Racism does it make sense?

[Blaggard]

Pretty much says it all Kayla.

'nuff said.

[Wyman]

Okay, there is no current scientific consensus about whether the domination of some sports by some types of African has a genetic basis. We'll call that a draw. But I think this shines light on the issue:

Why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell, Jews of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other groups to fall victim to the degenerative mental disease, Tay-Sachs, and whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that blacks of West African ancestry have evolved into the world’s best sprinters and East Asians, the best divers?

Genes circumscribe possibility. “I believe that we need to look at the causes of differences in athletic performance between races as legitimately as we do when we study differences in diseases between the various races,” notes Claude Bouchard, geneticist and director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University.

http://blackathlete.net/2004/11/why-bla ... -about-it/

Uwot:

any difference in 'racial' intelligence is completely meaningless when it comes to judging an individual.

True, but irrelevant to the academic question of racial differences.

You think east Asians are genetically geared towards diving? That's very strange. Are they good at twisting and turning in the air? Is there a gene for that?

And if black people of West African descent are superior at sprinting, then why aren't there a bunch of actual West Africans winning the Olympics?

[Kayla]

i was at a checkout line with my daughter earlier today and we were practicing her spanish homework

a redneck helpfully suggested that i teach my brat english

when that produced no response he upped the ante by making a remark about how "you people" start breeding so yearly, and said somethign to the effect of how old were you when you had her? twelve?

es este hombre estúpido?

no es un pendejo

i did not know she knew the word 'pendejo' - it is not part of the curriculum and she did not learn it from me

but of course there are the other kids

I know the redneck's grandmother so i gave her a call after we got home I am sure she will have some choice English words for him

anyway after that episode my daughter wanted to know why are all racists so stupid

[prof]

Back in 1950 research by Physical Anthropologists concluded that if there is any basis for dividing up human beings it would be by blood type. That is the only way that made sense to them.

There is only one race: the human race.

Racism - an ethical fallacy (error of thinking) - is often a subset of rankism, which is the belief that one person is {i.e., I am} morally-superior to another: {you}.

The best definition of "prejudice" I have heard is: the selection of one, or a few, characteristics to describe - or to refer to - a human individual. Persons are far too complex to be adequately described by a single feature - such as skin-color

Racism is super-nonsense.... it is more than absurd; it is profound ignorance.

[Alchemyst]

Humans are a single race, but some races are less homogeneous than others. We are not as tightly defined as golden eagles or great white sharks but more singular than dogs. The genetic variation within the human race is similar to that found between breeds of cat.

Racism is, I think, partly a form of what could be called cosmeticism - judging character on appearances. But I think that is normal to some extent - the primitive instinct to distrust the stranger who might be an enemy - an aspect of the survival instinct.

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

In April 2013 the Greater Manchester Police announced that they would officially begin to record offences committed against goths and other alternative groups, as hate crimes, as they do with offences aimed at someone's race, disability or sexual orientation.

There is also a distinction to be made between racial prejudice and racial preference. Many people simply prefer to be amongst their own kind - their own 'breed' - without believing that they are mentally, morally or physically superior.

[Blaggard]

Actually we're not even as differentiated as cats being as we haven't undergone selective breeding, in fact as recent studies show we are more differentiated inside a geographical group than we are outside of said group, ie we show more clinal differences between our own closer groupings than are shown over the allele groupings world wide. We are not just homo sapiens, we are homo sapiens sapiens.

As you said the distinction is one of "human" values of what constitutes difference, not one of scientific value.

Inherently i think we trust people more who speak our language, and have various other physical things that we associate with our "tribe", it should of course be noted that logically we have no reason to do so, that is just a social distrust, it has nothing to do with any reason other than cultural history.

[Kayla]

There is also a distinction to be made between racial prejudice and racial preference. Many people simply prefer to be amongst their own kind - their own 'breed' - without believing that they are mentally, morally or physically superior.

if someone says that they just prefer company of white people without thinking that nonwhites are inferior - a claim made by, among others - members of the kkk - what the hell do they even mean

there are people in southern usa and in particularly in the appalachians who were accused of trying to pass as white back in the day - and yet had no known black ancestors. would they be good enough for someone with such preference?

(look up 'melungeons')

heck, in my neck of the woods some klansmen (back in the day when it was more of a thing than it is now) had to take extra care to not get too much of a tan

[SpheresOfBalance]

Racism only makes sense to those that are ignorant of the truth of humanity, with respect to it's origin and it's differentiation due to geography. In other words those that fear for the self, as they project imagined preconceived notions onto others to try and qualify their existence and shortcomings. It is their measure of another, as if their measure is the standard by which all others must be compared; as if there is such a thing as a universal rule book and they have the only copy. It's the plight of the unenlightened man, looking in a mirror and not truthfully understanding what he sees in his reflection.

Any particular man can only believe he knows what 'he' values, in any particular moment, and then it's gone.

[Stuartp523]

Is Kayla of mixed race?

[Lev Muishkin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuLVv56YGXQ

You don't have to watch this clip but I would, it would add context, but let me get straight to the point, do you think in a modern world where boundaries are becoming blurred, the idea of race makes any sense at all. Now I am not talking about in medicine where of course some peoples from certain places have certain disease that are more prevalent, nor about socialism where cultural differences are clear, but the more ignorant racism: ie Whites are smarter than Blacks but not as smart as the Chinese, the sort of dumbery that comes with a flavour and an agenda to pervert good science. Is it even worth it now, or is there a clear divide between races that should and must be acknowledged, what are your views?

Obviously, since people use the term race, then it has some meaning - if only to them. Like any other belief system it relies on people accepting the idea are true, and the more they accept race as what "is", they also think they can derive a system of "oughts".
Racists are blissfully unaware of Hume's razor.
Clearly there are differences of appearance between humans and these can be categorised into groups by those appearances. And there is no doubt that the differences are due to geographical isolation of genetic clades during HS long walk out of Africa. The last big wave of anatomically modern humans was around 100k before present, and whilst there are attempt to suggest cross-breeding with neanderthal populations, there are no remaining traits from that sub-species.

But there are two key facts why race is social category and not a scientific one.
1) All humans are perfectly capable of breeding and thus do not form into distinct groups.
2) What ever criteria one uses to define one race against another; there are always exceptions, and examples that lie exactly between those definition. In this way all defined races are arbitrary and do not comply to scientifically definable categories, being arbitrary, and include nationality, colour, history, religion, and of course prejudice.

Racial identification relies wholly on a personal sense of belonging, and the entire trope relies on the continued beliefs of those that propagate it.

But here's the crux. Racism is not interested in facts, capabilities, abilities, genes or anything of the kind. It's philosophy is engineered around giving one group of humans power and privilege of others. It is pseudo-scientific evolution of the most primitive of thinking: tribalism, and it long predates any genetic science, evolutionary theory or basic biology.
Racism seeks to justify emancipation of one group and the oppression of another derived from a perceived Naturalistic Fallacy, which demands political action based on false understanding of reality.

But even if humans were exactly definable as a set of races, there is nothing in that fact to justify any prejudice or differential treatment for different groups.

Let's say a black and a white were up for the same job. Let's say that statistics show that whites tend to be more intelligent, more honest, and less likely to steal.
That would never be a reason to deny the black a job, as in this case it is possible that the black is more intelligent and honest and believes stealing to be bad.

And yet that is what racism does. It is wrong, immoral and with each generation needs to be fought against, like all primitive ways of thinking, like any system that relies on belief.

[Lev Muishkin]

It is said that we share 95% of our genes with chimps.
The remaining 5% is code for each of our unique faces and familial characteristics, and ALL the differences we have with chimps. How many code for racial differences in the 5%?
There are only 35,000 genes in the genome. Do the maths. What relevance is 1 or 2 percent?

Humans rely less on innate and instinctual behaviours than any other animal. A child is an open book, able to change and absorb more that any other species. There is simply no reason to judge a person on the tiny superficial difference that racist choose to prejudge and oppress others who they do not understand.

[Kayla]

Is Kayla of mixed race?

this question makes a whole lot of assumptions about the nature of race

my family comes from the appalachians

in the bad old days some members of my family were accused of trying to pass for white - even though they thought of themselves as white and were not aware of any black ancestors . they dealt with this by avoiding getting suntanned.

i tan very easily

between that and getting my hair done in corn rows i am perceived as 'black' or 'mixed race' - although my speech is that of a white texan so people sometimes get confused in trying to label me

from my reading on the history of the melungeons it is likely that i do have distant north african ancestry

[Stuartp523]

Let's say someone asked you to look at someone and discern, or guess, their ancestry. But, to make it easier you would know that there'd be only two possible options; either the person was entirely of northern European ancestry or entirely of southern African ancestry. What would you say the odds would be that you'd discern, or guess, correctly?

[Lev Muishkin]

Let's say someone asked you to look at someone and discern, or guess, their ancestry. But, to make it easier you would know that there'd be only two possible options; either the person was entirely of northern European ancestry or entirely of southern African ancestry. What would you say the odds would be that you'd discern, or guess, correctly?

No because on those criteria they could be either black or white.

There are over a 4 million whites in South Africa alone whose families have been there for hundreds of years.
And the same goes for black people who form significant percentages all over the western and European worlds.
Additionally Africa is a big place, and in Egypt alone there are so many variations with roots from nubia, Greece, Italy, Arabia....

So your question is meaningless; geography is only a nominal category for ancestry.

[Stuartp523]

There are over a 4 million whites in South Africa alone whose families have been there for hundreds of years.

Hundreds? I thought my question was clear enough in my implication that I was speaking in terms of thousands. But, whether it was clear or not then, is it clear now what I mean?

all over the western and European worlds.

I'm speaking of northern Europe, try to remain focused.

Additionally Africa is a big place, and in Egypt alone there are so many variations with roots from nubia, Greece, Italy, Arabia....

I'm speaking of Southern Africa, could you possibly stay on topic?

So your question is meaningless; geography is only a nominal category for ancestry.

If people live in a place long enough how could it not be a good nominal category for their ancestry? In the case of Northern Europe, yes, it was settled by humans - no one evolved from beings outside of what would currently be the human breeding type, so when I say one's ancestors are entirely from Northern Europe, it means his ancestors all date back to those who were of the earliest to migrate there without migrating away or mixing with significantly later waves of migration.