[quote]rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”[/quote]
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?
[quote]gotaknife wrote:
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
This link gives a pretty good breakdown. The section called “Gene-environment correlation and confounding - the real problem” is probably the most interesting for this discussion.
Some important info to keep in mind:
- There is 95-98.5% Human-Chimp DNA similarity (though this doesn’t account for the “shuffling” of some chromosomes)
- Of this 2-5%, less than 15% varies between “races” or populations, whilst 85% of variation is present in all populations.
- Most, but not all, genetic variation is of no biological significance.
I think this is how the “there are no races” concept came about. A geneticist studying Humans (in the same way they might study a fruit fly) probably would conclude that there are no races because there is so little variation between the groups and almost all of it is evolutionarily insignificant.
I think it would be more correct to say that what we call races are in fact mere sub-groups of the sub-Sahara African population, whereby most of the genetic differences are caused by a founder affect/drift.
BUT these small differences are very important if you are focusing especially on the human species (which we probably should ;)). So in terms of something like disease prevention, the concept of race can be a useful tool to group people into risk groups that have higher or lower frequencies of the gene/s in question.[/quote]
It’s even moreso. New studies seem to show both that humans have more differences from chimps - say around 6% http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5833/1836 - and that some of the variances scientists had dismissed as junk are in fact coding for genetic differences. So the differences between people are also probably larger than had been assumed.
There is always a potential danger present when a politically motivated person/group starts to pick scientific “facts” to support his/her/their opinions. We humans don’t like complicated things. Either we are equal or we are not. The thought of us being individually different and similar in the same time, us belonging to innumerable, sometimes competing, sometimes harmonious groups, and all the time us being still equal. Man, that is way too complicated.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?[/quote]
Why is it racist? Is it more racist if it is said by a black person, or some other non-anglo?
You play right into the absurdity that is PC.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
There is always a potential danger present when a politically motivated person/group starts to pick scientific “facts” to support his/her/their opinions. We humans don’t like complicated things. Either we are equal or we are not. The thought of us being individually different and similar in the same time, us belonging to innumerable, sometimes competing, sometimes harmonious groups, and all the time us being still equal. Man, that is way too complicated.[/quote]
I think humans can grasp being different, and being the same - given the situation. Political correctness doesn’t see different situations. You are a racist pig in any situation where someone’s differences are pointed out.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What is a “racist remark”, anyhow?
[/quote]
You didn’t go to the University of Delaware, did you? You should ask one of their students, I bet they know the answer.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
What is a “racist remark”, anyhow? [/quote]
Anything that comes out of a white male’s mouth.
Interestingly the term bigot, or racist is the new term for honkey or cracker.
Seriously the differences between races are so minute that the idea of race is kind of ridiculous.
Interestingly people take wonderful statements like, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” And quote them while ignoring them.
These people will not say that MLK is wrong, but do not truly believe in this statement.
And when you question them, they call you a bigot. (Oh wait, that happened on this forum.)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?
Why is it racist? Is it more racist if it is said by a black person, or some other non-anglo?
You play right into the absurdity that is PC.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who says it.
You’re confusing racism with bigotry. Racism is just an attempt to collectively identify the qualities of individuals by their race. It does not necessarily have to be hurtful. Bigotry on the other hand usually involves actions toward individuals in a hurtful way that involves a prejudice. Racist remarks can also be hurtful but not necessarily so.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?
Why is it racist? Is it more racist if it is said by a black person, or some other non-anglo?
You play right into the absurdity that is PC.
It doesn’t matter who says it.
You’re confusing racism with bigotry. Racism is just an attempt to collectively identify the qualities of individuals by their race. It does not necessarily have to be hurtful. Bigotry on the other hand usually involves actions toward individuals in a hurtful way that involves a prejudice. Racist remarks can also be hurtful but not necessarily so.[/quote]
I don’t think all statements that point out differences based on race are inherently racist.
Blacks get sickle cell anemia. Whites don’t. Racist?
The problem I see is much like that that Mage pointed out. Anymore, only whites are racist. Only whites are capable of hate crimes.
While technically you are probably right, that has pretty much no play in the current discourse on race as the PC crowd has appointed themselves the arbiters of the dictionary.
Interestingly enough, I heard on the radio that 53% of blacks now say that they are personally responsible for their position in society. This is up from 35% a few years ago. The balance say that their positions are a result of racism.
rainjack, the assertion that in society it is only allowable to hold whites accountable of racism is absolutely correct. However, any culture can be racist, or bigoted if you will. The problem arises when this bigotry/racism can be backed up with oppression. The reason whites get called out more for being racist or being a bigot is because of the ability to oppress that inherently comes with it. So while it is entirely possible to be a racist of any color.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a black, hispanic, asian, pacific islander, etc., oppress anyone that is white. So why does it or should it matter to society currently, if a group of black people (black panthers, black militia) hate white people, its hollow hate. Only sticks and stones can break bones, names cant hurt, and historically, and presently whites hold all of the stones and sticks in this country.
It is not plain persecution and revenge that make whites the targets of the public at large for being racist, its choosing the greater, and more lethal of the two evils, and calling it out to be weighed and measured. And no not all statements based on the differences in cultures are inherently evil, but you and I both know very easily if a statement is said in malice, ignorance, or jest.
Mage your statement about MLK and how people(i’m assuming black people as per the tone of your post) quote him but ignore him at the same time, this seems to me a shrouded way of saying “these people” want to quote Dr. king, but by looking for racism, they are ignoring his words? (please correct me if im wrong). If that is the case your basically saying that its the complete responsibility of the cultures that have been oppressed and brought to the brink of annihilation to forgive and forget. That is not fair or realistic statement and shows the closed minded perspective of those whites in power. If that is not what you meant than disregard previous rant.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
…It is IMPOSSIBLE for a black, hispanic, asian, pacific islander, etc., oppress anyone that is white. …[/quote]
No it isn’t.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
rainjack, the assertion that in society it is only allowable to hold whites accountable of racism is absolutely correct. However, any culture can be racist, or bigoted if you will. The problem arises when this bigotry/racism can be backed up with oppression. The reason whites get called out more for being racist or being a bigot is because of the ability to oppress that inherently comes with it. So while it is entirely possible to be a racist of any color.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a black, hispanic, asian, pacific islander, etc., oppress anyone that is white. So why does it or should it matter to society currently, if a group of black people (black panthers, black militia) hate white people, its hollow hate. Only sticks and stones can break bones, names cant hurt, and historically, and presently whites hold all of the stones and sticks in this country.
It is not plain persecution and revenge that make whites the targets of the public at large for being racist, its choosing the greater, and more lethal of the two evils, and calling it out to be weighed and measured. And no not all statements based on the differences in cultures are inherently evil, but you and I both know very easily if a statement is said in malice, ignorance, or jest.
Mage your statement about MLK and how people(i’m assuming black people as per the tone of your post) quote him but ignore him at the same time, this seems to me a shrouded way of saying “these people” want to quote Dr. king, but by looking for racism, they are ignoring his words? (please correct me if im wrong). If that is the case your basically saying that its the complete responsibility of the cultures that have been oppressed and brought to the brink of annihilation to forgive and forget. That is not fair or realistic statement and shows the closed minded perspective of those whites in power. If that is not what you meant than disregard previous rant.[/quote]
I think you live in an alternate reality. I have been oppressed by blacks. I have been oppressed by hispanics. Economics has nothing to do with it.
You are excusing half the racism in this country.
Please tell us what type of oppression you have been subjected to by any minority. Oppression takes power and immunity, please inform us as to what minority or minorities that you believe have those qualities in amounts large enough to oppress a white male in a society run SOLELY by other white males.
Or perhaps you need yet another crash course on what oppression is? And you obviously have not read my above post, at NO time have I excused ANY culture from racism. Oppression and Racism are quite different.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
Please tell us what type of oppression you have been subjected to by any minority. Oppression takes power and immunity, please inform us as to what minority or minorities that you believe have those qualities in amounts large enough to oppress a white male in a society run SOLELY by other white males.
Or perhaps you need yet another crash course on what oppression is? And you obviously have not read my above post, at NO time have I excused ANY culture from racism. Oppression and Racism are quite different.[/quote]
Your definition of oppression floats only when you exclude the possibility of an individual being oppressed. You are talking about societal oppression. The ugly duckling was oppressed. Why? Because it was in the wrong place.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
Mage your statement about MLK and how people(i’m assuming black people as per the tone of your post) quote him but ignore him at the same time, this seems to me a shrouded way of saying “these people” want to quote Dr. king, but by looking for racism, they are ignoring his words? (please correct me if im wrong). If that is the case your basically saying that its the complete responsibility of the cultures that have been oppressed and brought to the brink of annihilation to forgive and forget. That is not fair or realistic statement and shows the closed minded perspective of those whites in power. If that is not what you meant than disregard previous rant.[/quote]
No, not quite. Never a good idea to assume. Not sure if you are trying to understand me, but what you actually did was put words into my mouth that I did not say.
You did read about how I can quote King, and agree fully, and still be called out as racist or bigoted. Did you not just prove my point?
Other then the quote, I an not referring to history. Nor am I referring to forgetting history. I am referring to people who willingly and cheerfully quote MLK, and then act in ways that contradict the quote. (And must I say that this is across the races? That I am not referring to just black people?)
People know the quote, but they do not understand it. But when society finally “gets” the real genius of that statement then society will improve, at least in one way.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
Please tell us what type of oppression you have been subjected to by any minority. Oppression takes power and immunity, please inform us as to what minority or minorities that you believe have those qualities in amounts large enough to oppress a white male in a society run SOLELY by other white males.
Or perhaps you need yet another crash course on what oppression is? And you obviously have not read my above post, at NO time have I excused ANY culture from racism. Oppression and Racism are quite different.[/quote]
I had my ass kicked by black kids just about every day in Jr High. Granted - that was 30 years ago, but I was a small white kid that was going to a school subject to court ordered busing. Our Jr High was made up of about 75% blacks after all the busings in and out. I was told where to sit in the cafeteria, where to sit in class, even what instrument to play in band.
But that’s not oppression because my dad had a fucking job. You are a loon.
How old are you? What universtity do you attend? You hatred of all things white and all things Bush can only mean you are off smewhere spending your parents’ money.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?[/quote]
No, that´s a fact.
[quote]DiscMan wrote:
Please tell us what type of oppression you have been subjected to by any minority. Oppression takes power and immunity, please inform us as to what minority or minorities that you believe have those qualities in amounts large enough to oppress a white male in a society run SOLELY by other white males.
Or perhaps you need yet another crash course on what oppression is? And you obviously have not read my above post, at NO time have I excused ANY culture from racism. Oppression and Racism are quite different.[/quote]
The idea that “society” does anything that doesn’t involve the force of a law is the lazy assumption of worthless social scientists who could not otherwise justify their assertions.
Individuals take actions. Unless there is a law or other force of government acting - like the Jim Crow laws in the Reconstruction South or apartheid in South Africa - there is no societal action.
Right now in the U.S., the only legal, society-sanctioned discrimination is against members of Caucasian pluralities or majorities, or against Asians, who have committed the offense of succeeding without the benefit of governmental intervention.
In fact, society has made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race (against minorities) in many private transactions as well as in any governmental action.
[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Didn’t ask what a racist was. I asked “What is a racist remark?”
“White people can’t dance” is a racist remark. Though I am white and, indeed, I cannot dance.
Clear enough for you?
No, that´s a fact.
[/quote]
Philippe Rushton: Race as a Biological Concept
November 4, 1996
Professor Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario has released the following statement on race, in response to attempts to discredit the very concept of race and to argue that race “has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man.”
Discussion of “race” shows little sign of diminishing, despite efforts to deconstruct the concept. Deconstructing the concept of race not only conflicts with people’s tendency to classify and build family histories according to common descent but also ignores the work of biologists studying non-human species. Ever since 1758, when the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus created the classification system still used in biology today, most zoologists have recognized at least the four human subdivisions Linnaeus delineated: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and Africans. (Technically, some would group the first two Linnaean subdivisions together, thus yielding three major races, often termed, mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids.) Such high-level classifications do not rule out making finer, hierarchical subdivisions within these major groups.
A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such differentiated populations as races. (Within the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed subspecies). Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.
Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group and should be treated as such. Nonetheless, much has been learned by studying the statistical differences between the various human races. In my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers), as well as in other recent writings (e.g., the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology), I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races – mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid – and show that these statistical differences are constant across both historical time, national boundaries, and political and economic systems.
Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.
Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.
Jared Diamond’s classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a “negroid” is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a “caucasoid” and a “mongoloid.” This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a “negroid” is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa – and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.
Social definitions – that is, self-identification and other-identification actually accord quite well with the physical evidence. Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person. In certain criminal investigations, the race of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is nonscientific and unrealistic.
The mean pattern of educational and economic achievement within multi-racial countries such as Canada and the United States has increasingly been found to prove valid internationally. For example, it is not often recognized, perhaps because it contradicts the politically correct theories that intelligence is purely a matter of socio-economic conditions, that Asian-Americans and Asians in Asia often outscore white Americans and white Europeans on IQ tests and on tests of educational achievement (even though the tests were largely developed by Europeans and white Americans for use in a Euro-American culture). Blacks in the Caribbean, Britain, Canada and sub-Saharan Africa as well as in the United States have low IQ scores relative to whites. For violent crime, analyses of INTERPOL data from the 1980s and 1990s show the same international distribution that occurs within the United States (that is, Asians least, Europeans in the middle, and Africans most). A similar racial gradient is found both within the U.S. and globally for measures of sexual activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS (based on World Health Organization data).
One neurohormonal contributor to crime and reproductive behavior is testosterone. Studies show that black college students and military veterans have 3% to 19% more testosterone than their white counterparts. The Japanese have even lower amounts than whites. Sex hormones are circulated throughout the body and are known to activate many brain-behavior systems involving aggression and reproduction. For example, around the world the rate of dizygotic twinning per 1,000 births (caused by a double ovulation), is less than 4 among Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. The differences in multiple birthing are known to be heritable through the race of the mother regardless of the race of the father, as found in Asian/European matings in Hawaii and European/African matings in Brazil.
Publication of The Bell Curve brought widespread public attention to the research on race that has been accumulating over the last 30 years in technical and specialist journals that demonstrably challenges each and every article of the dogma of biological egalitarianism. Startling, and alarming to many, is the conclusion that follows from these data that if all people were treated the same, most average race differences would not disappear. With egalitarianism under siege, there has been a major effort to get the “race genie” back in the bottle, to squeeze the previously tabooed toothpaste back into the tube, to suppress or deny the latest scientific evidence on race, genetics, and behavior.
Regardless of the extent to which the media promote “politically correct,” but scientifically wrong, resolutions from professional societies such as the American Anthropological Association, facts remain facts and require appropriate scientific, not political, explanation. On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental factors play no part individual development. But with each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic contribution to individual and group differences becomes more firmly established than ever.