What is racism?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
"Race" is one of the most irritating damn words!
I have, in obsessive fits of anti-political correctness, attempted to come up with an objective definition that holds up to more than the most superficial examination and it can't be done (at least I've never seen it). There is no genetic definition that can't be destroyed easily. Physical characterisitcs are a worse basis and bringing culture into it screws up any hopes. statistical predominace of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) may hold the key, but these are so abstract that it would hardly be worth the effort to try to compare gene sequences, even if we had them.
Maybe 50,000 years ago, the word might have had some genetic significance, but certainly since Middle Ages, it's a lost cause.
I'd say that "race" is a category that people impose on others they wish to marginalise that has no definable boundaries, but is most often tied to superficial physical characteristics (most commonly skin pigmentation) and imaginary moral or intellectual attributes.
Racism is the application of the illusory category of "race" to people one wants to rob, cheat, exclude, kill or otherwise oppress, while avoiding the social or legal consequences attached to such acts perpetrated against members of the dominant social group.
I have, in obsessive fits of anti-political correctness, attempted to come up with an objective definition that holds up to more than the most superficial examination and it can't be done (at least I've never seen it). There is no genetic definition that can't be destroyed easily. Physical characterisitcs are a worse basis and bringing culture into it screws up any hopes. statistical predominace of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) may hold the key, but these are so abstract that it would hardly be worth the effort to try to compare gene sequences, even if we had them.
Maybe 50,000 years ago, the word might have had some genetic significance, but certainly since Middle Ages, it's a lost cause.
I'd say that "race" is a category that people impose on others they wish to marginalise that has no definable boundaries, but is most often tied to superficial physical characteristics (most commonly skin pigmentation) and imaginary moral or intellectual attributes.
Racism is the application of the illusory category of "race" to people one wants to rob, cheat, exclude, kill or otherwise oppress, while avoiding the social or legal consequences attached to such acts perpetrated against members of the dominant social group.
Re: RE: What is racism?
There is no overall superior race. I never implied this. I would say that people of certain races have genetic advantages that can be beneficial in certain aspects.
Hard-Luck Henry said:
There is no overall superior race. I never implied this. I would say that people of certain races have genetic advantages that can be beneficial in certain aspects.
Re: RE: What is racism?
I never said that we weren't all homo sapiens.
I do not see how the colour of our skin is man made and superficial. The points you list are indeed man made. You are looking at race in a more complex way that I am, thus you are bringing up aspects that have nothing to do with biology, ie. religion, schooling and nationality.
If I was looking at race the same way you were, I could understand why you find my point of view so offensive.
How people interpret and use this differences in races is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just trying to say that there are inherent differences between the races.
bhoour said:
I never said that we weren't all homo sapiens.
bhoour said:
I do not see how the colour of our skin is man made and superficial. The points you list are indeed man made. You are looking at race in a more complex way that I am, thus you are bringing up aspects that have nothing to do with biology, ie. religion, schooling and nationality.
If I was looking at race the same way you were, I could understand why you find my point of view so offensive.
bhoour said:
How people interpret and use this differences in races is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just trying to say that there are inherent differences between the races.
Reverend Blair said:
First of all, races were established long before the existence of Ireland, Germany, Poland and any other country.
I would say that humanity started from a single population originally from the Ethiopia area, however as populations dispersed each sub population evoleved differently, thus dividing humanity into several races.
I would gather there are only 4 major races. Caucasian, Black African, Indo, Oriental. Australian Aboriginals perhaps could be considered a separate race since their population was isolated from the rest of the world for so long .
Hispanics are not a race, they stem from Caucasians and Natives of North/South America. They are a relatively new group of people. As for the North and South American Natives, that is up for debate, although most would say they form their own race, except for Inuits who could be considered part of the Oriental race.
For those of you who want to believe that their is only one race, well that is not true, but someday it could be. With increased inter-racial reproduction, we will see that lines between race slowly erasing.
Vanni Fucci said:
Associating colour with a specific crime is not racist. Is it wrong to use race in the description of a criminal? On that basis, then we shouldn't mention gender either.
Vanni Fucci said:
Stating of simple fact like, most of the gun crime recently in Toronto have been committed by black individuals only tells me a state. If I go on to take that to say all blacks are criminals, and change my behaviour to all blacks, then that is racism.
Re: RE: What is racism?
[quote="DasFX
I never said that we weren't all homo sapiens.. [/quote]
You said there are different races......what are they?
[quote="DasFx I do not see how the colour of our skin is man made and superficial. The points you list are indeed man made. You are looking at race in a more complex way that I am, thus you are bringing up aspects that have nothing to do with biology, ie. religion, schooling and nationality.
If I was looking at race the same way you were, I could understand why you find my point of view so offensive[/quote.]
The colour of somebodys skin is man made in the sense that to we even notice a difference, that it makes a difference to some. What other way is there to look at race , biolologically speaking we are all the same HUMAN. Perhaps if you could look at race the same way as me, you would see that your question is offensive.
[quote="DasFX
I never said that we weren't all homo sapiens.. [/quote]
You said there are different races......what are they?
[quote="DasFx I do not see how the colour of our skin is man made and superficial. The points you list are indeed man made. You are looking at race in a more complex way that I am, thus you are bringing up aspects that have nothing to do with biology, ie. religion, schooling and nationality.
If I was looking at race the same way you were, I could understand why you find my point of view so offensive[/quote.]
The colour of somebodys skin is man made in the sense that to we even notice a difference, that it makes a difference to some. What other way is there to look at race , biolologically speaking we are all the same HUMAN. Perhaps if you could look at race the same way as me, you would see that your question is offensive.
DasFx How people interpret and use this differences in races is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just trying to say that there are inherent differences between the races.[/quote said:
Now you read this S-L-O-W-L-Y iamcanadain, on two seperate occasions you have gone out of your way to single out reverend blair. Both have been posted in the moderator fourm, as well your remarks have been xrepported, and not by reverend blair. Now I repeat to you ONE more time. You post your comments and opinions and leave your opinions of reverend blair out of it.
pastafarian said:
It takes a lot longer than 1000 years for racial genetic differences to become insignificant. So I doubt it just stopped in the middle ages. How can you say that when all humans did not know of each other in the middle ages.
pastafarian said:
I'll agree that the races are not clearly defined anymore and that is because we are moving towards the one race concept, but there are still many homogeneous populations where the racial boundaries can be clearly seen. Skin pigmentation is a biological aspect, such that it is part of defining race. As for morality, this is a cultural aspect and has nothing to do with biology. Intelligence could have been a biological aspect, however it has been proven that all humans have common brain physiology and function so this is not a biologically related and therefore not race related.
Re: RE: What is racism?
Of course we notice. Just like we can notice differences in other animals. Biologically we humans are not exactly the same, there is lots of evidence to support this. I look at race as a biological fact, I don't use these facts to discriminate.
Take the disease Sickle cell anemia. Why does this afflict blacks (1 in 12) as opposed to 1 in 400 for other folks if we are all the same? Genetic differences!
I never said that these differences were drastic and dramatic. Take body type, blacks typically have a higher proportion of muscle, that is why they dominate many sports. I mean there are differences, whether you wish to believe it or not. Saying otherwise will not make these differences go away.
bhoour said:
Of course we notice. Just like we can notice differences in other animals. Biologically we humans are not exactly the same, there is lots of evidence to support this. I look at race as a biological fact, I don't use these facts to discriminate.
First of all, nationality has nothing to do with race, nations are man made, any race can be of any nationality. Being mixed gives you best of both world genetically speaking. You gene pool has been significantly expanded.bhoour said:
Take the disease Sickle cell anemia. Why does this afflict blacks (1 in 12) as opposed to 1 in 400 for other folks if we are all the same? Genetic differences!
I never said that these differences were drastic and dramatic. Take body type, blacks typically have a higher proportion of muscle, that is why they dominate many sports. I mean there are differences, whether you wish to believe it or not. Saying otherwise will not make these differences go away.
DasFX, since there is more intra-"racial" variation within any "racially homogenous" population than there is in mean genetic distance between any two such populations, there exists no absolute set of genetic criteria indicating membership in a particular race, therefore "race" is not a valid biological category.
Quote:
It takes a lot longer than 1000 years for racial genetic differences to become insignificant. So I doubt it just stopped in the middle ages. How can you say that when all humans did not know of each other in the middle ages.
These "racial differences" you talk about simply don't exist since no sub-population of humans has been isolated from other humans long enough for any detectable differences in allele frequencies to be noted. My timeline is therefore, I admit, pure speculation. Point is, since the emergence of some tribes our species from the African continent, no single group has been isolated from ALL other groups long enough for the intra-"racial" differences to be surpassed by the inter-"racial" differences.
To lose the character of "race" a group doesn't have to have contact with more than one other gene pool with some different allele frequencies.
Quote:
Skin pigmentation is a biological aspect, such that it is part of defining race. As for morality, this is a cultural aspect and has nothing to do with biology.
In fact, skin pigmentation is the WORST characteristic on which to base categories of "race", since the largest genetic variation between any populations in the world exists between "black" African populations. More than any African population and any European population. Not only that, but almost all (if not all, I'm not sure on this point) African populations differ more from Australian aborigines in genetic terms than they do from any European group. Therefore, skin colour doesn't cut it.
Why? Because "race" is as scientific a term as "morality" and somewhat less so than "intelligence", which is borderline and still has no generally-accepted definition.
You can prove me wrong DasFX. Find me a genetic marker or set of markers that can absolutely distinguish any two "races" of YOUR choosing. I'll be patient. I've tried pretty hard .
Quote:
It takes a lot longer than 1000 years for racial genetic differences to become insignificant. So I doubt it just stopped in the middle ages. How can you say that when all humans did not know of each other in the middle ages.
These "racial differences" you talk about simply don't exist since no sub-population of humans has been isolated from other humans long enough for any detectable differences in allele frequencies to be noted. My timeline is therefore, I admit, pure speculation. Point is, since the emergence of some tribes our species from the African continent, no single group has been isolated from ALL other groups long enough for the intra-"racial" differences to be surpassed by the inter-"racial" differences.
To lose the character of "race" a group doesn't have to have contact with more than one other gene pool with some different allele frequencies.
Quote:
Skin pigmentation is a biological aspect, such that it is part of defining race. As for morality, this is a cultural aspect and has nothing to do with biology.
In fact, skin pigmentation is the WORST characteristic on which to base categories of "race", since the largest genetic variation between any populations in the world exists between "black" African populations. More than any African population and any European population. Not only that, but almost all (if not all, I'm not sure on this point) African populations differ more from Australian aborigines in genetic terms than they do from any European group. Therefore, skin colour doesn't cut it.
Why? Because "race" is as scientific a term as "morality" and somewhat less so than "intelligence", which is borderline and still has no generally-accepted definition.
You can prove me wrong DasFX. Find me a genetic marker or set of markers that can absolutely distinguish any two "races" of YOUR choosing. I'll be patient. I've tried pretty hard .
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with statements like this:
Race is probably one of the most influential concepts we've come up with. It needs to be discussed in order to deal properly with racism. At best, a concept of race could serve to celebrate our differences. We differ in culture, ethnicity and appearance and this is a good thing. To punsih people for honestly questioning our differences, how they arose and what their significance is, is to help racism thrive, in my opinion.
If a series of crimes is taking place among an identified group, then it only makes sense to start searching for suspects in that group, whether they are white Mormons, drug-dealers, stockbrokers, African-American rap stars, nursing assistants or oriental men who frequent prostitutes.
Habitual, systemic police harrassment is another thing altogether.
To try to silence talk about races I think indicates a latent racist tendency, since non-racists know that there is no question of inferiority or superiority in any "racial" category and the only way to weed out racism is to shine the light of reason on it so it withers up and dies, rather than lurking under a societies skin like a potentially infectious pus.
.
Race is probably one of the most influential concepts we've come up with. It needs to be discussed in order to deal properly with racism. At best, a concept of race could serve to celebrate our differences. We differ in culture, ethnicity and appearance and this is a good thing. To punsih people for honestly questioning our differences, how they arose and what their significance is, is to help racism thrive, in my opinion.
If a series of crimes is taking place among an identified group, then it only makes sense to start searching for suspects in that group, whether they are white Mormons, drug-dealers, stockbrokers, African-American rap stars, nursing assistants or oriental men who frequent prostitutes.
Habitual, systemic police harrassment is another thing altogether.
To try to silence talk about races I think indicates a latent racist tendency, since non-racists know that there is no question of inferiority or superiority in any "racial" category and the only way to weed out racism is to shine the light of reason on it so it withers up and dies, rather than lurking under a societies skin like a potentially infectious pus.
The discrimination, lies in the fact that the question was asked ..., if one " race" is superior to another. In my eyes we are all one race, and I find that discriminitory to categorize superiority because of biological genetics. In my case being of mixed decent, is one of my parents biologically superior to the other? Is one half of me biologicaly superior, and if so which half? What about my kids?
I do not try to silence talk of races, only hope that people will understand that we are of one race and biological differences are irrelevent. To differ in culture, nationality and apperance is great, and quite interesting, but does this make us so different that we deem ourselves seperate from one another as humans??
I do not try to silence talk of races, only hope that people will understand that we are of one race and biological differences are irrelevent. To differ in culture, nationality and apperance is great, and quite interesting, but does this make us so different that we deem ourselves seperate from one another as humans??
Re: RE: What is racism?
How do I discriminate? I'm not going to argue. If you even knew anything about me or about the content of my character, you would see how your claims of narrow mindedness is totally wrong.
I'm a member of a visible minority and my children will be of mixed race. I don't see my wife as inferior or superior in any way, however I cannot be blind to some genetic differences between us.
bhoour said:
How do I discriminate? I'm not going to argue. If you even knew anything about me or about the content of my character, you would see how your claims of narrow mindedness is totally wrong.
I'm a member of a visible minority and my children will be of mixed race. I don't see my wife as inferior or superior in any way, however I cannot be blind to some genetic differences between us.
bhoour said:
This wasn't meant to be an overall superiority. What is wrong with recognizing a group of people may be better at something than your group. I think you have an inferiority complex.
I mean, I have no problem recognizing that other group of people or races of people may be better at certain things then my own group.
I follow you, now, bhour and I agree with your second post. To me the question of "racial superiority" is first and foremost an idiotic one, but with hatred and evil following close behind, if the asker persists after the idiocy has been pointed out.
Of course the answer to your last question is, sadly, yes.
But it is among the most pernicious fictions a certain rather stupid and self-important species of follicly-challenged ape clogs up its overgrown cortex with.
Of course the answer to your last question is, sadly, yes.
But it is among the most pernicious fictions a certain rather stupid and self-important species of follicly-challenged ape clogs up its overgrown cortex with.
DasFX said:
If not overall superiority than what only partial?
Better how?
I believe Adolf Hitler thought along the same lines as you in his pursuit of one race, being better or superior, to another.
PEOPLE are better or more skilled at some things, but race has nothing to do with it.
I do not have an inferiority complex, because I believe we as humans, as a species are all equals, so it is simply not possible.