is racist thought in this case justified much the same way as people justify a persons fear and mistrust of the church if they were abused by a priest when younger.

4) Is saying you don't members of the opposite sex of certain ethnic/racial persuassions racsim or personal choice?

5) Japan. Its been established that there is DEFINATELY racism in effect in Japan. Banning gaijins from establishments, difficulties gaijin have getting accomodation, percieving Gaijin (especially Chinese and Koreans) as criminals or people worthy of mistrust. Even minor things like assuming I can't use chopsticks because I'm not Japanese.
For those that severly dislike racism and racists how do you reconcile this with your interest in Japan? Do you defended Japanese racism as a 'cultural' thing? Is it wrong to decry Japanese racists and racism?
Or is a Japanese racist jsut as bad as an American racist, an Aussie racist or a British racist?

----------


## Maciamo

> Sorry, If someone is going to believe they have a superior race or make broad generalizations about races then I simply cannot agree with them.


Do you agree that some people are superior to others (within any ethnic group) ?




> If races were kept separate, then I doubt anyone of the forum would be alive, no one is 'pure' one race.


Very well said. Everyone is unique genetically. There are genetical differences between all humans, although some are closer together (inside the same family, or distant relatives). What is certain is that major differences exist within the main "races" (Caucasian, African, etc.) to say that "white" or "black" people are 2 races. They may each be hundreds, or thousands, or millions or races, especially if we include "mixed blood" people.

As genetical science progresses and people are slowly become more educated and better aware of those genetical differences, could it be that a new form of racism develops, based on the individual's genes - a racism that could exist even within the same family ? Do you believe in what Nietsche call "uebermenschen" ("superhumans") ? This would be "scientifically approved" racism, and could lead to eugenism. But which form of racism (primitive or scientific) do you think is "better" ? (just to see your reasoning)




> 1) What are your views on religion. Especially Islam or Christianity. I've met a few people who are very anti-racism but say some of the most horrifying things about muslims or christians. Is this intolerance of organised religion any different to intolerance based on race?


Racism is based on "race" or "genes", not religion, culture or ideas (as these can change and be adapted). What you describe is just called intolerance (a word which has a wide meaning and also includes racism, but I don't think we have any single word to describe "religious intolerance" or "cultural intolerance").




> 2) What about reverse racism? Is it right that the majority should be treated unfairly to ultimately make things easier for a minority?


Why should racism always be the majority oppressing the minority ? History has many cases of minorities (at the government or upper-classes of a society) oppressing the majority. Look at colonialism, look at the Aryans in India who create the caste system to stay at the top of society, while the dark-skinned Dravidian majority stayed at the bottom.




> 3) Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified. But I will give you an example.
> The Sydney gang rapes in Australia.
> ...
> When arrested the lebonese community around Sydney flocked to the boys defence desptie overwhelming evidence of guilt, stating that the arrests were just racist police picking on Muslims.


Racism cannot be based on religion or nationality, as each religious or national group can be mixed ethnically (and Turkish people certainly are very mixed). Maybe we should invent new words for "hate toward a national or religious group" (not just intolerance, in this case).




> 5) Japan. Its been established that there is DEFINATELY racism in effect in Japan. Banning gaijins from establishments, difficulties gaijin have getting accomodation, percieving Gaijin (especially Chinese and Koreans) as criminals or people worthy of mistrust. Even minor things like assuming I can't use chopsticks because I'm not Japanese.


Japan is an interesting case because most of the racism is tacit and non violent. We could call it "discrimination toward foreigners". It it not only based on race (as Japanese can't even tell a Korean or Chinese from a Japanese if they have Japanese names and speak Japanese without accent), but on prejudice toward national groups. More interestingly, Japanese also discriminate among themselves with the Burakumin, and have done it for centuries (they were formerly known as "Eta"). So you can't call that racism, but "intolerance and discrimination toward people who are different or outside the approved group." There should also be a name for that ("outsider discrimination" ?).




> Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are? I suppose that some could be. However, I think that being intolerant of some things is a good thing. For example, should we be tolerant of rapists? I doubt that anyone would think so.
> So, why should we tolerate racists?


"Intolerance" is not a bad thing in itself. It is actually a good thing to be intolerant of certain matters. Being intolerant of errors we commit ourselves (so as to try not to make any), being intolerant of cruelty, unfairness, corruption, bad governments or discrimination are all praiseworthy attitudes. Being tolerant of such things as a bad government or corruption could only make the problem persist, instead of inciting change. Taken to the extreme of tolerance, we could even say that a girl who hates her rapist is not being tolerant of his need to satisfy his hormonal impulses and instincts, which is part of his nature. There are always ways of justifying deeds. That is why it is dangerous to think that tolerance is always good, and intolerance necessarily bad, when very often it is the opposite.

----------


## Duo

Racism, besides being wrong etc etc, is of course negative because it causes useless conflicts and disagreements between people. People that otherwise would get along perfectly together or could be very productive if they worked by joining forces, would uselessly be hating and despizing each other. All the negative energy that racism causes is futile, it doesn't serve any purpose, and could be instead used to achieve something productive instead of being wasted like that. Also generalizing some attributes to a certain group of people is also very negative, be these an ethnicity or a religious group.

----------


## RockLee

> Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified.


Look, I'd appreciate it if you read what I write WITH BOTH EYES; I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group!!!Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism.You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM !!...you see my point??I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them...you people jump to conclusions too fast.  :Okashii:  (ps. there ain't much left of my posts, but in NONE of them I stated Rascism was good,nor I'm in favor of it.I don't like it myself, just was giving examples.so I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write, and in doubt ask what I mean with it, not just attack me w/o a reason(like some persons did)).

----------


## Maciamo

> Racism, besides being wrong etc etc, is of course negative because it causes useless conflicts and disagreements between people. People that otherwise would get along perfectly together or could be very productive if they worked by joining forces, would uselessly be hating and despizing each other.


I think one of the main causes of racism is justly the differences of productivity and way people think and work or behave. Sometimes people with the purest ideals about human equality have to admit they were wrong once they start interacting (eg. in business situations) with people that are _really_  different.





> All the negative energy that racism causes is futile, it doesn't serve any purpose, and could be instead used to achieve something productive instead of being wasted like that.


Very often, racism is an emotional reaction to a frustration, fear or hate caused by some personal events. If it isn't, it may be due to indoctrination by the environment (family, school, local folks...). It is usually easier to change the latter by having people to travel or interact with people from other "races" in a positive context (if it is negative, however, that will only confirm the racist's expectations).

----------


## Duo

> I think one of the main causes of racism is justly the differences of productivity and way people think and work or behave. Sometimes people with the purest ideals about human equality have to admit they were wrong once they start interacting (eg. in business situations) with people that are _really_  different.


Very true, I have seen that happen personally. Still, you shouldn't be prejudiced about let's say a new collegaue that will come in the work place because he is like this or he is from there. Even if you have witnessed that people "like him" aren't very good at the work in your field, you should first see how your new co-worker will perform, then make your judgments. 





> Very often, racism is an emotional reaction to a frustration, fear or hate caused by some personal events. If it isn't, it may be due to indoctrination by the environment (family, school, local folks...). It is usually easier to change the latter by having people to travel or interact with people from other "races" in a positive context (if it is negative, however, that will only confirm the racist's expectations).


Well sometimes some people are so indoctrinated by their beleifs, that they will fail to notice the postive aspect of other cultures, and will right down deny them and only complain about their negative aspects. However, I agree, seeing the world, is the best way to open minded.

----------


## Glenn

> Look, I'd appreciate it if you read what I write WITH BOTH EYES; I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group!!!Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism.You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM !!...you see my point??I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them...you people jump to conclusions too fast.  (ps. there ain't much left of my posts, but in NONE of them I stated Rascism was good,nor I'm in favor of it.I don't like it myself, just was giving examples.so I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write, and in doubt ask what I mean with it, not just attack me w/o a reason(like some persons did)).


It appears as though there is a misunderstanding of what racism is. Here is the definition given by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:



> Main Entry: racism 
> Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
> Function: noun
> 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Here is the definition of racial:



> Main Entry: racial 
> Pronunciation: 'rA-sh&l
> Function: adjective
> 1 : of, relating to, or based on a race
> 2 : existing or occurring between races


This means that to be racist is to discriminate against an *entire population solely due to their race*. So just being discriminatory towards one or two people of a particular race is *not* racism. For example, I don't like some white people. That doesn't make me racist against whites. It just means that there are some white people whom I dislike. According to the definitions of the word "racism," it is impossible to be racist against a select few of a certain racial group.

----------


## RockLee

well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?  :Doubt:

----------


## PopCulturePooka

> well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?


 Hatred of another person.


Heh it cracks me up when people call me racist because I hate Jennifer Lopez or Cathry Freeman. My reasons for hating them have nothing to do with their race, but thats the label I'm given if I say 'I hate that Jennifer Lopez'.

----------


## Winter

> well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?


I remember as a kid, we called those people 'jerks'.

Meh...

----------


## Maciamo

> well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?


Nothing. They just dislikes some _individuals_, not a whole race. The best way to prove it is by giving examples of people one like/love and dislike/hate in the ethnic group in question. Then, very often racists are convinced that their race (could it be another race ?) is superior to _all_  others. Of course it doesn't have to, as hating just one particular race in the world is enough. But that could be used as an argument against those mentally limited people who call anyone who has dislike for _one person_  from a different race a racist. Just tell them you have lots of friends from this or that ethnic group. That is often enough to make them shut up.

That brings us to another question. If someone think that one race in the world is superior to all others, but this person doesn't belong to this supeior race, can this person be called a racist ? By definition yes. The funny thing is that there are such people, who actually wish to change their look (cosmetic surgery, etc) to look more like an ethnic group they do not belong to, because they idolize them (i.e. consider them better or superior). 

So is racism necessarily a bad thing ? It doesn't have to be violent or even discriminative. Some people may think that one race is superior, but without having any (negative) consequences on their behviour toward people from other races.

Then, is it worse thinking one race is better than all others, or all races are better than one in particular ? If all people in the world agreed to say that one race (could a minor one, even a tribe, or a major one...) was inferior to all the other races on earth, would it be worse than the reverse situation (one race consider itslef better than the rest). I think the latter is common is almost every culture. It's natural as people want to feel superior to others who are different, and they may not understand. In the former case, it may well be because of factual evidence that this particular race is backward or genetically less evolved. In any case, I suppose that thinking it is passable, as long as no violent or discriminative actions are taken against the ostracized race. Then it all depends on who is the strongest (could be the ostracized race).

----------


## digicross

There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race. Really, that's what the scientist told you. There's no racism in the human race, it's just one of the many term that is often wrongfully used.

Grouping on the other hand, do exist. There's nothing wrong with grouping, people exist in many different groups, people are social creatures. See below more on groups.

However there's always a third party that will make two group fight each other. The problem could be worsen if these two group don't know the existance of this third party.



As for fascism.

Fascism come from "fascismo", that is derived from the Italian word "fascio" which means "bundle, (political) group".

Strict controls are necessary, being a dictator isn't such a bad thing, and each group has its own rules for doing things.

Fascism do exist and must exist.

To stay that people shouldn't be in groups it's a total contradiction of human nature, it's just plain wrong. Humans are fascist in nature, and there's nothing wrong with it.

There will be chaos however if one group try to subvert its rule on another. But most groups don't do these, because in addition of fascsism, people are also egoism, which basically mind their own business.

Of course, there's always the third party factor that will try to make two groups or more fight each other. But then again, maybe the rules of that third party group is to make people fight each other, so that's their fascism rules.

As long people stay in their groups, know what their groups are, and know what the other groups are, things should stay relatively peaceful.



As for separatism.

Anyone who dare to step out of the collective, will die foolishly. This an universal law. People are social people, people will always be groups. Things go horribly wrong if people in a group are doing things not aligned with that particular group's rules. Things go more horrible wrong if people leave a group without the consent of that particular group.

However, it should be noted that most separatism movements these days actually are controlled by the same people who controlled the collectives that these separatism movements are 'officially' declared of separating.

The intentions? Nothing more but to make people fight each other.


Remember that people can't stand one their own.

However, it should be noted if people don't find that they belong in one particular group, they will move on to another group or even create a new one.

Of course, for the things to go on smoothly, should a person wanted to leave a group, he or she should ask permission to leave the group. Remember what Moses ask to Pharaoh, he didn't lead a freedom fighter movement, he asked for Pharaoh to release his people.

----------


## bossel

> There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race. Really, that's what the scientist told you. There's no racism in the human race, it's just one of the many term that is often wrongfully used.


Actually, human races do exist. That's what other scientists told me.
Racism does exist, too. Although, it most often does not relate to actual races, but more to "being foreign" or "looking different" (insofar you are right, it is often wrongfully used). "Racism" evolutionary seen was probably quite useful, for people from outside your group might have posed a danger.




> Strict controls are necessary, being a dictator isn't such a bad thing, and each group has its own rules for doing things.
> Fascism do exist and must exist.


I can't really see the necessities you mentioned. The Netherlands for example are doing quite well without fascism & with rather lax controls (although I think it could be even laxer).




> As long people stay in their groups, know what their groups are, and know what the other groups are, things should stay relatively peaceful.


Everything is relative, yeah.




> Anyone who dare to step out of the collective, will die foolishly. This an universal law.


Haven't heard of that law yet. I doubt it, anyway.




> People are social people, people will always be groups. Things go horribly wrong if people in a group are doing things not aligned with that particular group's rules. Things go more horrible wrong if people leave a group without the consent of that particular group.


Things not necessarily go horribly wrong, all that depends on the circumstances.




> Remember that people can't stand one their own.


I think, there are examples of people stranded alone on some island & they did quite well. It really depends on the circumstances.




> Of course, for the things to go on smoothly, should a person wanted to leave a group, he or she should ask permission to leave the group. Remember what Moses ask to Pharaoh, he didn't lead a freedom fighter movement, he asked for Pharaoh to release his people.


You only need to ask for permission if you had some sort of contract with the group.
I don't know exactly about the Bible story, but I think the (historic) Israelites probably were obliged to ask for permission because they had a contract to fight (or work) for the Egyptians.

----------


## Maciamo

> There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race.


You are confusing the meaning of _race_  and _species_. For example, humans, cats, dogs and horses are all different species, but there are various races for each species. I could even say that the human sense of racism is not limited to humans, but also animals. Some people love some kinds of dogs, but hate others. Is that racism ? Well, strictly speaking yes.

----------


## caesar

I dont know whats the situation in the other countries, but in the last couple of years here in Italy Ive seen a rise of little communist and fascist movementsits depressive to see 15 years old kids with Che Guevaras T-shirts or with celtic crosses tattooed on their bodyI mean, theyre free to do and think what they want, but I cant believe that at their age theyre aware of what their ideology has produced in the last centuryactually, one time I even saw a kid with Mussolinis calendarI couldnt believe it  :Laughing: 

As for racism, here in Italy I dont think it has ever catched onthe only form of racism I can think of is a sort of friendly hate between north and southwe Romans detest the Milaneese and vice-versa

----------


## lexico

> I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group.
> 
> Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism. 
> 
> You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM.
> 
> I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them.





> This means that to be racist is to discriminate against an *entire population solely due to their race*. So just being discriminatory towards one or two people of a particular race is *not* racism. For example, I don't like some white people. That doesn't make me racist against whites. It just means that there are some white people whom I dislike. According to the definitions of the word "racism," it is impossible to be racist against a select few of a certain racial group.





> every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?





> Hatred of another person.





> I remember as a kid, we called those people 'jerks'.





> Nothing. They just dislikes some individuals, not a whole race.


I believe RockLee has a point there that's been neglected. Could I qualify as a racist when I excercise a certain discrimination against only one person from a certain ethnic group ? RockLee might say definitely, others might say never. It's also possible to say I could, but not always. 

Suppose I am a Jew hating racist. My hatred/discrimination is an emotion/idea, and an emotion/idea is, by its very nature, based on personal contact. One might argue that I, as a Jew hater, could hate/discriminate the idea of someone being a Jew, but that would negate the genuineness of my emotion/idea because now I'm hating/discriminating an abstract state of possible being, not a concrete person in reality.

According to what some of you said, I'd have to hate/discrminate against every single Jew in Israel, the UK, Russia, South Africa, the US, Austalia, etc. But I can't have abstract hatred/discrimination for people I've never met, or for people that I could not possibly have contact with in my entire life. How then can I be a Jew hating/discriminating racist according to your definition that I must hate all Jews to qualify as a racist ?

The key to resolving this apparent pradox lies in the motive of my alleged hatred/discrimination. Even if I've only met one Jew in my entire life, if I hated/discrminated against him on the sole ground of his/her being a Jew, then I am a racist. If initially I harbored no hatred/discrminating thoughts towards Jews, but met this horrible Jew and generalized on it, then I am a racist eventhough I hated/discrminated against only one person in particular.

If on the other hand I had no ill feelings towards the Jewish, but met this one nasty person who happened to be a Jew, and hated him for behaving horribly, but did not generalize on the two coinciding facts of his being a Jew and his being a dislikable person to the effect of 'thinking all Jews must be such horrible people,' then I'd simply have a dislike or hatred for that person, and I'd be a jerk. 

These are two different possibilities, and neither of these ideas are in conflict with the MW definition. Hence there is no conflict between RockLee's and the others' either. I could say it's an imagined, superficial, or simply mistaken conflict.

note: I didn't get to see what's been deleted, so my argument is entirely based upon what I could perceive. Do correct me if I am wrong. :)

----------


## Duo

Fascism doesn't necessarily have to be related to racism. Facism is just an ideology where the state is sumpreme and all work for it and give it all for it. I see no problem in having this ideology enforced in a multiethnic society.

----------


## Glenn

> Suppose I am a Jew hating racist. My hatred/discrimination is an emotion/idea, and an emotion/idea is, by its very nature, based on personal contact. One might argue that I, as a Jew hater, could hate/discriminate the idea of someone being a Jew, but that would negate the genuineness of my emotion/idea because now I'm hating/discriminating an abstract state of possible being, not a concrete person in reality.


That would be an argument against racism.




> But I can't have abstract hatred/discrimination for people I've never met, or for people that I could not possibly have contact with in my entire life. How then can I be a Jew hating/discriminating racist according to your definition that I must hate all Jews to qualify as a racist ?


I suppose you can't, but I have known people who hate a certain group without having ever met any of them. I think it's more hating what the group represents to the hater. 

Also, you're missing the "prejudice" part of the definition. It's not only about racial discrimination.




> The key to resolving this apparent pradox lies in the motive of my alleged hatred/discrimination. Even if I've only met one Jew in my entire life, if I hated/discrminated against him on the sole ground of his/her being a Jew, then I am a racist. If initially I harbored no hatred/discrminating thoughts towards Jews, but met this horrible Jew and generalized on it, then I am a racist eventhough I hated/discrminated against only one person in particular.


I'd say that's about right.




> If on the other hand I had no ill feelings towards the Jewish, but met this one nasty person who happened to be a Jew, and hated him for behaving horribly, but did not generalize on the two coinciding facts of his being a Jew and his being a dislikable person to the effect of 'thinking all Jews must be such horrible people,' then I'd simply have a dislike or hatred for that person, and I'd be a jerk.


You wouldn't be a jerk; he would be a jerk. Disliking someone for behaving horribly doesn't make one a jerk. Behaving horribly makes one a jerk. 




> These are two different possibilities, and neither of these ideas are in conflict with the MW definition. Hence there is no conflict between RockLee's and the others' either. I could say it's an imagined, superficial, or simply mistaken conflict.


I'd say they're three different possibilities. 

I just don't see the point of basing prejudices on race alone. In fact, I don't really see the point of stereotyping any group at the individual level. I take things case-by-case, person-by-person, which to me seems to be the best way to do it. 




> note: I didn't get to see what's been deleted, so my argument is entirely based upon what I could perceive. Do correct me if I am wrong. :)


You didn't miss much.

----------


## jarvis

life is what you make it..if you make it about race, it will be about race..

----------


## No-name

"Race" is not really a scientific concept. With dogs and cats, there are significant varieties of the species. Like races, they exist because of geography, but also because of human genetic manipulation. Humans are one species and one variety with very little actual variation -minor adaptations and mutations- in things like facial features and skin color. You are likely to see almost as much significant variation between members of one "race" and two people from different continents. I had an anthropology professor say that we're a lot like dalmations splitting ourselves up by the shape of our spots.

Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.

----------


## Glenn

> Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.


I think that may very well be the best it could possibly be put.

----------


## bossel

> "Race" is not really a scientific concept.


Well, it is. It's just not really PC.





> With dogs and cats, there are significant varieties of the species.


Dog & cat are different species, like human & chimp. Among dogs (& cats) you then have differing races.




> -minor adaptations and mutations-


Which can be race markers.





> in things like facial features and skin color.


As most people you seem to go only for visible differences, but you cannot differentiate races simply from the look. If you do so, you simply follow the path of racism (which has a great preference for going after appearance).




> You are likely to see almost as much significant variation between members of one "race"


Similar to language & dialect, yet you can differentiate languages (although there may be linguists nowadays who prefer to call that dialect continuum).




> I had an anthropology professor say that we're a lot like dalmations splitting ourselves up by the shape of our spots.


Either he was talking about racism or he's heavily infected with PC.




> Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices


We're all human, after all. 
(Which means that we substitute one stereotype or prejudice by another.  :Poh:  )

----------


## Duo

> Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.



I don't really agree. I think racism if often used to maintain wealth. I think people understand very well that ultimately we are the same, but racism is used to keep a certain group of people down and promote the other one up top of the ladder. It's basic conflict theory.

----------


## No-name

I certainly agree that there is an economic component to racism, and it is often an indication of class or caste or status for instance in Mexico: to be taller, have lighter skin, more european looks. Among African americans, it is often a sign of status to be lighter (high yellow). There are, however instances where racism works counter to the economics of the situation, or where discrimination gives no economic advantage. I think good examples can be found by looking at how the exploited underclass internalizes the overclasses prejudices and stereotypes.

They used to teach in schools that there are five races. Cacasoid, negroid, Mongoloid...Blah blah blah. It doesn't work. We aren't biologically all that different from each other. Look at the human genome project- It mapped out the 99.9% of our genes that are identical in 6 billion people. As of yet, you find a drop of blood at a crime scene and it tells us nothing of the donor's race. You can't find race in our genes as of yet. Skin color, eye color, size, hair texture, prominent facial features, it is all there in our DNA, but we haven't ID'd the markers yet. 

Dogs and cats don't have races. They have varieties. Varieties have significant variations, far more striking and structural than a mere race. (Humans have a wide variation of size and color, but we are all the same species and variety) Unlike dogs and cats that have significant variations between varieties (for example a show quality chihuahua and great dane will have a 1000% variation in size) humans tend to all be about in the same size range give or take 20%, skin color which can vary almost as much in one family as in the entire human race, have the same range of blood types with some variation, hair... If you skin us we look the same. (Yeech) You grind us up and we all make the same bloody mess.

Race is a sociological construct. We tend to center on either visual clues or behavioral/cultural indicators to "tribe-up". I think we get even more tribal when under economic or socialogical stress.

----------


## No-name

I may be beyond myself in this thread- it is kind of outside my area of expertise- I'm a teacher not an anthropologist. I will gladly accept correction.

----------


## bossel

> I think good examples can be found by looking at how the exploited underclass internalizes the overclasses prejudices and stereotypes.


I don't think that's necessary, they can very well get their own silly ideas about race.




> They used to teach in schools that there are five races. Cacasoid, negroid, Mongoloid...Blah blah blah.


Not where I went to school. What I learnt are 3 major races & a number of older races (_Altschichtrassen_ in German).




> We aren't biologically all that different from each other.


That's why we are one species.




> Look at the human genome project- It mapped out the 99.9% of our genes that are identical in 6 billion people.


Nope,they didn't. They sequenced 99% of the human genome, which is not the same as the _genes_.





> As of yet, you find a drop of blood at a crime scene and it tells us nothing of the donor's race.


Ah, the old blood argument. But that only worked (well, it never really worked) as long as no DNA is involved. You actually can find racial differences in the DNA, how this can be applied on an individual instead of a statistical basis, I don't know at the moment, though.





> You can't find race in our genes as of yet.


What makes you think so?





> Skin color, eye color, size, hair texture, prominent facial features, it is all there in our DNA, but we haven't ID'd the markers yet.


Hmm? Change of argument? Because we don't know where it is located in the DNA, it doesn't exist.  :Doubt:  




> Dogs and cats don't have races. They have varieties.


Err... Dogs & cats are no plants! Varieties are only used as subdivision of species in botany, not zoology. In regards to humans many scientists nowadays try to avoid the term race (PC raging on), but they don't use variety. Instead, population, cline or sub-type are preferred. Mostly PC-crap if you ask me.




> Race is a sociological construct.


Nope, it isn't. Racism could be said to be, but even there I think it goes much deeper.

----------


## No-name

Thanks Bossel. I'm not a scientist and I am a bit out of my depth.

I thought the genome was the genetic material that we all share. This isn't related to genes?

There can't be three "races" to fit every group of human into. If you go into the Amazon basin, neighboring tribes can identify each other on sight. They would consider every other tribe a different race. And where would native Americans and other Aboriginal tribes fit? Are Pygmies and Dinkas the same race? So I guess if you wanted a human subclassification- zoology allows us to do so by physical characteristics- anyone can draw whatever lines and create as many artificial categories as they like. If there are races, in what way could we reasonably use this information? Race has been used to divide us up in silly and destrutive ways, to restrict, exploit, segregate, discriminate, and classify- without a logical and really scientific basis. Politically correct or not how is race useful as a classification?

The idea that "race" is something biological goes to the argument that you can judge a great deal of a book by its cover. Race is not used a subdivision of zoology, but "breed" is. (I used the word variety) There are no breeds of humans though. Knowing a person's color, ethnic or geographic origin, or type of hair tells you absolutely nothing about his character, personality, or behavior. Race is hadly useful as a predictive measurement (of anything other than what children will look like, and possible racially linked health issues) and you can't apply it scientifically to any one individual.

Back to dogs...Just to beat this analogy to death (and again i'm trying to think back to Prof. Suzuki's anthro class at UCLA 20 years ago- my information could be flawed either because of my memory, or because it is outdated) Siberian Huskies are a breed. They come in a great variety of colors. There are working huskies with coarser coats and show huskies with soft coats. But blue eyed huskies and brown eyed huskies are the same breed. You don't define them as huskies by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair. 

Humans are the same way. Aparently, if I remember correctly- even isolated populations have not had sufficient time to diverge within the species. It has something to do with constant migration, contact, and a common ancestor we share not too long ago.

----------


## bossel

> I thought the genome was the genetic material that we all share. This isn't related to genes?


It's related, but not the same. The genome is the complete information encoded in the DNA (the actual definition is more complicated, please look it up), including genes as well as other sequences. Genes are defined differently depending on the involved scientific discipline, but generally you could say that a gene is a sequence of DNA that encodes information to create & regulate molecules (mainly proteins).




> There can't be three "races" to fit every group of human into.


Well, there are more races, anyway. But you also have a lot of intermediate forms, eg. many Ethiopians are a mix of caucasoid & negroid race.
Again I have to draw on linguistics: although the borderlines between dialects (& often languages) are a bit blurry (hence the notion that a language is a dialect continuum), you still can differentiate.




> If you go into the Amazon basin, neighboring tribes can identify each other on sight. They would consider every other tribe a different race.


Well, I don't know. But how many in those tribes are biologists?




> Are Pygmies and Dinkas the same race?


That depends where you draw the lines. Depending on the taxonomical approach, Pygmies are just like Dinkas members of the negroid race. If you go for a more detailed approach with subspecies, you may put the Dinka into the Nilotid subrace of the Central African race, while you may have the Pygmies as the Bambutid race (such a distinction can be found here ).




> anyone can draw whatever lines and create as many artificial categories as they like.


Theoretically yes. Practically we still deal with science, therefore you need to be able to prove your point.




> If there are races, in what way could we reasonably use this information?


It's information, that's good enough for me. In what way could we reasonably use the information that human beings are essentially pongids, while the "humans are special" faction would put us into the category hominid? In what way could we reasonably use the information that humans & chimps share the same ancestry?




> Race has been used to divide us up in silly and destrutive ways, to restrict, exploit, segregate, discriminate, and classify- without a logical and really scientific basis.


You seem to confuse something here. There may be no scientific basis for the division in society, but there is a scientific basis for a biological division. You can't blame science for what people make of it. You can't blame Einstein for dropping the A-bomb on Japan (well, you can, but it's silly).




> Politically correct or not how is race useful as a classification?


Depends on what you want to use it for.




> The idea that "race" is something biological goes to the argument that you can judge a great deal of a book by its cover.


Nope.




> Race is not used a subdivision of zoology, but "breed" is. (I used the word variety) There are no breeds of humans though.


Breed is mainly used for domesticated animals. I think, you're still confusing stuff.




> Knowing a person's color, ethnic or geographic origin, or type of hair tells you absolutely nothing about his character, personality, or behavior.


That's not what race as a scientific concept is about, anyway. You seem to confuse it with rac_ism_ (except for behaviour, maybe. since behaviour is connected to hormones & hormones are partly controlled by genes, there is probably a small factor involved).




> Race is hadly useful as a predictive measurement


Hmm? Why should it be?




> You don't define them as huskies by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair.


Not to confuse race with breed, but eg. caucasoids also come in a great variety of "colours." _You don't define them as_ caucasoids _by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair._




> even isolated populations have not had sufficient time to diverge within the species. It has something to do with constant migration, contact, and a common ancestor we share not too long ago.


But there was no constant migration & contact. Genetic differentiation can actually come about in a surprising speed. Read Cavalli-Sforza for that!

----------


## No-name

Bossel, thanks. I find this fascinating.

See, I told you I was out of my depth. Be patient. As a science, racial theory seems to me a lot like divination, astrology, palmistry or most like phrenology. I think it has more to do with our limited tribal instinct than with empirical science, but you seem to have a better handle on it. How is race a scientific concept? What is it about? Maybe some history? It wasn't ever developed by biologists, was it? In what branch of science does it belong? (I keep leaning toward sociology- where they study the development and application of race usually as it applies to racism in society.) I understand observation and categorization, but science never stops there. Is there some kind of hypothesis, test, theory, or application that went on in the development of this scientific concept?

Can't we use the similarity between humans and chimps because we share the same ancestry to test behavioral theories, study brain activity, bio-psychology, pharmacology, medical technology- all of which would be less valid if we weren't so closely related. Much of what we understand about attachment theory, like failure to thrive syndrome, was gleened from observing our hairy cousins. (The US Airforce also used them 50 years ago to design helmets, ejection seats, and other safety systems- which if you think about it was probably not so valid.)

Perhaps I misunderstand: Are humans actually different breeds? Some dog breeds have significantly different behavioral characteristics including intelligence and temperment. Some are more agressive, some inherit behaviors useful to hunting or herding. The implication for humanity if we are indeed different breeds is that there may be racial differences in intelligence, character, and temperment and that some races are more suitable to certain types of work than others. So are races equivalent to breeds? (In which case I am a half breed.) I did understand however that dogs and cats are different species, and that breed was the term used for domesticated animals. (That is why I used variety initially, thinking it was the equivalent term for sub species, but now I'm not certain what it would be... just that I don't believe biologist divide any species into "races." Are there any biologists out there that can refute or confirm this?)

So is race theory useful for just its descriptive application? Or does it have some predictive value? Didn't race theory predate biology, anthropology and sociology? Hasn't it formed the basis of racism- that races are different, some inferior, some desireable, and eugenics and ultimately the "final solution?" I thought the point of science was at some level application- that even pure theorists hope one day to see some application of their work.

Tomorrow I start my job as a vice principal at a semi-rural California high school. It is very diverse ethnically. Should I treat African American students different from my Native American and Latino populations? Should each group have specifically designed curriculum? Can't I take the "science" of race and apply it to these children? Or do they all have differences that are not race based that are far more important?

If you don't define Caucasoids by their color (lt brown to white), size (small to large), eye color (varies from browns to blues and all hues in between), hair color and quality (varies from dark brown to blonde, from mildly coarse to very fine, curly to straight)... Then you have made my point. There is no real scientific basis for race. How would you then define Cacasoids (what a wonderful word.) I think it is probably more important to look at language and culture than "race."

Haven't most human populations been in nearly constant states of contact and migration? With rare exceptions- aren't most human populations in historically frequent contact with others through trade, travel, warfare, and migration? Isn't the most isolated population of humans separated by less than (I guess) about 10,000 or 20,000 years? (I'm trying to think of some study of mitochondrial DNA- that "Eve" our common great grandmother migrated from the Great Rift valley like 150,000 years ago? now I am waaaay out of my depth.)

We do keep stats in the US based upon race. (Most of which is self selected.) In this way we can look for patterns, or trends- especially those that betray some kind of racially based discrimination.

Lastly do you have a reference for Cavalli-Sforza?

----------


## No-name

I found this on Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race)

"Many evolutionary and social scientists, drawing on such biological research, think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, are without taxonomic validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that race is best understood as a social construct. Some scientists have argued that this shift is motivated more by political than scientific reasons." 

It is not the whole article, but it seems to summarize my POV in far more eloquent terms. 

I thought this was interesting:
"A 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992) asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

* biologists 16%
* developmental psychologists 36%
* physical anthropologists 41%
* cultural anthropologists 53%

At PhD granting departments, the figure for physical anthropologists was slightly higher

* agree 50%
* disagree 42%

(This survey did not specify any particular definition of race; it is impossible to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.)

Since 1932, college textbooks introducing physical anthropology have increasingly come to reject race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race."

----------


## bossel

> As a science, racial theory seems to me a lot like divination, astrology, palmistry or most like phrenology.


Other than these, race can be scientifically determined, though.




> I think it has more to do with our limited tribal instinct than with empirical science


That would be racism. You have to differentiate race as a biological concept & race as a sociological concept. Sociological differentiation in races doesn't make much sense, IMO.




> How is race a scientific concept? What is it about? Maybe some history? It wasn't ever developed by biologists, was it? In what branch of science does it belong? (I keep leaning toward sociology- where they study the development and application of race usually as it applies to racism in society.)


Sociology? Sorry, I only argue from a biological basis. Sociology is too much interwoven with psychology, too wide open to interpretation, not enough facts & too much philosophy.

Since you already looked at Wikipedia, I suppose, I don't need to answer this one thoroughly. Just one thing: When I looked at the English version I had to notice that they seem to focus the entire article on the human subdivision into races. While the German version actually (although being rather PC as well) explains it as it is: 

"Taxonomic Mayr (1969) :	"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Population Dobzhansky (1970) : "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves.""
(This is copied from the English version, but although they quote it, they don't apply it beyond humans).




> Can't we use the similarity between humans and chimps


Sorry, maybe I'm too tired, I don't really get your point in this paragraph.




> Perhaps I misunderstand: Are humans actually different breeds?


Yes, I think, you misunderstand. Breed (for my limited understanding of English) is usually restricted to usage related to domesticated animals. Unless you find some occasions where slaves were actually _bred_ by their slaveholders or consider the rather idiotic (& short-lived) attempt of the Nazis to produce a blonde super race you won't find human breeds.




> The implication for humanity if we are indeed different breeds is that there may be racial differences in intelligence, character, and temperment


Actually, in intelligence & temperament there are statistical differences, but they are marginal & therefore negligible, AFAIK.




> and that some races are more suitable to certain types of work than others.


That's where you're mistaken. Differences as described above are only statistical, they don't constitute a reason for any collectivist social differentiation. As you already said somewhere else, variation inside a race is great.




> So are races equivalent to breeds?


Yes, breeds are races of domesticated (bred) animals.




> That is why I used variety initially, thinking it was the equivalent term for sub species,


Variety is used for plants only, the taxonomy is ...- species - subspecies - variety - ..., for animals (incl. humans) it is ...- species - subspecies - race -... . There are other approaches which equate subspecies & race (although that makes the inclusion of eg. Neanderthals a bit harder, IMO).




> just that I don't believe biologist divide any species into "races."


They do, only nowadays it has become un-PC to use the term race. Even Cavalli-Sforza tends to avoid it, instead he uses population & cline. Simply a difference in terminology, not really in concept.




> Or does it have some predictive value?


It has predictive value, but only on a statistical basis. Eg. can be said that there is a greater probability for mongoloids than for caucasoids to be unable to digest milk products.




> I thought the point of science was at some level application


That is the popular (more popular in the US than in Europe, I think) concept of science. But as the name says, science strives for gaining knowledge. Applying that knowledge is not necessarily business of scientists. 




> do they all have differences that are not race based that are far more important?


Yep!




> Then you have made my point. There is no real scientific basis for race.


Wrong, what you described was the racist approach, just going for outer appearance. Race is a differentiation of human populations according to combination of physical characteristics. Outer appearance being only a minor part (I think, I said that before. Please don't try to push me into the corner of those who only see the outside). EG. bone build, protein production have greater significance.




> I think it is probably more important to look at language and culture than "race."


Important? What for?




> Haven't most human populations been in nearly constant states of contact and migration? With rare exceptions- aren't most human populations in historically frequent contact with others through trade, travel, warfare, and migration?


There may have been only 2000 human beings some 60,000 years ago. It's rather easy to get separated from the rest of the world - say - if you are a tribe of maybe 40 people & follow a new path into the North.




> Isn't the most isolated population of humans separated by less than (I guess) about 10,000 or 20,000 years?


Most isolated? Anyway, if you are a rather small inbreeding population, 5000 years may be enough.




> We do keep stats in the US based upon race. (Most of which is self selected.) In this way we can look for patterns, or trends- especially those that betray some kind of racially based discrimination.


IMO, the US administrative system has not much in common with a scientific definition of race. It's simply a sociological classification for bureaucratic convenience.




> Lastly do you have a reference for Cavalli-Sforza?


Will come back later with that & the rest of my post.

----------


## No-name

Thank you Bossel, I didn't think we were actually in disagreement on most points- I just needed clarification. I looked at the wikipedia article, and at the debate on a PBS website about a NOVA program about this very discussion. (I lost the link.) I seem to agree with the anthopological/sociological basis rather than the biological basis for race (although I don't really know what the heck the physical anthropologist was trying to say.) Most of the biologists don't see a value in subdividing the human species. I still feel very confident saying that there is no biological foundation for race, it is a sociological construct.

The chimp thing was in response to saying that there was no value in knowing our close relationship. I was trying to point out some application of this knowlege. (Chimps are actually a different genus, but are still very similar.)

----------


## bossel

> I seem to agree with the anthopological/sociological basis rather than the biological basis for race


Then we are in disagreement, for I have a distinct problem with the anthropological view, which IMO is too philosophical. It seems, many if not most anthropologists see the human species still as something special, as non-animals. The sociological basis for race is (if I'm not mistaken; sociology is a quite weak point in my interests) the least valid.




> Most of the biologists don't see a value in subdividing the human species. I still feel very confident saying that there is no biological foundation for race, it is a sociological construct.


Perhaps you misunderstood the Wikipedia article?
The question was "how many *disagree* with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens."
* biologists 16%"
Hence 84% of the asked biologists either agree with the fact of human races or have no opinion. I couldn't find this survey anywhere, though, therefore it's hard to say how valid the result is. Who was asked, in which country, position etc.? 

But the result is not surprising, actually. Biologists have a broader perspective than the rather narrow view of anthropologists. 
I suppose, the result in favour of no race would be even higher today, because PC has only really got hold of the whole discussion in the last 2 decades.
As I said before, though, even those biologists who succumbed to PC still use the concept of race, only with a different terminology.




> The chimp thing was in response to saying that there was no value in knowing our close relationship. I was trying to point out some application of this knowlege.


I see. I think, in that regard, race actually is used as some sort of probability indicator. Like, 90% of mongoloids have that protein which makes that active component useless, therefore in China we use a different component for our medicine. IIRC, just recently there was a drug introduced in the US solely for negroids. I wonder how that works, though, since most US blacks are caucasoid/negroid hybrids. Perhaps there is dominant negroid gene which is the reason for this, but I haven't heard very much about it, just a short report on TV.




> (Chimps are actually a different genus, but are still very similar.)


That can be disputed, as I said above. I consider them too close to humans to be a different genus. Only a minority of biologists agree with me on this, though.

Cavalli-Sforza :
_The History and Geography of Human Genes_
is his major work. It's huge, though, & not for the general public. Luckily it's at the genetical institute of my university, unluckily I'm only allowed to read it there.

_Genes, Peoples, and Languages_
is his most popular work, I think, & his most PC. Easy readable, yet informative.

----------


## No-name

Thanks, I don't believe I skipped that whole "disagree" thing in the stat. It does seem to indicate that more biologists than anthropologists believe the whole race thing.

Again, as I stated before, I am out of my depth here. Smarter people than me have debated this issue, and right now I feel confident in my opinion. (I'm an English Major by education. Ask me about dead British writers.) I'm still not certain why you think race is scientific, or what the "scientific concept" is all about. I'm still without a history of how the "scientific" concept of race developed, or why if the theory of race is valid is racism wrong. After all doesn't the concept validate the differential treatment of subspecies? To me, race and racism is still connected.

Race as a scientific theory isn't as solid as lets say the atomic theory or gravity or even evolution. There doesn't seem to be a good consensus among real scientists who actually know something about this. I quickly scanned over the following articles to get me familiar with both sides of the argument. I also looked over the Cavalli-Sforza stuff, but much of this is pretty esoteric and I am going to have to re-read most of this when I am less tired. To me race still seems a lot more like phrenology than science, and in spite of your statements to the contrary, seems to be based on superficial physical characteristics.

These give both sides of the debate. And I keep coming back to my original opinion. (After all if race is a valid subdivision of a species, than why is it not used in any other species?) I have more articles, but haven't even glanced at them yet...

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...331319,00.html : "THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...AA83414B7F0000

----------


## No-name

The scary thing about reading the articles is that I can go right past terms like polymorphisms, alus, allele, short tandem repeats, taxonomic validity, monotypic and cline and feel like I might understand what I am reading. 

The arguments seems to center around whether there are substantial differences that merit the creation of sub-species categories, or merely minor superficial differences. Right away I can latch onto the guys that agree with my more "politically correct" POV. (That's not real science, but it feels good to know that a large number of PhD's share my perspective.) However, an almost equally large number disagree. Can you imagine scientists being so divided about the basic laws of genetics, thermodynamics, or physics? If race is a valid scientific concept, it certainly needs some work. I'm back where I started. Race does not seem to me to be scientific or valid as a concept. 

Individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. If you walk from the Great Rift valley, north all the way to Sweden, and then turned East and went to Japan you would see that all the people you run into are pretty similar to the people of the neighboring population. The shift in physical characteristics (and probably the more hidden genomic aspecs) is so gradual that identifying a hard line as to where on group ends and the other begins would be arbitrary. There would seem a lack of the kind of hard lines necessary to form a valid system of classification. Throw into the mix modern transportation methods and the mass migrations of the past 300 years that brought people from different continents into contact with each other and suddenly the whole race thing has lost all meaning.

My Japanese-English-Mexican-Creole sons defy all definition of race. Any allele, cline, or gene you find in their blood could have originated on any one of four continents. What valid purpose would you have in identifying and categorizing them? (Unless they robbed a liquor store, then you could use race as a quick way of identifying suspects.)

----------


## Duo

> My Japanese-English-Mexican-Creole sons defy all definition of race. Any allele, cline, or gene you find in their blood could have originated on any one of four continents. What valid purpose would you have in identifying and categorizing them? (Unless they robbed a liquor store, then you could use race as a quick way of identifying suspects.)


If I'm not mistaken we can't tell if a person is a certain race by analyzing his DNA, at least I think that's what I read.

----------


## No-name

Someone (Bashmad) in one of those Scientific America articles (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...mber=2&catID=2 ) compared 556 from europe, asia, and africa and was able to identify using 60 alus four distinct population groups (Two in Africa, One in Europe, one in Asia) with over 80% accuracy. Which I guess means not yet, and the DNA may one day indicate something that geography and skin color does not. Other scientist have used polymorphisms to successfully identify the geographic points of origin of genetic samples, but this may not actually prove anything more than people of a geographic llocation are genetically related and look like one another. It becomes problematic when you look at East Indians and try to break them up into their self identified ethnic catagories, or at white and African Americans. (Some 20 or 30% of these polymorphism seem to have crossed the color line.)

So if you find a drop of blood on the street in Houston, right now, no good scientist in the world could tell what the "race" of the donor was.

----------


## bossel

> I'm still not certain why you think race is scientific, or what the "scientific concept" is all about.


If you still can't see it, after all what you have read any attempt by me to explain it further is probably futile. Here is a widely accepted model from 1990:
"members of a subspecies [IE race] would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning"




> I'm still without a history of how the "scientific" concept of race developed


You wanna tease me? It's in the Wikipedia article.




> why if the theory of race is valid is racism wrong. After all doesn't the concept validate the differential treatment of subspecies? To me, race and racism is still connected.


Of course are race & racism connected. But the one is no necessary reason for the other.
Would you deny the differences between men & women (although there is no clear borderline, science still makes this distinction)? 

Differential treatment is not necessarily racist, it can even be required, eg. in certain medical conditions or when serving alcoholic or lactic products. 




> Race as a scientific theory isn't as solid as lets say the atomic theory or gravity or even evolution.


Atomic theory is not rock solid, either. We still don't know everything. Don't get me started on gravity, essentially we only know that it exists. Evolution theory is pretty similar to race theory, IMO.




> There doesn't seem to be a good consensus among real scientists who actually know something about this.


Ever met a bunch of linguists? Oh, I forgot, an English major. Then you probably did. Linguistics is a science, yet if you talk to 10 linguists you may get 20 opinions (depending on the linguistic theory you talk about, obviously).




> I also looked over the Cavalli-Sforza stuff, but much of this is pretty esoteric and I am going to have to re-read most of this when I am less tired.


Esoteric? C-S? He's a bit too PC in his statements, but his research is OK.




> To me race still seems a lot more like phrenology than science, and in spite of your statements to the contrary, seems to be based on superficial physical characteristics.


Superficial? Could you define that further?




> After all if race is a valid subdivision of a species, than why is it not used in any other species?


What makes you think so? I already told you that this is not the case, race is used as a subdivision in other species, only the terminology might differ a bit (eg. variety for plants, breed for domesticated animals, subspecies). It seems a distinct phenomenon of English that the term race is more or less limited to humans.
Chimpanzees are subdivided into at least 4 subspecies, Eastern Gorillas into 2-3, the Long-tailed Macaque into at least 10, you can go on...




> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...331319,00.html : "THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept."


IMO, this leading statement already disqualifies the article. There is no "popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people" in biology. This sounds like pure propaganda to discredit the scientists who work in the field.





> If you walk from the Great Rift valley, north all the way to Sweden, and then turned East and went to Japan you would see that all the people you run into are pretty similar to the people of the neighboring population.


Just like in the case of dialects. But would you say that dialects don't exist?




> The shift in physical characteristics (and probably the more hidden genomic aspecs) is so gradual that identifying a hard line as to where on group ends and the other begins would be arbitrary.


Because there is no hard line. Why does there need to be one?




> suddenly the whole race thing has lost all meaning.


You shouldn't search for meaning in science, it's just about knowledge (Latin _scientia_ = knowledge). If you need meaning, there is a number of religions who could provide that.





> compared 556 from europe, asia, and africa and was able to identify using 60 alus four distinct population groups (Two in Africa, One in Europe, one in Asia) with over 80% accuracy. Which I guess means not yet,


You should have read further (BTW, I've read a very similar article in German, but from a different author, interesting. Plagiarism?):
"We found that we needed 60 Alu polymorphisms to assign individuals to their continent of origin with 90 percent accuracy. To achieve nearly 100 percent accuracy, however, we needed to use about 100 Alus.
[...]
assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity."

Thanks for SSRC link, BTW. I didn't have that one!

----------


## No-name

Bossel,

If a large number of scientist reject race as a valid concept, I have no problem as a layman finding it unscientific. (Not that it should matter to the scientific community what I think.) You may find debate about other scientific theories, but scientists are not divided as to whether gravity is a valid concept or not.

(My only disagreement with your last post is that I think there is a clear distinction between genders that can be defined scientifically.)

We do as humans constantly divide the subspecies for all kinds of purposes. We tabulate data, collect stats, self segregate, discriminate, pick, choose, classify, certify and who knows what else for what reason. If you mention a race or an ethnicity, I will have a fairly clear list of physical features that I would expect to see. If you ask me to describe a person, I may use race as a shorthand for the physical appearences. I do not doubt that negroids come from the african continent, cacasoids from europe and mongoloids from asia. So it is perfectly human to divide us up by race. I would still after all this argue that the division is not scientific and serves little useful scientific purpose. It adds nothing to our base of knowlege, and is nothing in the way of applicable or useful knowlege in and of itself. I don't think you have explained at all what race is really "about," except to inform me that it is not about racism. Through the whole wikipedia article, much of which refutes the concept, there is little mention of scientist initially developing race as a concept, only that it was already widely accepted by the 18th century, and that it was used to justify colonialism and the exploitation of "darker races."

----------


## bossel

Don't have time today, just in short.




> If a large number of scientist reject race as a valid concept, I have no problem as a layman finding it unscientific. (Not that it should matter to the scientific community what I think.) You may find debate about other scientific theories, but scientists are not divided as to whether gravity is a valid concept or not.


You will find a number of linguists rejecting UG as a valid concept, but it's still a scientific theory/hypothesis.





> (My only disagreement with your last post is that I think there is a clear distinction between genders that can be defined scientifically.


AFAIK, there is no clear borderline, hermaphrodites actually do exist.




> It adds nothing to our base of knowlege


It does, eg. that human beings largely derived from isolated population clusters.




> I don't think you have explained at all what race is really "about,"


What should it be about, if not about race? As I said, if you're looking for meaning, don't look at science.

----------


## No-name

I would invite comments from someone other than me. I am neither a biologist nor am I an anthropologist. Bossel and I have exhausted every angle of this argument and I am quickly loosing interest. I have read several articles by scientists that say that race is not a scientific concept and that say it has no value. It seems that some people feel the necessity to subdivde the species into categories, and feel that this is scientific and increases our knowlege. You can sort your clothes anyway you want, but that doesn't make it scientific nor does it denote knowledge.

That hermaphrodites exists does not blurr the borderline between genders. Sociologically and psychologically some people may be confused about gender, but scientists need only to perform a simple examination (with on rare occasion- a look at a person's chromosomes) to determine gender.

I would also argue (without much purpose or any sources) that humans don't derive from isolated population clusters. We derive from some isolated, some in constant contact, some migratory stock. We all share common ancestors, many of them recent. From what I read... You can't fit 6 billion people into three categories, or four, or six or sixty. By the time you get to 60 the categories have become meaningless.

----------


## bossel

> I have read several articles by scientists that say that race is not a scientific concept and that say it has no value.


& other articles say that it has value. (maybe they use other terms than race, but that doesn't change the underlying concept very much)




> That hermaphrodites exists does not blurr the borderline between genders. Sociologically and psychologically some people may be confused about gender, but scientists need only to perform a simple examination (with on rare occasion- a look at a person's chromosomes) to determine gender.


& that simple examination would be? A person's chromosomes are not decisive either (you can have "males" with XX & "females" with XY). IIRC, an athlete banned from participating as a female in the Olympics for having XY-chromosomes later carried out a child.
If hermaphrodites don't represent a blurried borderline, what are they?




> By the time you get to 60 the categories have become meaningless.


& again you come back to meaning. Why does there have to be meaning?

----------


## SharkLover

I hate racists.....they're mean...

----------


## No-name

> & again you come back to meaning. Why does there have to be meaning?


Why would we need a catorgorization that is meaningless?

----------


## bossel

> Why would we need a catorgorization that is meaningless?


Ah, that brings me to a question: which meaning does the categorisation into male & female have?
Or: Which meaning would you see in categorising language? 
"By the time you get to 60 the categories have become meaningless." Would that mean that for a language with 60 dialects, the categorisation has no meaning, while below 60 it has? Where would you draw the line?

I thought, by "meaning" you were hinting at something else than actual knowledge. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

----------


## Thor

Prejudice in general is a human trait. We were born, and raised with it as our companion. It is what helps us makes decisions, friends, and social skills. Idealists who say a world without prejudice would be a good world are fools. Without prejudice there would be no social structure.

----------


## lonesoullost3

Ok, I only skimmed this long thread and read some of the last posts, but here is a fault I find in some responses here:




> I have read several articles by scientists that say that race is not a scientific concept and that say it has no value.





> & other articles say that it has value. (maybe they use other terms than race, but that doesn't change the underlying concept very much)


Where are these articles that are mentioned? I see that some articles have been posted, but from the breif synopsis given (and the excerpts) they don't seem to pertain to these arguments.

As far the definition of race as scientific or social distinction, it really depends where you look. Here are some examples of definitions I have found:

-A subjective term used to distinguish groups of people but not necessarily to denote biological or physical differences (Institute for Rural Health Research)

-subspecies: (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species (Cognitive Science Dept., Princeton)

-The concept of race, as used by the Census Bureau, does not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock. The data for race represent self-classification by people according to the race with which they most closely identify. Furthermore, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include both racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups (locationxpert.com)

-1 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED 
2 : one of the three, four, or five divisions based on inherited physical characteristics into which human beings are usually divided (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary)

-A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. 
+A genealogical line; a lineage. 
+Humans considered as a group. 
_Biology._  
+An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. 
+A breed or strain, as of domestic animals (all of the above: American Hertiage Dictionary)

A note from AHDict.: "The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans...The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

As you can see, race is either defined by biology or sociology, though there seems to be more emphasis on the social aspect than the biological. Therefore, it appears that race can be one of those concepts that can only be defined by the individual and therefore 'racism' differs from person to person. However, one thing is certain that race does inherently imply a group. Therefore, semantically speaking, RockLee's definition of racism is not accurate (being racist for hating one person of a certain ethnicity/race - this is my understanding of your definition).

Perhaps to reconcile differences in opinion of the definition of race it is best to use "ethnicism" than racism. However, this still presents a problem. Ethnicity is not based on biology, it is based on cultural background. A simple case that proves the difficulty with this is my friend: half-taiwanese, half-swiss, born and raised in Japan. What is his ethnicity? If we had to come up with a specific way of defining race and ethnicity, I would almost say ethnicity is the purely social aspect of race (the other side being biology). Therefore, by turning to ethnicity only, we no longer run into the difficulty of science (as was mentioned with hermaphrodites, XY-XX chromosomes, and the definition of gender). As soon as we through a social aspect into a definition, all possibility of a concrete be-all end-all definition is lost. This does not mean that there is no meaning - far from it. The meaning becomes greater as this social aspect is discussed. I can say that my insight into the definition of race has been furthered through this thread (I shall have to go back and read more though).

----------


## No-name

lonesoullost3- Great reply.

I think what gets confusing is the shift from the old paradigm of 3 races to new science of human genome variation. We're arguing about labels and if there is enough biological differences to warrant a categorization into subspecies and just what that categorzation might mean. The very term "race" seems to muddle it up. One article I read, and somewhat understood: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...ll/ng1435.html seemed to explain the argument quite well.

What I have come to think based on this research is that the three "old world" race classifications are unscientific. That race, thus defined, is "biologically meaningless" (RS Scwhartz, NEJM 344, 1392-1392 (2001) and "not based on scientific evidence," SB Haga & JC Venter Science 301, 466 (2003). A guy named Templeton wrote that "humans fail the test for biological races." (1998) But the fact remains that humans vary in visible/measurable traits by geographic region, and that eventually we will be able to see this by testing genetic material. The questions remain however about the validity, necessity, and values of a classification of humans below species. There are doubts even in the medical field, that "race...is a weak surrogate for various genetic and non-genetic factors in correlation with health status." Chramaine DM Royal & Georgia M Dunston (2003). So the old definition of Race is, in my thinking, a sociological construct not based on science at all. (Unless you consider our innate, instinctive ability to group, cluster, and classify things scientific.)

Bossel is probably more familiar with the scientific aspects of this argument, including the efforts of the Genographic project. He considers race a valid subdivision of species.(https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/about.html) He could better explain the scientific validity of race and genomic research. We could through these efforts have a better understanding of human variation and form a reliable and verifiable definition for "race" based on science.

A lot of what I am saying came from that Wikipedia article and the links it has.

Here are some references to the articles the quotes came from:

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/844
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...6?view=summary (fee may be required)
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/7/1607
http://www.asanet.org/media/race.html

----------


## bossel

> Where are these articles that are mentioned?


I think, you summed up the argument pretty well. For the articles, well, since most of the stuff I read is German & the only one I read who is (what I know of) published in English is Cavalli-Sforza (member of the PC faction & acc. to Sabro quite "esoteric"), it's hard to find English sources. But I've tried to come up with some stuff (see below).




> As far the definition of race as scientific or social distinction, it really depends where you look. 
> [...]
> As you can see, race is either defined by biology or sociology, though there seems to be more emphasis on the social aspect than the biological.


IMO this emphasis is only in the public discussion. As long as they are not buggered by some journalists who want them to take a stance most scientists just go along with their research. It may get problematic when the institution which finances research is infected with the PC virus, though. Then the researchers could have to change terminology & camouflage their area of research.

A social distinction of race is not very useful IMO. One of the problems I have with members of the PC faction is the fact that they often base their criticism on the superficial social distinction rather than what is really going on in science.




> Perhaps to reconcile differences in opinion of the definition of race it is best to use "ethnicism" than racism.
> [...]Therefore, by turning to ethnicity only, we no longer run into the difficulty of science


I don't think, changing terminology is very useful. As can be seen in case of "race" it only seems to confuse people even more than was the case before. I'd prefer education over re-definition or PC.


Some articles I found:

The Biological Meaning of "Race" 
Quote:
" In short, we must, as Cavalli-Sforza advises (but fails to heed), examine all the existing evidence, and realize that it is the unique ensemble of all the aforementioned characteristics--gene freqencies, and physical and geographical characteristics--which differentiate races, not just a few arbitrary chosen traits."

Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race 
Quote:
"Race is a topic of such enormous importance that it's essential to think clearly about it. Yet much of the intelligentsia now attempts to deal with the problem by defining race as merely a mass hallucination afflicting the entire human race - other than we few members of the Great and the Good"

From the same author:
Race Flat-Earthers Dangerous To Everyonefs Health 
Quote:
"Some of the Race Has No Biological Reality ideologues are so fanatical that, rather than be proven wrong about the reality of race, they'd apparently prefer to see members of their own race die"

related article:
FDA Approves First Racially Targeted Drug 
Quote:
"Two earlier trials of the drug on the general population of heart failure patients found no benefit, the FDA said, but they did suggest that BiDil helped the few blacks participating."

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE (pdf)
Quote:
"Denial of any genetic component in human variation,
including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies."

specifically for Sabro, who thinks you can't see race in the DNA:
Molecular eyewitness: DNA gets a human face 
Quote:
"Of the 8,000 DNA samples they have tested by this method in the course of their research and work, 95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage, said Zach Gaskin, a technical co-ordinator of forensics at the company.
Still, Mr. Gaskin said, once a DNA sample suggests that at least 30 per cent of a person's heritage belongs to a particular racial group, a person starts "to exhibit features consistent with that population.""

Not too closely related to the issue of race:
Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans 
Quote:
"Numerical simulations of this process replicate many of the seemingly contradictory features of the genetic data, and suggest that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans."


BTW, Sabro, you didn't answer my questions!

----------


## No-name

What question was that?

----------


## lonesoullost3

> A social distinction of race is not very useful IMO. One of the problems I have with members of the PC faction is the fact that they often base their criticism on the superficial social distinction rather than what is really going on in science.


Trying to define race through social aspects doesn't mean it's PC. I'm personally fed up with PC - people are getting offended too easily now a days. By taking the social aspect of race in to perspective then you add an additional layer (more like layers) to the objective scientific definition. And if viewed closely, the social distinction is hardly superficial - one only has to make the effort. There is an excellent book "Consilience" by Edward O Wilson that I wish I had on hand (I read it in high school). It's subtitle: "The Unity of Knowledge". It pretty much tries to reconcile the differences in biological definitions and social defintions.

----------


## bossel

> Trying to define race through social aspects doesn't mean it's PC.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough (should probably work more on my English). I meant that the PC faction confuses (deliberately?) in its criticism the biological & the social concepts of race: eg. by quoting the "popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences" & then on this basis criticising race as a biological model.

----------


## No-name

Bossel, do I detect a bit of a snippy tone?
I'm impressed, but I'm still not persuaded, but I did read some of the articles. I'm stuck in the semantics either due to my lack of eduation in this area or because the arguments are basically semantical.



> specifically for Sabro, who thinks you can't see race in the DNA:
> Molecular eyewitness: DNA gets a human face 
> Quote:
> "Of the 8,000 DNA samples they have tested by this method in the course of their research and work, 95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage, said Zach Gaskin, a technical co-ordinator of forensics at the company.
> Still, Mr. Gaskin said, once a DNA sample suggests that at least 30 per cent of a person's heritage belongs to a particular racial group, a person starts "to exhibit features consistent with that population.""
> 
> 
> BTW, Sabro, you didn't answer my questions!


I could not access the article you referenced. It seems like some of the ones I was looking at where you have to pay a fee or have a membership.

Race was well defined and accepted by eugenicists long before genomics (and really any microbiology) was even concieved. The problem is, it wasn't and still isn't scientific. That is not to say that there is no genomic variation in humans according to geography, or that people that have lived in distinct geographical reasons do not share some physical characteristics. Scientists are debating the significance of these variations, and several of them that are brighter than I am and have far more letters after their name dispute the concept of race as meaningless, useless and not significant as a category. The analogy to linguistics (and please give me a break, I am not a linguist) is that you can divide communication into languages and languages into dialects, you may be able to further divide sub-dialects, but at some point further division becomes meaningless. 

Steve Sailer's (President of Human Biodiversity Institute) article (that was deeply critical of Cavalli-Svorza ) (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm) attacks each of my basic arguments quite well, but it does little to dispel two of them. Humans share a common ancestry 100,000 years or less old. Most European, African, and Asians share ancestry that is even younger (perhaps as little as 10,000). Variations in the species do not merit subdivision of the species. One of his "myths" that he dispels is "Nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them." Which I am still stuck on. Labels like language, only work when people agree on a shared meaning. Add to this Mr. Gaskins assertion that "95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage." and I begin to wonder why anyone would feel the need to hold onto the concept.

Again, I am not well versed in all of this. The scientific community seems to be disputing the validity of race, and new information based on our tiny chemical bits is causing a deep reassessment of the definition and taxonomy of race. What I'm certain of is that the old world conception of three races is definitely unscientific, antiquated and dead, and that most of the revisions into four, five, or nine categories are likewise falling by the wayside. Race is old school, and may not fit well with new information on human variation.

Bossel, You may wish to restate your questions. i didn't mean to ignore them, but I either don't know the answers or I thought you were asking them rhetorically. I may not be the best one to answer but at least someone could find a response.

----------


## bossel

> I'm stuck in the semantics either due to my lack of eduation in this area or because the arguments are basically semantical.


Well, it's mostly about semantics: do you call it race, population, subspecies or cline... & how do you define it.





> I could not access the article you referenced.


Strange, try this one. 




> Race was well defined and accepted by eugenicists long before genomics (and really any microbiology) was even concieved.


Well defined? In how far?
They based their ideas on the at the time rather crude ideas of evolution. Evolution was a pretty new concept at the time & the understanding of its principles rather rudimentary. 




> The problem is, it wasn't and still isn't scientific.


Wrong, it was a crude idea in the beginning, but has been refined/redefined over time.




> That is not to say that there is no genomic variation in humans according to geography, or that people that have lived in distinct geographical reasons do not share some physical characteristics.


Then, basically, you're saying variation is there but we are not allowed to call it race. No wonder that you're stuck in semantics.




> The analogy to linguistics (and please give me a break, I am not a linguist)


Didn't you say somewhere you were an English major?




> is that you can divide communication into languages and languages into dialects, you may be able to further divide sub-dialects, but at some point further division becomes meaningless.


Which proves that you're no linguist. Some of the newest research I read regarding UG (Universal Grammar) is focused on the fact that each person has their own grammar (or even several grammars, depending on the situation). It's hard to divide further.




> Variations in the species do not merit subdivision of the species.


Semantics?




> Labels like language, only work when people agree on a shared meaning. Add to this Mr. Gaskins assertion that "95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage."


As in race, in language you have varying schools of thought, each with their own labels. Some outright denying the existence of language, simply calling it a dialect continuum, there may be other who see every dialect as a language of its own. Dutch & German are generally referred to as distinct languages, although they are closer together than Mandarin & Cantonese, the latter of which is often considered a dialect of Mandarin.

"Significant"? I wonder what that means.




> The scientific community seems to be disputing the validity of race


Which scientific community? The PC faction doesn't make up _the_ scientific community.




> Race is old school, and may not fit well with new information on human variation.


Well, it doesn't fit well with modern PC.




> Bossel, You may wish to restate your questions.


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=75
I still don't understand, which meaning you are hinting at.
What meaning does the differentiation (which you seem to accept) into male/female have?
Which meaning is there in differentiating dialects, why would that meaning disappear if you have 60 or more?

----------


## No-name

Bossel- thanks for the link- this time the article worked. The research seems promising, but only time will tell. If most people (85%) are of mixed ethnicity- it will be interesting to see if it will have any value. If police could get just a hint of what a perp might look like it would be a positive step.

Thanks for the questions. I was an English Literature major which has very little to do with linguistic. The semantic question is at the center of our disagreement. If you could see that race was a concept formed well before the seventeenth century in the absence of real science, DNA, genetics and even before evolution... and it has been used to define, justify, and exclude to the point of the eugenics movement and the holocaust you would understand why the negative connotation precludes the use of race as a category by many laymen like me and many scientists. What you may mean by race and what race meant in the popular lexicon just a few decades ago are totally different concepts that should be differentiated. Hence the use of terminology like genomic variation or cline is not some effort to be PC, just an effort to be more accurate and avoid the negative connotation the older term carries.

You can with utter simplicity define almost anyone's gender with almost perfect accuracy. There are rare exceptions, but in over 99% of the cases, you can be 100% correct. You can't do that with race. What is defined as black in Brazil, or African American in the United States are different. The catch all term "Hispanic" may define a person with blood in combination from any or all of three different continents. In many cases a person is a mix of two or more continental blood lines- and so where do you sort them? How do you label them? And Cavalli-Svorza notes that there is as much variation in the native populations of the African continent as there are among all other population groups. The meaning of sub-category labels disappears when you can no longer accurately put the things you are classifying into the boxes you think they belong in. If you can identify which London neighborhood a person comes from by their accent alone, great. But if the label you give is somehow vague, inspecific, disputed, and gives little more information than the label itself, than it is rather random and quite useless.

I may not respond for a bit, I am on vacation.

----------


## bossel

> If most people (85%) are of mixed ethnicity


Sorry, but this percentage is highly dubious. From my own perception it's more like the other way round: 90-95% of people are not of mixed race. Perhaps this is different in countries like the US, but even there I can't see more than 50% being of mixed origin. IIRC, even in Mexico, where you have a longer tradition of interbreeding between Indians & Europeans you only have a percentage of 60 with mixed heritage.




> I was an English Literature major which has very little to do with linguistic.


Interesting. If you study English in Germany (which I do) at least 50% of your studies should cover linguistics.




> What you may mean by race and what race meant in the popular lexicon just a few decades ago are totally different concepts that should be differentiated.


You may not have noticed it, but I do differentiate. I think, I mentioned it several times: The popular notion of race is not the same as the scientific concept of race.




> Hence the use of terminology like genomic variation or cline is not some effort to be PC, just an effort to be more accurate and avoid the negative connotation the older term carries.


How can it be more accurate if it essentially means the same? Nah, it boils down to PC.There are some populists (often politicians) who don't like a word & declare it un-PC, then it's only a matter of propaganda & political pressure.




> You can with utter simplicity define almost anyone's gender with almost perfect accuracy. There are rare exceptions, but in over 99% of the cases, you can be 100% correct. You can't do that with race.


You can, only you need the right markers. Female/male differentiation maybe easier (on the surface, not scientifically, though), but just as in the case of race there is no clear borderline.




> What is defined as black in Brazil, or African American in the United States are different. The catch all term "Hispanic" may define a person with blood in combination from any or all of three different continents. In many cases a person is a mix of two or more continental blood lines- and so where do you sort them? How do you label them?


Ooooaaargh! You do it again! You take some social concept of race to argue against the scientific concept. "Black" is not a race, neither is "hispanic." People with mixed heritage are just that: mixed (I don't know the correct English scientific terminology, I'd simply call them mongrels.) I suppose, you could count them to a certain race if they have more than 95% of the distinct features.




> The meaning of sub-category labels disappears when you can no longer accurately put the things you are classifying into the boxes you think they belong in.


It depends on the meaning you apply. I really have problems with understanding your insistence on meaning. If you research the differences as such, there is not necessarily meaning applied. If you research the origins of differentiation you could ask for reasons for this or that particular difference. If you research the effects of differentiation you could ask why this or that particular gene has that function in this race, while it is turned off (or suppressed by another gene) in that race & how this difference might affect medication or whatever. It all depends.




> If you can identify which London neighborhood a person comes from by their accent alone, great.


But what would be the meaning? 




> I may not respond for a bit, I am on vacation.


Well, have a nice time. I could use some time off as well, but don't have enough money. *envy*

----------


## No-name

Thanks Bossel, I think we have totally played this thing out.

So there is a "social" concept and a "scientific" concept? That would be agreeable... 

The "social" one being the one piloted by ethnocentric europeans three hundred years ago that is totally debunked and the "scientific" one currently in development, but not defined as of yet. The problem of "race" semantically is one of connotation- the denotation may be somewhat applicable to what science is doing, but harnessing your terminology to some outdated term that has no scientific value. It seems like putting new tires on an old jalopy. (but I will leave that to scientists to debate.)

I got the 85% thing from one of the articles we parsed. (By the Gaskin guy who said that "95% of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage.") It probably refers to North and South Americans who are almost all of mixed blood. (But I definitely wouldn't use "mongrel" as it is a term mostly used for dogs and has racist connotations. Not very pc at all) I can't imagine many northern Europeans, Central Asians or Central Africans being all that mixed- just far more diverse than three labels.

Your 95% of the "distinct features" statement sound like- if you look black, you're negroid- which isn't very scientific. This goes to the heart of my "race is not scientific" argument. (Since it doesn't take into account which features are dominant.) But perhaps I am misreading this.

The America's are filled with mixes-- tri-racial isolates, creoles, half breeds, ancestries secreted away, hidden or falsified. Mixed race couples are not all that rare, nor is the one latino, Indian or Black ancestor hidden in your closet. The out-marriage rate among Japanese Americans for example is over 70%. Jewish out-marriage is about as high. "Hispanic" (a Nixon era political term) includes those formerly classified as "white" and some identified previously as "black." 

In Mexico- Mestizos, mexicanos, and latinos are generally mixed and the social strata tends to be along the European/Native American Blood line. The more european looking tend to be at the top of society and the more indian at the bottom. And there are full blooded indigeneos "indios" in Mexico, but they don't make up 35% of the population. Add into this the euro-african and african/native american mixes throughout the Carribean and central american region and "race" at least on this side of the pond has lost all meaning. (No one fits in the cute little boxes anymore.)

I have blonde blue eyed friends that are registered Cherokee. My wife is Creole/Mexican which means she has all three of those precious "races" (if you still consider native american "mongoloid"). I recall in one of those studies that genomicists were able to identify "non- European" markers in over 60% of Americans self-identified as "White" and "non-African" markers in 80% of those identified as "African American". I'd have to research it though. (That 100 alleles with matches of 85% having common with self identified labels...or something like that...) And I definitely like to think of us as a salad bowl rather than a melting pot.

As for being an English "Literature" major- it covers literature-- mostly written by dead English guys, and no linguistics at all. Criticism, rhetoric, poetry, prose, lots of Shakespeare and history...but nothing linguistic, grammatical, mechanical, or scientific about it.

----------


## bossel

> So there is a "social" concept and a "scientific" concept? That would be agreeable...


There is a whole bunch of concepts, but this is the basic distinction, I think (BTW, I already said this much earlier in this thread, you notice it rather late).




> It seems like putting new tires on an old jalopy.


May be better to speak of a building which is still being built, but gets new paint because some obnoxious neighbours complained about the old grey one.




> I got the 85% thing from one of the articles we parsed.


I doubt that this number applies for the US; for Mexico, though, it's like that (looked it up, it's somewhere around 80%, haven't found numbers for the US)




> Your 95% of the "distinct features" statement sound like- if you look black, you're negroid- which isn't very scientific.


Sorry, but your reasoning isn't very scientific either, not even very logical. Even if skin colour was a distinct marker of race (which it isn't), it would be only one of many. How could that make up 95%?




> nor is the one latino, Indian or Black ancestor hidden in your closet.


Which wouldn't make you necessarily a mix. If it was one guy 200 years ago, the probability that you have more than 5% of his genetic material left is rather low.




> Add into this the euro-african and african/native american mixes throughout the Carribean and central american region and "race" at least on this side of the pond has lost all meaning.


Which meaning, dammit? 
Even if 99% of a population is mixed, that wouldn't mean that races don't exist. It only _means_ that those of "pure" race don't form a significant (well...) part of the population. So what?




> As for being an English "Literature" major- it covers literature-[...]but nothing [...] scientific about it.


You mean literary studies is not accepted as a science in the US? Again interesting.

Back to the race argument: I suppose we have to agree to disagree. You seem to only recognise the social concept of race (& some social values associated with race?), while I solely argue on the biological concept of race.

----------


## No-name

Hey Bossel, 
Thanks for keeping this alive for so long, but I think we may have passed some logical expiration point. You have said that you 'solely argue on the biological concept of race." but I don't even know what that means. Perhaps you can explain in laymans terms.

At UCLA- the campus is divided north and south- North campus is the more creative artistic side of campus. South campus houses the science majors. English literature lives up in the northern section, clearly more art than science. I'm sure that many of us literature jockies would love to be considered more scietific, but the degree you get reads BA, and MA- not BS or MS.




> Sorry, but your reasoning isn't very scientific either, not even very logical. Even if skin colour was a distinct marker of race (which it isn't), it would be only one of many. How could that make up 95%?


I used "looked Black" in the most scientific way- that if a person displayed 95% of the distinct features -and I never mentioned skin color-- whatever they might be (and whatever in science that might mean) they would be negroid.

So what I began with was that "race is not scientific." The best we can come up with is yes it is, but you have to ignore the widely popular and debunked "social" concept in favor of a "scientific" concept that doesn't fit the same parametrics and isn't entirely agreed upon by a large percentage of biologists. So I am back to my original statement: Race (the way most people including a large number of scientists define it) is not a valid scientific concept- in that it does not have clearly defined parameters that result in a logical systematic method of definition or distinction (ie meaning). (I made that up myself.) So what would be the point of holding kicking and screaming on to the old terminology? I'm glad you seem so certain. I still can't seem to make it work.

Bossel: Last question: What is a "pure" race? "Pure" seems to again convey a scary connotation that is the very reason why I guess so many people shudder at the suggestion of scientific racialism. "Pure" is better than "mongrelized" right? (Or is this like the hybrid vigor question where the opposite is true?) Even Europeans have been mixed, mongrelized, invaded, and integrated by exploration, trade, travel, warfare, and invasion and...fill in the exploit of your choice. Genetic material seemed to rush back and forth across three continents constantly over the last few thousand years. (People don't stay put and don't keep their pants on.)

I suppose there are some isolated Europeans from pockets of people that never went anywhere, were never invaded, and never exchanged biological material with anyone not directly related to someone close to them- (Like the kid from Deliverence) but wouldn't that be rare?

What is the "Hun" in Hungary from? Where did the Mongol horde leave behind little hordies? Didn't Spain expel the last Moore in 1492? And there really is no physical border with Asia or Africa that hasn't been continually crossed over the last 6000 years? I keep thinking of the spectrum thing- how every population on earth tends to look quite like the ones around it, and there tends to be few places where a natural "race" line exists....And if Race is scientific where would Hungarians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Pakastanis... fit in? Do they have more biologically in common with Swedes or Japanese? What is a pure race anyway? (That's the real question...The internal questions in this section of the post are mostly rhetorical.) (And wouldn't you eventually end up with a bunch of inbred hemopheliacs?)

I say we either kill this thing soon or find a new and interesting direction to pull it into. We haven't discussed facism or racism....

----------


## No-name

2 more points:
That Steve Sailer character I found seems to agree with you (Bossel). Cavalli-Svorza seems to be trying to redefine terminology not to be PC, but to be exact, specific and scientific.

Bossel, you are absolutely correct: An ancestor of mine living about two hundred years ago would be my great great or great great great grandfather...one half to the power of four or five...or 1/32 or 1/64th of my genetic heritage...so it is less than 1/20th...unless two or more of the intervening ancestors also have a skeleton or two in the closet or of course the more likely that the "im-pure" ancestor is much closer.

----------


## bossel

> You have said that you 'solely argue on the biological concept of race." but I don't even know what that means. Perhaps you can explain in laymans terms.


We had this already:
"Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Population Dobzhansky (1970) : "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves.""

I don't know how to put this into laymen's terms, because invariably the original definition gets lost. But let's try: Some more or less isolated population developed distinct biological characteristics which differ from those of another population. If a certain number of differing features comes together, you can speak of 2 races.




> I used "looked Black" in the most scientific way- that if a person displayed 95% of the distinct features -and I never mentioned skin color--


Black is used to denote skin colour. There is probably a major problem in our perception here. I can recognise black only as denominator for colour, while you seem to have some racist social differentiation in mind.




> Race (the way most people including a large number of scientists define it) is not a valid scientific concept- in that it does not have clearly defined parameters that result in a logical systematic method of definition or distinction (ie meaning).


Sorry, but science is not religion. You don't have a dogma, which all scientists have to follow. Coming back to my favourite comparison, linguistics: Just because many linguists deny the existence of Universal Grammar, doesn't make it a less valid scientific theory. Just because UG is defined differently by different groups of linguists (& is redefined with every new research paper) doesn't make it invalid either.




> I'm glad you seem so certain


Certain? I simply haven't seen any valid criticism yet. The ones with the necessary background to actually debunk race as a concept, don't really do that. They only change their terminology to bootlick the PC faction.

BTW, in that regard I found it rather curious that someone who argues against race uses it for his argument. "95% of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage." How can people be of mixed heritage if there isn't anything to mix in the 1st place. I don't remember the exact argument, but this is kind of strange.




> What is a "pure" race?


I don't know, you tell me! I didn't say that there is "a "pure" race", but that there are people of "pure" (noticed the "" in my post?) race. Which simply means that they show 100% of the markers for one particular race, depending on the definition it could be only 99%.




> "Pure" seems to again convey a scary connotation that is the very reason why I guess so many people shudder at the suggestion of scientific racialism.


Scary? Only for those who use to see connotations where there aren't any. Since I already feared that you would (deliberately?) misunderstand the term I put it in "".




> "Pure" is better than "mongrelized" right?


Why?




> Genetic material seemed to rush back and forth across three continents constantly over the last few thousand years. (People don't stay put and don't keep their pants on.)


Sorry, but you overestimate human mobility. IIRC, recent research actually showed that eg. populations in Europe showed remarkably consistent structures even into the 20th century. Anyway, there is a lot mixing, there are even mix-races like in Ethiopia, so what? 




> I suppose there are some isolated Europeans from pockets of people that never went anywhere, were never invaded, and never exchanged biological material with anyone not directly related to someone close to them- (Like the kid from Deliverence) but wouldn't that be rare?


Depends where you look. In some Alpes valleys you may find villages which didn't interbreed with "foreigners" (IE anybody from outside the valley) for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
It's not that extreme in many other parts of Europe, but mobility was very limited.




> What is the "Hun" in Hungary from?


The Huns were of mixed origin.




> Where did the Mongol horde leave behind little hordies?


In some parts of Europe, so what? Actually, they can be used as a nice example that European populations were not as mobile as you think. In a few Alpes valleys you can still find the Mongolian Spot on babies, while in directly neighbouring valleys you won't. (Although, the Mongolian Spot is not necessarily a racial marker, but there is a certain probability of it being mongoloid.)




> Didn't Spain expel the last Moore in 1492?


Er, those Moors were caucasoid (Arabs & Berbers).




> there tends to be few places where a natural "race" line exists...


What is a "natural "race" line"?




> And if Race is scientific where would Hungarians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Pakastanis...


Hungarians, Persians, Arabs & Pakistani are mainly caucasoid. Indians are partly caucasoid, partly an Altschichtrasse, partly mixed. Jews are members of a religion.




> Do they have more biologically in common with Swedes or Japanese?


Most of those you mentioned definitely have more in common with Swedes.




> What is a pure race anyway?


See above.




> (And wouldn't you eventually end up with a bunch of inbred hemopheliacs?)


The effects of inbreeding are largely overrated.




> We haven't discussed facism or racism....


Oh, I don't know, you show quite well how racism can influence perception. & the methods sometimes adopted by the PC faction to decry scientists researching racial differences look pretty fascist to me.

----------


## No-name

Bossel-- 
Thanks again. I think we have pretty much exhausted this thread. In spite of the two great definitions of genetic differences (or would that be genomic differences?) among populations living in different geographic regions- which I agree is absolutely true- I still don't believe race is a scientific concept. No one is saying that people everywhere are exactly the same, or that people in distinct regions don't share charactersitics.

The basic argument is to whether these diffeneces are consistent, significant, and distinct enough to merit some type of taxonomic subdivision of the species and if this subdividing should be along the same limited (and I would argue discredited) lines of the non-scientific past terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Australioid). Scientists are arguing among themselves whether the basic concept is valid and I choose to agree with the growing many that say that it is not. Again, I have given you my reasons, and cited as best I could some sources- some of which I would have to take a bit more time to read up on to make sense of. (And so we circle in a ungraceful rhetorical dance.)

Race is often used in the popular lexicon in a very non-scientific way to describe people, to develop arguments regarding social problems, as a term to attempt to break down people into distinct groups that have something in common, and in these context "race" has some meaning. Even the census bureau in the US does this. It is used interchangeably with heritage, ethnicity, and country of origin (and in the case of Jews- religion). (eg. The thread about Japan and Korean relations has many references to the two "races.") It was the key factor in American immigration policy for a century and a half, for slavery in the US, for American Indian policy, Japanese internment, the eugenics movement and the Holocaust. It has been used and misused for centuries, well before the discovery of DNA. 

I don't think it is inaccurate for police to use race as a description when looking for a suspect or a lost child. It is a shorthand that fits the limited way our human minds function. This has little to do with genetics, genomics, or research and everything to do with our social history.

The "pure" thing was not meant as a slam. I kept the little quotes intact and I was trying to get to the implication that somehow homo sapiens have three different origins or that one stock may be better than another, and that mixing and "inter-breeding" is some kind of recent event. In a semantical argument such as this one connotations such as this are key and should not be ignored. 

And the "95%... mixed heritage" statement I made was a quote that I cited, but I neither originated it nor did the research to back it up-- I guess you could find the citation and argue with the original author. (I actually think it was from one of Sailer's pro-Race-as-Science article quoting someone and then ripping him appart...but I could be wrong.)

Go in peace. I happily trod a planet in which there is only one human species, all closely related, with a great deal in common, and whose diversity should be enjoyed and celebrated. Should science find a reasonably accurate method and a valid reason to break down the species into big tribes, than so be it. (And if they- like many 20th century "scientists" again say that one "pure" line is better than the others, I will still declare them wrong.) Like I said earlier, strip us of our skin and we all look like the same bloody mess.

----------


## bossel

> The basic argument is to whether these diffeneces are consistent, significant, and distinct enough to merit some type of taxonomic subdivision of the species


Consistent: -yes, since the split happened probably at least 40,000 years ago, but always developing
Significant: -it depends
Distinct: -obviously, the closer to the core of a race the more distinct, blurry on the borderline

I can't see why humans should be treated differently from other animals by biology.




> and if this subdividing should be along the same limited (and I would argue discredited) lines of the non-scientific past terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Australioid).


Discredited: -only among the PC faction (which usually does not argue on biological grounds)
Limited: -wrong; it's not limited to these 3 major & a number of smaller lines, there is a lot of subdivision possible (eg. caucasoid: Br&#252;nn, Borreby, Alpine, Ladogan, Nordic, Noric, etc.), although some of those subdivisions are going to become extinct (IE so mixed that they aren't recognisable anymore) in the near future.




> Scientists are arguing among themselves whether the basic concept is valid


Now you sound like a creationist: "Because scientists argue about the details of evolution, it doesn't exist."




> I was trying to get to the implication that somehow homo sapiens have three different origins


3? There are a lot of origins, but if you look back far enough, you may find one specific combination of amino acids which is our single ancestor.




> or that one stock may be better than another


Every stock is better (adapted to the specific environment it evolved in) than another.




> mixing and "inter-breeding" is some kind of recent event.


It is & it is not. There were times of interbreeding & there were times of inbreeding. It depends where & when you look.




> I happily trod a planet in which there is only one human species, all closely related, with a great deal in common, and whose diversity should be enjoyed and celebrated.


Can't see why the concept of race should interfere with that.




> Like I said earlier, strip us of our skin and we all look like the same bloody mess.


Only if you don't look at the details.

----------


## No-name

I searched some articles and abstracts and came up with this:

From an article written by health care academics: The Reification of Race in Health Research (http://academic.udayton.edu/health/0...research01.htm) 


> Some have argued that the concept should be abandoned, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist. Others argue for retaining the term, but limiting its application to the social, as opposed to the biological, realm. Recently, the American Anthropological Association, the official professional organization of physical, biological, social, and cultural anthropologists and archeologists in the United States, released a statement emphasizing the social and historical construction of race. Reflecting a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars, the statement contended that race could not be considered a valid biological classification:
> 
> The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the U.S. has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.


http://hum-molgen.org/NewsGen/11-2004/msg06.html: Human genome variation and 'race' 


> The human genome contains both enough variation for us all to be genetically unique individuals and little enough variation that it is clear we are all members of one human race.
> 
> A special issue of the journal Nature Genetics, "Genetics for the Human presents a comprehensive survey of what we currently know about the science of human genetic variation. It emerges that the widespread use of 'race' as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.



http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844 Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity
by Morris W. Foster, and Richard R. Sharp



> Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect---today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for "Indian" or "African" genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies. Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants.


1. "...the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist...race could not be considered a valid biological classification."
2. This statements reflects "a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars."
3. "...we are all members of one human race."
4. "..nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions....and few if any accept racial typologies."
5 "...simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades."

I think I have asked this before, and it was answered, but do we use race as a subcategory of any other species? I think it is used exclusively for homo sapiens.

----------


## No-name

Sorry for hijacking this thread... People were having a fine time discussing Racism and universally condemning it. I especially like TimF's post. 

Digicross said there was no such thing as racism because there is only one human race. Bossel responded that scientists told him that there was "race" to which I answered that "race is not a scientific concept." Since then we have gone around in a circle..."no it's not"..."yes it is." Although I have read a great deal of material about race and science- it seems that science is moving toward a different paradigm to describe human variation and has entirely abandoned the concept of race. I learned a lot about the current state of human genomics, but I think we lost the main point of the discussion and may people stopped participating.

People who originate in different places often look different than people that originated in other places. This is due to "minor superficial differences" that have developed in the last 40,000 years. Historically this was used to define us into "races"- and the social-historical concept of race developed and is used today by social scientist to try to determine what is going on in multi-ethnic societies such as we have in the United States. 

You can determine a person's origins with some accuracy just by looking at them. Some people also assume that you can know a whole lot more about a person just by looking at them. Others falsley asssume elements of a persons character, intelligence or personality are somehow related to this appearance. All of this makes racism seem so reasonable- almost scientific. After all, if what I see is scientifically accurate, and based on biology- than it is rational to believe that there should be differences in character, intelligence, and personality...and that no one should be upset if one group just happens to be superior to all the rest.

The Nisei uncle I grew up with was an incredible bigot. Although we lived in East LA where he had daily contact with Latinos, he hated them. He hated blacks. (Even though he was Wilt Chamberlin's Gardner) He hated other Asians. He hated Jews. He hated whites. and he even refered to other Japanese Americans as Buddha Heads. (He was terribly unhappy). The only thing he seemed to like was fishing.

Racism is hooey. It has no rational or scientific basis. I does as much harm to its bitter adherents as it does to the object of its hate. Most insidiously, it is not outright bigots that are the most harmful- for they are easily dismissed- it is the institutionalization of racism into our global society. Race is not a scientific concept, but it is a social reality- however we separate and categorize ourselves into little tribes- we no longer have the space or the resources on our planet to ignore each other.

----------


## bossel

> 1. "...the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist...race could not be considered a valid biological classification."


Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.




> 2. This statements reflects "a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars."


A general consensus? Mind you that was from the AAA, PC crap if you ask me. You yourself have seen the statistics where a majority of biologists agreed with the concept of race. Then, either the AAA is a bunch of liars or they deliberately constructed their statement that it can be interpreted as you did. Either way, it discredits the scientific value of any AAA statement.




> 3. "...we are all members of one human race."


Since the link doesn't work I can only assume that the guy who wrote this has problems with scientific terminology. It should read "...we are all members of one human _species_."




> 4. "..nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions....and few if any accept racial typologies."


Where you left out the fact that they are talking about "the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement." Phhh!




> 5 "...simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades."


Exactly, just what I keep saying all around.




> I think I have asked this before, and it was answered, but do we use race as a subcategory of any other species? I think it is used exclusively for homo sapiens.


& I think I answered that repeatedly (here , here , here & here, Lonesoullost has posted an explanation as well). Race as a concept is widely used in biology, race as a term in English seems somewhat limited to homo sapiens, although there is no reason why it should be that way.





> if what I see is scientifically accurate, and based on biology- than it is rational to believe that there should be differences in character, intelligence, and personality...and that no one should be upset if one group just happens to be superior to all the rest.


Interesting logic, though none that I could follow.




> Racism is hooey. It has no rational or scientific basis.


Of course it hasn't.




> Race is not a scientific concept, but it is a social reality


Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").

----------


## No-name

Hey Bossel, I thought you might have gone on vacation or something. It's good to hear from you again.

[QUOTE=bossel]Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.[QUOTE=bossel] Again although you say thaqt you have give examples, I clicked on the here, here, and here and there is nothing there. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity in English, but the human species is the only to be divided into anything "called race."





> A general consensus? Mind you that was from the AAA, PC crap if you ask me. You yourself have seen the statistics where a majority of biologists agreed with the concept of race. Then, either the AAA is a bunch of liars or they deliberately constructed their statement that it can be interpreted as you did. Either way, it discredits the scientific value of any AAA statement.
> Since the link doesn't work I can only assume that the guy who wrote this has problems with scientific terminology. It should read "...we are all members of one human _species_."


 There are plenty of other quotes we can go over including Levi-Strausse, Cavalli Sforza, Desmond Morris, Charmaine D M Royal & Georgia M Dunston. I took the quote from an article that is subject to peer review. I didn't say it. But if you have problem with the statement contact the publishers of the article for the appropriate method of responding. It may have little or nothing to do with PC, but you seem fixated on this.




> Where you left out the fact that they are talking about "the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement." Phhh!


 Actually, I don't think they mentioned eugenics at all in that context. I'll have to look at the entire quote again.




> & I think I answered that repeatedly


 I don't really think you have. I reviewed those posts- I could just take your word for it, or you could provide an example and some sources. But I have never heard race used in that context. Perhaps this is just unique to English, but my brilliant sister in law who has a MS from Washington University in Human Biology agrees with me.




> Race as a concept is widely used in biology, race as a term in English seems somewhat limited to homo sapiens, although there is no reason why it should be that way.


 I don't think it would be used that way simply because if it is not usually used in that way it won't be understood.




> Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").


Many scientists, some of whom are quite well known and are at the top of their field disagree with you. As you have pointed out before, because I am not a biologist, I am not qualified to give an opinion. I will defer to these experts especially since their opinion seems to agree with mine and there does seem to be evidence of a growing consensus. I don't feel confused at all. I originally expressed an opinion that race is not a scientific concept. I did quite a bit of research and found that most sources I could find seem to agree with this point of view. Although I don't run in Biology circles and can't say if it is some covert attempt at political correctness, my feeling is that it is an attempt as Cavalli-Sforzato says in "The History and Geography of Human Genes" to "change an old paradigm." I don't think I confused the concepts- I only said that one is discredited and antiquated. Check some of your sources, two of them that you reference are 30 years old. That Sailer guy might be a white supremacist.

The PBS series Nova had a program called "Does Race Exist?" I think we have hit every point of the arguments they went over. For a summary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").


I think it is a fact that much racism has occurred under the auspices of science - the field of genetics grew partly out of eugenics. To say that the two meanings should not be confused is naive. Society motivates science, and science changes society.

----------


## bossel

[QUOTE=Sabro][QUOTE=bossel]Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.


> Again although you say thaqt you have give examples, I clicked on the here, here, and here and there is nothing there. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity in English, but the human species is the only to be divided into anything "called race."


Oh man! Examples from the linked posts:
"Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."

"members of a subspecies [IE race] would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning
[...]
I already told you that this is not the case, race is used as a subdivision in other species, only the terminology might differ a bit (eg. variety for plants, breed for domesticated animals, subspecies). It seems a distinct phenomenon of English that the term race is more or less limited to humans.
Chimpanzees are subdivided into at least 4 subspecies, Eastern Gorillas into 2-3, the Long-tailed Macaque into at least 10, you can go on..."




> I took the quote from an article that is subject to peer review.


Probably the same peer reviewed magazines that refuse to publish articles that don't follow the PC line.




> I didn't say it. But if you have problem with the statement contact the publishers of the article for the appropriate method of responding.


How condescending & arrogant, eh.  :Poh:  Or does that actually mean that you contacted the publishers of those articles I linked earlier in this thread. Or, wait, did you perhaps simply discuss further with me, although "I didn't say it."?




> Actually, I don't think they mentioned eugenics at all in that context


Since I quoted from the very same article, they probably did.




> I don't think it would be used that way simply because if it is not usually used in that way it won't be understood.


From M-W:
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type




> Many scientists, some of whom are quite well known and are at the top of their field disagree with you.


Top of which field? Sociology, anthropology or biology.
What do they disagree with? Concept of race or what I described as what leads to racism.




> I don't feel confused at all.


But you show confusion.




> I originally expressed an opinion that race is not a scientific concept. I did quite a bit of research and found that most sources I could find seem to agree with this point of view.


Nope, as I said earlier those people working in the field (as C-S) simply changed their terminology (from race to population/cline/etc), but the concept essentially stayed the same. If you look at the cover of C-S' "The History and Geography of Human Genes" you will find the very same distribution of populations as in the "old" race concept. Surprise!




> I don't think I confused the concepts- I only said that one is discredited and antiquated.


Nope, you repeatedly criticised the scientific concept with references to folk-taxonomy. Looked a lot like you're confused.




> Check some of your sources, two of them that you reference are 30 years old.


Which ones exactly?




> That Sailer guy might be a white supremacist.


Perfect example of PC propaganda.


BTW, you still haven't told me what Persians consider themselves to be, if not caucasoid.








> To say that the two meanings should not be confused is naive.


Nope, to think that everybody could be able to differentiate would be naive. 
To say they _should not be_ confused is not. 

I think, at this point of the discussion it is pretty obvious that not everybody is able or willing to differentiate. That doesn't mean, though, that the terminology has to be changed. If we would always go for the lowest common denominator in communication (IE what really everybody would be able to understand/differentiate), there wouldn't be much left of our language.





edit:
BTW, they just recognised a fifth Chimp-race (subspecies if you want).

----------


## No-name

OK> I stated that race is not a scientific concept and then found sources- some prominent scientists who are rather well known. And the more I looked for a consensus in what is available mostly on line (which is not very scientific), including the university library search ERIC- seems to indicate a growing majority that dismiss race as a discredited and antiquated concept. This would suggenst to me that in the twenty years since that 1985 poll Wikipedia quoted, that even fewer scientists subscribe to the concept- especially based upon what current researchers are finding. (I don't think I am confused here.)

So race is a concept that is like subspecies, except that it is unusually confined in the English language to discussions of homo-sapiens. Again I have never heard it used in biology to discuss any other species (Like Chimp-race) in spite of m-w. A lot of scientists including prominent behavioral anthropologist Desmond Morris, Biologist Harold Freeman, and the American Anthropologist Association don't consider Race a scientific concept. Others such as Evolutionary Biologist Luigi Cavalli Sforza favor a change in terminology to better and more accurately fit what he believes is a new paradigm to match the empirical data coming out of the study of genomics. Even though I am not a scientist and I find much of the work that is published a bit difficult to follow, I am supposed to question them because Bossel says race is a scientific certainty. Is this correct? or am I confused. I cited the articles that I thought best argued my points and gave the names of the authors. I could go back and cite them again- but I feel a growing certainty about my position, bolstered by articles and a brief survey of recent publications. (Absolutely no confusion here...)

There is actually nothing wrong with using 35 year old sources (Taxonomic Mayr (1969) and Population Dobzhansky (1970)) except that we are discussing what may represent a shift in the field of biology. There is also nothing wrong with Steven Sailer. Others have charged him with the racism agenda, and I probably erred in repeating it, but I thought I gave it sufficent context. I did actually find several scientists like Sailer that did argue that race was a valid and valuable concept.

Hey, if anyone has better information, please correct me: Persians, at least my Farsi friends that I have spoken to long ago, believe that their people founded the original civilization and have continually inhabited the area from prehistory. They believe that they are a unique and pure race separate and unrelated to the later Bakhtiyari, Qashqaie, Arabs, Turks, Lurs, and Kurds. I'm not sure how the term Caucasian would even fit into this ethnogenesis. 

Many peoples believe themselves to be an original and separate "race" unique in origin and bloodline to the human species. (Aren't the Japanese descended from gods and princes?) I'm not certain that this point belongs in our discussion, but the point was something to the fact that the Three Race theory was a European construct and is no more scientific than some aboriginal people believing themselves unique and declaring themselves a race and giving a two race construct.




> I think, at this point of the discussion it is pretty obvious that not everybody is able or willing to differentiate.


 I think here you are absolutely correct. I am unable to differentiate because the subdivision of the species does not fit current data and science is not in agreement, and unwilling because it serves no useful purpose.

I certainly did not mean to come off as condescending and arrogant. Quite the contrary. I have repeatedly admitted to being a layman and novice: An English Literature major in very foreign territory. I thought I made this quite clear. I quoted what I found to be qualified experts, and I can't really speak for them and answer back in any kind of adequate manner when the information I have borrowed is directly questioned. I defer to the scientists in the scientific argument. Bossel, you however have pronounced yourself a scientist and an expert- a defender of the truth against the rising tide of political correctness-- which I think is a really good thing. But the scientific community would need to counter your arguments- hence the whole peer review thing- I can only repeat what I have read. I am sorry for any confusion.

You criticised me for using the terms "insignificant differnces" which was lifted from one of your quotes. If I can't use your quotes to prove my points than maybe I am confused. It's quite different than asking if you have as a scientist weighed in through the normal channels such as peer review. As I am not a scientist, I am not a peer- I am absolutely unqualified to take such action.

I think the whole Merriam Webster definition fits the race is a social/historical construct argument perfectly. Especially def 2.

This has been fascinating. I appreciate the time and effort that Bossel has put into this discussion, and the comments by Lonsomesoul and Tsyoiko. I think that this has become circular. If anyone has anything to add or can take this in a different direction, I would certainly appreciate it.

----------


## bossel

> So race is a concept that is like subspecies,


Nope, a race is a subspecies (although there are other categorisations as well, IIRC, eg. where race would be a sub-category of subspecies, but that may be a German particularity).




> except that it is unusually confined in the English language to discussions of homo-sapiens.


Yep, perhaps due to the interference of the PC faction.




> Again I have never heard it used in biology to discuss any other species (Like Chimp-race) in spite of m-w.


Luckily, current dictionaries usually have a descriptive & not a prescriptive approach. Since usage is not marked as obsolete, it's pretty safe to say that what M-W wrote is still somewhat modern usage. Maybe just not in the circles you associate with.

Then again, Sabro seems to be the expert on English language. _I quoted what I found to be qualified experts_ [IE Merriam-Webster]_, and I can't really speak for them and answer back in any kind of adequate manner when the information I have borrowed is directly questioned._




> Others such as Evolutionary Biologist Luigi Cavalli Sforza favor a change in terminology to better and more accurately fit what he believes is a new paradigm to match the empirical data coming out of the study of genomics.


Which is entirely scientific, although I personally haven't seen much yet that would totally discard the old classification. Modifications are always possible.




> I am supposed to question them because Bossel says race is a scientific certainty. Is this correct? or am I confused.


Yep, you are confused. Where did I say something like "You are supposed to...!"?




> There is actually nothing wrong with using 35 year old sources (Taxonomic Mayr (1969) and Population Dobzhansky (1970)) except that we are discussing what may represent a shift in the field of biology.


Those are definitions for what race can be generally defined as, which I quoted because you asked for a definition. These definitions haven't changed very much since then (or could you please quote some?).




> There is also nothing wrong with Steven Sailer. Others have charged him with the racism agenda, and I probably erred in repeating it, but I thought I gave it sufficent context.


You didn't give much context. Could you please give some evidence that he "might be a white supremacist."




> Hey, if anyone has better information, please correct me: Persians, at least my Farsi friends that I have spoken to long ago, believe that their people founded the original civilization and have continually inhabited the area from prehistory. They believe that they are a unique and pure race separate and unrelated to the later Bakhtiyari, Qashqaie, Arabs, Turks, Lurs, and Kurds. I'm not sure how the term Caucasian would even fit into this ethnogenesis.


Perhaps you're confusing things again? This may be their genesis myth, but that's not the same as what they (modern Persians that is) consider themselves biologically. Those few Persians I have met here at the university actually _do_ consider themselves caucasoid.




> the point was something to the fact that the Three Race theory was a European construct and is no more scientific than some aboriginal people believing themselves unique and declaring themselves a race and giving a two race construct.


Ah, now I get your point. & it is wrong. As has been shown, race can be verified scientifically, while genesis myths generally cannot. On the other hand, if you really have some small population which was isolated for long enough, your point could be right. They might show enough differences from surrounding populations to consider themselves separate.




> I am unable to differentiate because the subdivision of the species does not fit current data


You _do_ remember Cavalli-Sforza? His data is quite current.




> Bossel, you however have pronounced yourself a scientist and an expert


Quote please?




> a defender of the truth against the rising tide of political correctness


Defender of the truth? How lofty.
Advocate of science vs. ideology would fit better.




> You criticised me for using the terms "insignificant differnces" which was lifted from one of your quotes.


Er..., liar?! Insignificant turns up in this whole thread the 1st time in your above post.

If I criticised a quote of yours it was most probably your interpretation thereof, not the quoting itself.




> If I can't use your quotes to prove my points


Did I say so? Where?




> I think the whole Merriam Webster definition fits the race is a social/historical construct argument perfectly. Especially def 2.


& as usual you ignore the stuff you don't like. No. 3 covers the biological scientific definitions of race (esp. 3 a & c).




> this has become circular.


You notice this only now?

----------


## No-name

I'm on vacation again. This time off to New Orleans:

For Bossel- Again, I'm an English Literature major- not an English Language major. Don't ask me about words, ask me about plays and novels. I also have masters degrees in Special Education and Educational leadership and credentials in all of those and Social Sciences, too.

If you google Steve Sailer you will see that on his website a great deal of space is dedicated to this topic. Cavalli Sforza is a constant target of his criticism. Since he is a pro-Race is Science guy, he and his organization are constantly accused of being racist- which he vehemently denies. It is factual that some believe he is a racist, but I was in error repeating the charge.

m-w's definition seems to go along the social construct line, but I would have to know when the definition was written, and if it has been updated recently. Realize that no one is saying that races don't exist, only that they are not scientific- they are social in nature. I am not deny that there are variations within the species, only that many scientist do not see them as significant enough to make a meaningful division.

It is according to Cavalli Sforza that the current data does not fit the old terminolgy- citing specifically the far more significant variations between different peoples in Africa classified as "negroid" than in people classified as separate races- ie that some "negroids" have less in common with other Africans and more markers in common with "caucasians" than with other "negroids." Or something like that... I would have to look up the precise reference.



> Quote:
> "...The bottleneck hypothesis offers an explanation for why human exhibit so little genetic variation, yet superficially appear diverse. It also affords an explanation for the apparent recent coalescence of mtDNA and African origins."


The "insignificant differences" I spoke of derive directly from this quote. According to your source, "humans exhibit...little genetic variation" and only appear diverse "superficially." Don't call me a liar.

I noticed three pages ago that this is circular and mentioned it then.

Right now, I am off seeking Gumbo.

Ta ta for now.

----------


## S-K

> Neo-nazis.. Man they disgust me.. I watched American History X.. And I was really getting very angered by the nazis.. It's a powerful movie worthy of praise, but I was really angered to think that there is people who live their life like that.


Those are skinheads; not everyone with a racist point of view is a skinhead.

----------


## keyoghettson

I live in the Skåneland (aka Scania). Skåneland consist of the four provinces Skåne, Halland, Blekinge and Bornholm. Skåne, Halland and Blekinge belong to Sweden. Bornholm belongs to Denmark. We want to have our own nation. We are not Swedes or Danes.

----------


## Sybilla

> I don�t know what�s the situation in the other countries, but in the last couple of years here in Italy I�ve seen a rise of little communist and fascist movements�it�s depressive to see 15 years old kids with Che Guevara�s T-shirts or with celtic crosses tattooed on their body�I mean, they�re free to do and think what they want, but I can�t believe that at their age they�re aware of what their ideology has produced in the last century�actually, one time I even saw a kid with Mussolini�s calendar�I couldn�t believe it 
> 
> As for racism, here in Italy I don�t think it has ever catched on�the only form of racism I can think of is a sort of �friendly hate� between north and south�we Romans detest the Milaneese and vice-versa�


False! We Italians tend to be pretty racist, we are racist with muslims at first, let's say it honesty, *99% of Italians don't stand muslims and would send them back home soon if only they could.* Then racism is enlarged to slavs, although not to all the slavs. Italians consider themselves to be culturally superior to slavs but the fact that they have our same religion make us more friendly with them and inter-marriages are common. 

Sincerly I believe that races exist. First, what is a race?
*Race is a word that refer to groups of individuals belonging to the same species who share specific hereditarian characters that, in a more or less marked way, identify them as a specific racial group.*
So yes, races exist, but an _absurd political correctness_ force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heit and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?

Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.

----------


## Reinaert

False! There are no races. We all belong to the same human species.

Difference between peoples are only cultural.

And it's true fascists and racists are using the internet to spread their poison.
Ultra right wing propaganda is abusing the internet.

Don't spam this forum with this filth.

To be precise:




> So yes, races exist, but an absurd political correctness force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heath and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?
> 
> Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.


What you tell here is a contradiction in terms. You tell races exist, but people adapted to different climates through the years. What the heck! I get a brown skin, if I walk in the sun..
A lot of white women are polishing up their taint under a solar ultraviolet system and they get even darker than people from India. In a few months!

Are they another race from then on? Ridiculous!

----------


## LeBrok

> False! We Italians tend to be pretty racist, we are racist with muslims at first, let's say it honesty, *99% of Italians don't stand muslims and would send them back home soon if only they could.* Then racism is enlarged to slavs, although not to all the slavs. Italians consider themselves to be culturally superior to slavs but the fact that they have our same religion make us more friendly with them and inter-marriages are common. 
> 
> Sincerly I believe that races exist. First, what is a race?
> *Race is a word that refer to groups of individuals belonging to the same species who share specific hereditarian characters that, in a more or less marked way, identify them as a specific racial group.*
> So yes, races exist, but an _absurd political correctness_ force people to don't use this word for humans. I also add that the various human races evolved in different ways to live and survive in different climatic conditions, so blacks are more resistent to the heit and whites to the coldness. Why to deny a so evident fact?
> 
> Call me racist if you prefer, but I have my strong opinions and say things clearly like they are.


Thanks for your honesty Sybilla, welcome to Eupedia.
We had some recent discussion about racism here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19959

----------


## Sybilla

> False! There are no races. We all belong to the same human species.
> 
> Difference between peoples are only cultural.
> 
> And it's true fascists and racists are using the internet to spread their poison.
> Ultra right wing propaganda is abusing the internet.
> 
> Don't spam this forum with this filth.
> 
> ...


One thing is to become tanned an other is to born black or brown. There is a big difference between being tanned and being black (I am not saying that one is superior to the other, they are both perfect to live in their places of origin). A tanned white will continue to have an other form of the nose, smaller lips, more delicate skin and hair. The whites born with blonde hair and blue eyes will continue to have blue eyes also when they will be tanned. Blue eyes serve to see better in places with few light, especially in the areas close to the Polar Circle. Indeed the biggest amount of blue eyes are in Scandinavia where they have 6 months of night. 
I have relatives and friends with blue eyes and all told me that with a very strong light like the Italian sun in summer, they see bad and feel pain if exposed to a direct strong light.
Asiatic form of eyes is an other exemple of adaptation to climatic condition. Slanted eyes are better to survive to the cold. And yet, in Northern Europe, especially in Russia, there are many people with slanted eyes, although with European features. Some of them exist also in Italy.

So yes, races exist.

----------


## Michael Folkesson

I am not sure that there is any scientific evidence that blue eyed Scandinavians really have any better twilight or night vision, that the color of our eyes give us any functional advantage. It seems as if we just have blue eyes.

I think that - pertaining the six months of night - you might be thinking about the south and north pole.

----------


## Marianne

> One thing is to become tanned an other is to born black or brown. There is a big difference between being tanned and being black (I am not saying that one is superior to the other, they are both perfect to live in their places of origin). A tanned white will continue to have an other form of the nose, smaller lips, more delicate skin and hair. The whites born with blonde hair and blue eyes will continue to have blue eyes also when they will be tanned. Blue eyes serve to see better in places with few light, especially in the areas close to the Polar Circle. Indeed the biggest amount of blue eyes are in Scandinavia where they have 6 months of night. 
> I have relatives and friends with blue eyes and all told me that with a very strong light like the Italian sun in summer, they see bad and feel pain if exposed to a direct strong light.
> Asiatic form of eyes is an other exemple of adaptation to climatic condition. Slanted eyes are better to survive to the cold. And yet, in Northern Europe, especially in Russia, there are many people with slanted eyes, although with European features. Some of them exist also in Italy.
> 
> So yes, races exist.


I agree with the blue eyes being more sensitive to sun. I have blue eyes and I can't stand the sun in Greece without sunglasses. Plus I always remember my mother (she has medium brown eyes) being surprised by me reading in dim light. I can't read if it is too dark of course, but I can definitely see better than her if the light is not good in a room. On the other hand she almost never feels the need to wear sunglasses, she only does it to avoid wrinkles around her eyes  :Grin: .

We have a thread about light eyes and vision in the General genetics section and if I can remember correctly, many people with light eyes said that they have noticed differences compared to people with dark eyes.

I also agree that race exists, but I am not racist, nor do I become one just by saying this. I don't think it's bad to admit that race exists and each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Europeans, Africans and Asians have all evolved to survive in the environment they were born, same as polar bears and brown bears did and every other animals. Humans are animals and as every other animal we are divided in races. There is nothing bad with it as long people don't start considering themselves superior to the others.

I remember in biology class we were using the example of butterflies that live in cities and have brown/gray wings while the ones living in the country side have colorful ones. Is it politically incorrect to say that?! I don't think so...

What I notice the last years is that people tend to be really irrational in their effort to sound politically correct. What matters to me is the way you say it and not what you say...

----------


## Reinaert

It's crazy!

YDNA research proves that races don't exist.

Genetically we differ very little from each other.

Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!

----------


## Marianne

> It's crazy!
> 
> YDNA research proves that races don't exist.
> 
> Genetically we differ very little from each other.
> 
> Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!


Reinaert I think you are confused. Racist is someone who believes that he is superior to someone else, whether the reason of this "superiority" comes from his race, his religion, his culture etc. 

You are trying to be politicaly correct and this is really good but you shouldn't exaggerate cause then you begin to sound irrational...

----------


## LeBrok

Oh, he's confused all right.

I still would say that lighter eyes are not about intensity of light. You might not know this if you haven't been up north in snowy terrain in low hanging winter sun. It really hurts, lol. It would mean that light colour eyes should be less sensitive to light actually, if it evolved in north europe. What might be useful for lighter eyes up north is when they can see contrasting effect, like seeing an animal sitting in shadow of the bush surrounded by blinding snow. Now this is an advantage for hunters, ancestors of people with light eyes. 
It is also possible that light eyes was a side effect of the people developing lightest skin to produce more vitamin D3.

I have brown eyes and I always wore sunglasses till I took supplement of vitamin B. Now it's not that bad at all, and I don't use them at all, unless I'm driving into the setting sun. It means that people sensitive to light might be missing something in their diet, and not because they have a certain colour of eyes.

----------


## Marianne

> Oh, he's confused all right.
> I still would say that lighter eyes are not about intensity of light. You might not know this if you haven't been up north in snowy terrain in low hanging winter sun. It really hurts, lol. It would mean that light colour eyes should be less sensitive to light actually, if it evolved in north europe. What might be useful for lighter eyes up north is when they can see contrasting effect, like seeing an animal sitting in shadow of the bush surrounded by blinding snow. Now this is an advantage for hunters, ancestors of people with light eyes. 
> It is also possible that light eyes was a side effect of the people developing lightest skin to produce more vitamin D3.
> 
> I have brown eyes and I always wore sunglasses till I took supplement of vitamin B. Now it's not that bad at all, and I don't use them at all, unless I'm driving into the setting sun. It means that people sensitive to light might be missing something in their diet, and not because they have a certain colour of eyes.


Yeah this could be true. 

I haven't found any scientific research to support what I said in my post or what you said in yours. We just assume according to what we notice in our lives.

----------


## Wilhelm

> It's crazy!
> 
> YDNA research proves that races don't exist.
> 
> Genetically we differ very little from each other.
> 
> Racists are liars. Fascists are liars. Kick those offenders from this European forum!!!


Scientists can calssify humans into sub-groups or 'races' with analysis of craniums and also Autosomal-dna. They do this in forensics and the biomedicine field. Denying race won't make disappear racism.

----------


## Reinaert

There are no races. There is one human race.
Humans only differ in culture and language.
How you look like is unimportant.

In The Netherlands live people from all over the world, and I see often that people who have problems with the Dutch or English language are considered second class civilians. 

And of course we have to be a bit aggressive in our country to get along. Talk loud. Rude manners. Get an idea how the Dutch are? Check Dutch traffic! 
The Dutch aren't nice like some people on this forum tell you.

So, the softer types always are in the corner where the beating takes place.
And I have no other word for it than discrimination.

----------


## Wilhelm

> There are no races. There is one human race.
> Humans only differ in culture and language.
> How you look like is unimportant.


Humans is not a race. Its a specie.




> The Dutch aren't nice like some people on this forum tell you.


Why do you say this ? you don't like your own people ?

----------


## Reinaert

> Humans is not a race. Its a specie.
> 
> 
> Why do you say this ? you don't like your own people ?


All what modern DNA tells us, is that we are all are related to each other.
Yes, we are one species. One family. One race.

And the Dutch? No, I am not very fond on them, I know more friendly people.

But I am a Southerner, maybe that explains something.. ;)
Hint... My Avatar ;)

----------


## Wilhelm

> All what modern DNA tells us, is that we are all are related to each other.


well, related to some extent. With the genome you can group humans into sub-groups or "races". 

A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental "races" can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are "maximally informative" about group differences. 

Subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Turakulov and Easteal 2003; Tang et al. 2005; Lao et al. 2006). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”




> Yes, we are one species. One family. One race.


No. One specie but not one race. Specie is not synonymous with race. Denying race won't make you a better person.

----------


## Regulus

> One specie but not one race. Specie is not synonymous with race. Denying race won't make you a better person.


Well said. 
A common subject of mine is the knee-jerk reactions to the gross and terrible abuses of racial theorists of the 19th and earlier 20th century. The West's response was to go through all kinds of efforts to prove that no races exist or that none of the migrations that shaped much of the West ever occurred. As usual the truth is in the middle.

Note to all: My children are half-Korean, so please don't jump to conclusions about me. As I have stated before, I am not a racial supremacist.

----------


## Reinaert

This is getting disgusting.

We humans are all related to each other.
I studied mathematics. 
It's bloody clear we are all related to each other!

DNA research proves it!

Stop yapping about races and that kind of idiot thinking of yesterday stupid ideas!!! 

This is a EUROPEAN forum, and really, I have had enough of people from NOT EUROPEAN ORIGIN that try to sell us THEIR RACIST SHIT!

----------


## Regulus

Then act like a human.

----------


## Reinaert

> Then act like a human.


Then stop trolling.

Racist theories are still used everyday.

YDNA shows very clear, we humans are all related. No races.

For example.. Are an Indian Elephant or an African Elephant different races?
No they are both elephants.

It's the same with humans.

We have families, we have tribes, we have people with a nationality, but no races.
It's only a cultural thing. Only differences in languages and different looks.

But it is hard to realize that racial thinking is real bullshit.

Telling the world that races exist is racism itself.

----------


## Regulus

> Then stop trolling.
> 
> Racist theories are still used everyday.
> 
> YDNA shows very clear, we humans are all related. No races.
> 
> For example.. Are an Indian Elephant or an African Elephant different races?
> No they are both elephants.
> 
> ...


As you are well aware, I don't troll. Neither do I work for nor am I associated with any group of which you have ever accused me.

I am fine with your positions and points that you make about the thread, that was never my concern.

What you must stop is the crude and basely vulgar activity. It does nothing to reinforce or add weight to your position. It has no place here. You are clearly capable of finding another way to stress your point.

----------


## Reinaert

Stop patronizing other people on this forum.
You're constantly talking like the headmaster of a school.

----------


## Regulus

> Stop patronizing other people on this forum.
> You're constantly talking like the headmaster of a school.


 
I have an idea. Stop being cruel and vulgar and you will, in consequence, probably never see a reply post from me.

----------


## Reinaert

> I have an idea. Stop being cruel and vulgar and you will, in conseqence, probably never see a reply post from me.


Stop patronizing.
Just shut up.

----------


## Regulus

> Stop patronizing.
> Just shut up.


What a way to start a nice Saturday-

It is more than obvious that you are not the dolt that you pretend to be.

I made my point about how to act among others here.
I have no choice but to just gloss over the posts you make from this point on.

Good day to you.

----------


## Reinaert

> What a way to start a nice Saturday-
> 
> It is more than obvious that you are not the dolt that you pretend to be.
> 
> I made my point about how to act among others here.
> I have no choice but to just gloss over the posts you make from this point on.
> 
> Good day to you.


You must have studied "The Way to always win a debate" by Schopenhauer very well.. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art...ys_Being_Right

By the way....

Look up.. The section is named... Europe Forum > General Discussion > Opinions

You know what opinions are?
How someone feels about things.
It doesn't say: Science.

It's my point and opinion, that the word "race" is outdated by the knowledge we now have.
Obsolete. Yesterday. Gone forever.

----------


## LeBrok

What are you saying Reinaert? " We are all one race and one human species", right? But somehow, in your view, European forum is only for Europeans, and you stressed that few times already! What is this, some sort of political racism? If it comes to our views and location, we are not equal and same human beings. What is this?

On one had you preach equality of races and global village etiquette. With your other hand, you segregate us in subgroups. There are good Europeans and bad Americans. Eupedia is only for Europe. You are the smart and wise, but the rest of us with different point of view, are morons, idiots and CIA agents, and you don't mind publicly slander and accuse. What is this if not a form of hatred, segregation, demeaning superiority? I'm sure, if you had the powers, Regulus and I have been rotting in a concentration camp already.

Just tone down your comments, Mr. Hypocrite, and treat people like one type of humans, the way you preach.

----------


## Reinaert

> What are you saying Reinaert? " We are all one race and one human species", right? But somehow, in your view, European forum is only for Europeans, and you stressed that few times already! What is this, some sort of political racism? If it comes to our views and location, we are not equal and same human beings. What is this?
> 
> On one had you preach equality of races and global village etiquette. With your other hand, you segregate us in subgroups. There are good Europeans and bad Americans. Eupedia is only for Europe. You are the smart and wise, but the rest of us with different point of view, are morons, idiots and CIA agents, and you don't mind publicly slander and accuse. What is this if not a form of hatred, segregation, demeaning superiority? I'm sure, if you had the powers, Regulus and I have been rotting in a concentration camp already.
> 
> Just tone down your comments, Mr. Hypocrite, and treat people like one type of humans, the way you preach.


Haha.. Troll number two.

I just say, that Americans should come off their warhorse and talk without all the stinging shit they produce. 
You are sucking. You are constantly provoking.

It must come from a minor value complex I guess.

You typically use the same debate techniques like American politicians.
Throw with mud.
The point is, many ex-Europeans that live in the USA nowadays want to be better Americans than the Americans themselves, and constantly shit their old nest.

I just hate that.

----------


## LeBrok

lol, what political technique did you use now? You didn't answer any questions or connected to issues from my posts, even though you linked to it!
Instead you wrote something else mostly concentrating on character assassination, spitting on Americans again.

If you don't agree with my assessment of your personality, let's discuss the issues that you're not agreeing upon. Don't give me (like a rotten politician) a vague general statements of some sort.

Again, one question at the time this time. Why do your differentiate us, and hatefully segregate people to your likings and dis-likings, if (by you definition) we are same humans, genetically same, one race, no difference what so ever human beings?

----------


## Reinaert

I make a difference with people that talk with no sense of what the other says. 
And there are two guys, who never seem to read and try to understand what other people write. 

Europe still isn't totally dominated by a FOX like propaganda TV screen.
We have our own opinions.
We don't follow automatically what the media tell us.

If you do that in the USA and Canada, than it's your problem.
Try to think for yourself.
And stop citing from outdated history books.

And yes!! The Brits and Americans did more than enough backstabbing in European history to call them anti-European. We, the Dutch, have even a government of idiots that support the British and American colonialism. Licking Obama's ass.
Why? Those guys have a major interest in American oil industry.

And Dutch taxpayers bleed, just like American and British taxpayers for the private wars of those morons!

----------


## sparkey

To answer the original question, I think that racism and fascism can be categorically set aside as "always wrong"--that is, there are no circumstances where racism or fascism proper are morally right. On the other hand, separatism can be "sometimes right." I can go into further detail but suspect that none of that is controversial. Separatism, I feel, must be justified by supermajority support of the region (majority support is insufficient due to fluctuation of opinions), unless taking such a poll is being prevented via oppression, at which point a certain amount of separatist resistance without popular support is justified. I don't think that it needs to be mutual, either.

Also, to respond to the direction this thread has diverged:




> Europe still isn't totally dominated by a FOX like propaganda TV screen.
> We have our own opinions.
> We don't follow automatically what the media tell us.
> 
> If you do that in the USA and Canada, than it's your problem.
> Try to think for yourself.
> And stop citing from outdated history books.


I think that that is an exaggerated view of the American media system. Fox News does have a bias, yes, and it can be a problem when people buy into it without thinking, but to suggest that European media sources don't have bias that affects their consumers is a bit naive. I find that people always think that THEIR media sources are less biased than the media sources of those with whom them disagree.




> We, the Dutch, have even a government of idiots that support the British and American colonialism. Licking Obama's ass.
> Why? Those guys have a major interest in American oil industry.
> 
> And Dutch taxpayers bleed, just like American and British taxpayers for the private wars of those morons!


I don't see it. I don't follow Dutch politics that closely, but Rutte hasn't seemed particularly interested in "private wars." His shtick is budget cutting. (Full disclosure: I was rooting for a Rutte victory from afar during the last Dutch election). I'm seeing a trend in certain areas of Europe toward that sort of liberalism--where everything is getting axed, for the sake of budget stability. The Conservative gov't of the UK, for example, has been making big defense cuts even.

----------


## Rastko Pocesta

Extremely negative on racist and fascist, but positive on most of separatist movements.

----------


## ali

> A racist is ignorant, plain and simple.





> Racism and fascism are wrong...


Well then, the western world should never been force to except ethic people in to western countries.

Racism exist cause the people who run the western countries (the Jewish) wants racism to exist.

----------


## Templar

I think racism is in most cases bad, though there are significant genetic differences between populations that are very genetically isolated from one another (for example compare Japanese DNA to Igbo DNA). I consider separatism good if it is led by a people who were suppressed in their own native soil for hundreds of years (i.e. Basque). Fascism is outdated and too extreme, though it did have several "good" policies, such as having pride in your past and government programs to increase fertility. But I think Fascism has far more "bad" ones.

Though I do think that bad immigrants should not be allowed to use the "race card". If they cause trouble, deport them. You aren't from there, so you better respect the host country's ways and laws. Its basically how Japan deals with immigrant-criminality, and it is pretty efficient.

----------


## sparkey

> I consider separatism good if it is led by a people who were suppressed in their own native soil for hundreds of years (i.e. Basque).


Separatism is OK if a supermajority in a region desire separation from a political entity. But you mention it after mentioning racial differences. What's the connection?




> Fascism is outdated and too extreme, though it did have several "good" policies, such as having pride in your past and government programs to increase fertility.


Can you cite a good fascist fertility program? It seems to me that people are fertile enough in a liberal system.

----------


## Templar

> Separatism is OK if a supermajority in a region desire separation from a political entity. But you mention it after mentioning racial differences. What's the connection?


There is no connection. The name of the thread is: racism, fascism, and separatist movements. And so I gave my opinion on each subject; though not in the exact same order.

----------


## Giordano57

I believe everybody will relate most with members of their own race no matter if they consider themselves racist or not. Do I think racism is wrong? Yes. I do not believe any race is superior to another. But I am a nationalist, I am proud of my European heritage, and I want to see it preserved. I mean they just banned the annual Christmas tree display in Brussels because it offends muslims, which is unbelievable to me and should not be tolerated.

----------


## American Idiot

alot of people who get involved with that crap are just pathetic people who are actually angry about their own life/existence and just simply like to take it out on others

racism,fascism, etc... are all just manifestations of self hatred or self disappointment........just scapegoating for people who are already angry anyway for some other, maybe even unconscious, reason.

and, to be honest, racial and ethnic stereotypes sometimes can be somewhat rooted in truth to a small degree, as well as ignorance, but there is no feeling or emotion about it.

to actually feel hatred or anger towards someone or a whole group of people for virtually no reason is just an outward expression of self-hatred and immaturity.


Although I dont think alot of racists are actually truly as ignorant as they lead on. I dont think alot of them actually 100% believe the bullshit they claim to believe in. 

Deep down I think many of them know it's not true, but they need something to be angry at and some kind of outlet for their own anger.
So they stick with it.

and most of them are probably too afraid to look at themselves on the inside and find out what the REAL problem is and the true source of their anger.

It all has to do with anger and emotions....there are no logical explanations or reasons to back up the view points that most racists hold to.

----------


## American Idiot

> Though I do think that bad immigrants should not be allowed to use the "race card". .



I dont think its right for ANYone, good or bad, to play the "race card" when there is no truth to it. (which is how it is in most cases)

----------


## American Idiot

> Europe still isn't totally dominated by a FOX like propaganda TV screen.
> We have our own opinions.
> We don't follow automatically what the media tell us.
> 
> If you do that in the USA and Canada, than it's your problem.
> Try to think for yourself.
> And stop citing from outdated history books.
> 
> And yes!! The Brits and Americans did more than enough backstabbing in European history to call them anti-European.


 all of this sounds extremely ignorant and based on one-sided views.

----------


## james stock

> all of this sounds extremely ignorant and based on one-sided views.


You seem pretty ignorant yourself. Racism can be thought of as purely a result of kin selection. Attributing mental illness to kin selection is a rather bizarre way to describe an evolutionary process.

Maybe you should study biology?

----------


## American Idiot

> You seem pretty ignorant yourself. Racism can be thought of as purely a result of kin selection. Attributing mental illness to kin selection is a rather bizarre way to describe an evolutionary process.
> 
> Maybe you should study biology?



I attributed anger and emotion to how one group/individual feels toward another group in terms of racism.
I never attributed anything to how one feels about their own kin/group etc....

so, thanks for mis-reading my earlier post.


As for my post you quoted me on......
when I said this sounded ignorant, I was referring to Reinaert's comments about Americans and our social/political views, which I had quoted in my post.

One person's ignorance of another group of people has nothing to do with kin selection.
It just simply has to do with lack of knowledge or experience about the group they are referring to.

and I didnt know misguided anger was an actual form of mental illness?

----------


## JackBlack

> Hate is a strong word. I do say I think they are terribly wrong in their beliefs, if they changed their views, I would have no problem with them. But anyone who judges people on the color of their skin is no friend of mine.


You mean to say that anyone who judges people on their RACE is no friend of yours.

----------


## JackBlack

One of the least racist countries in the world is North Korea.

Why is that you ask? 

Is it because North Korea has some ingenious anti-racism programs in their public schools, universities and work places??

NO!! Not a chance!! The reason why there is little or no racism in North Korea is because EVERYBODY_ in North Korea is a North Korean_!! With only ONE race in North Korea, racism is virtually non-existent.

----------


## JackBlack

When talking about "racism" How exactly do you define this term? It seems to me that this word "racist" tends to have very vague definition.

The implied connotation of this word is someone who hates other races for no other reason than they are different from him. If that was the definitive definition of this word, then I would agree that racism is wrong.

But that is NOT the definition of this word anymore. Or at least, that is NOT how this word is applied. NOW to be considered "racist" all a White person has to do is.. 

1 Express an interest for White people to have self determination.
2 Express a desire for the White race to exist long term.
3 Express a positive thought about the White race while at the same time, criticize or express a negative thought about a non-White race.

These 3 things are enough for some so-called social justice warrior or anti-racist to call you a racist, bigot, White supremacist or any other slur and epithet they can think of.

----------


## Leandros

Separation and segregation of the races, is the only possible way of preserving real human biodiversity.

----------


## apie3000

> What are your thoughts on these topics?


Racism and fascism are evil. As for separatist movements, I wish them all the best. I am in favor of the right of secession if the majority in the seceding part wants to secede. I am all for local control so I hope that if the secessionist movement isn't racist or fascist or communist for that matter, that it can convince the rest of the people to go along with them.

----------


## real expert

> Mixed race individuals are full of mental and physiological diseases. Besides often look uglier than their pure parents. Race mixing is a doombringer.


A load of people would vehemently disagree with you. I know for a fact, that in Germany dark skin, hair, and eyes or being mixed or having exotic admixture is viewed as cool, attractive, and extremely desirable. For instance, German women overall don’t have a strong maternal instinct, thus they're not really fond of babies, and very reluctant to have kids. However, if they had to make a choice for having any babies they would go for cute mixed babies. Biracial or black babies are much cuter than white ones to many white females. Hence, countless women in Germany, especially the very Nordic-looking ones want to or have exclusively biracial children, often part black ones. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to have any kids. So, actually biracial or admixed offspring are a kind of status symbol that many typical-looking Germans have in order to feel special and to set themselves apart from the average Germans. The bottom line is, that blond hair, pale skin, and blue eyes are pretty out and viewed as boring in Germany. And as far as I know, in Scandinavia or UK, it's the same. With that being said, the Nordic phenotype is rather idolized on the internet, in Southern places, especially in Latin America or Asia, etc. Besides, many Africans or Afro-Americans find blond people also highly attractive.

----------


## Jovialis

I've banned the moron for obvious racism.

----------


## real expert

> I've banned the moron for obvious racism.



People with his mindset are dying off. Most people find mixed people attractive, and beautiful, and the obsession with being "pure" is a thing from the past.

----------


## Ailchu

> A load of people would vehemently disagree with you. I know for a fact, that in Germany dark skin, hair, and eyes or being mixed or having exotic admixture is viewed as cool, attractive, and extremely desirable. For instance, German women overall don’t have a strong maternal instinct, thus they're not really fond of babies, and very reluctant to have kids. However, if they had to make a choice for having any babies they would go for cute mixed babies. Biracial or black babies are much cuter than white ones to many white females. Hence, countless women in Germany, especially the very Nordic-looking ones want to or have exclusively biracial children, often part black ones. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to have any kids.


this is just bs sry. and why focus on women. there is a massive amount of german men with asian women.




> The bottom line is, that blond hair, pale skin, and blue eyes are pretty out and viewed as boring in Germany. And as far as I know, in Scandinavia or UK, it's the same. With that being said, the Nordic phenotype is rather idolized on the internet, in Southern places, especially in Latin America or Asia, etc. Besides, many Africans or Afro-Americans find blond people also highly attractive.




why do you think german men like asian women, latinas and also to a degree southern european women and near eastern ones? or aren't there also women from northern europe going to southern europe for affairs too?

i think it is just that humans tend to be attracted to exotic looks. it is spicing things up a little. that's why dark hair and eyes are desired more in countries where these traits are less common while lighter features are more desired in darker regions.

that is probably also why there are guys like this spanish dude who suggested here on the forum to couple up spanish men with lithuanian women to ensure the future of europe or something.

----------


## Twilight

It would be nice to figure out what Racism actually is. I’ve read about a lot of racist talks on Facebook towards both white and African Americans that would obviously get me banned; spouted by college professors no less.
It’s troublesome that MLK’s dream of “judging people not of the color of your skin but the content of their character” is going out the window.  :Sad:  :Sad 2:  :Useless: 
I often worry about how my children are going to get educated.

----------

