Racism Discussion - what is race? what is racism?

[SaintsSeptember]

What about a proud, gay, asian Australian.

Dont pick on Penny Wong.

 

[The Coup]

Major Racial Groupings: African, Indian, East Asian, Polynesian, Caucasian, Aboriginal, American Indian, Latino.

African hey. Interesting. And by interesting I mean stupid.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Major Racial Groupings: African, Indian, East Asian, Polynesian, Caucasian, Aboriginal, American Indian, Latino.

Aboriginal would only be "major" in Australia. Apart from that the word Aboriginal means "native to" so Australian Aboriginals are native to Australia.
Others ( such as the Orong Asli in Malaysia ) could probably be described as aboriginals in their own countries.

 

[The Coup]

Aboriginal would only be "major" in Australia. Apart from that the word Aboriginal means "native to" so Australian Aboriginals are native to Australia.
Others ( such as the Orong Asli in Malaysia ) could probably be described as aboriginals in their own countries.

You might be expecting a bit much of someone who believes in the literal scientific existence of race.

He said American Indian too. The Americans realised it wasn't India about 2 hours after they arrived there, yet he's still calling them Indians. He's only about 250 years behind man, cut him a break.

 

[Catfish Alley]

You might be expecting a bit much of someone who believes in the literal scientific existence of race.

He said American Indian too. The Americans realised it wasn't India about 2 hours after they arrived there, yet he's still calling them Indians. He's only about 250 years behind man, cut him a break.

 

[Malifice]

Major Racial Groupings: African, Indian, East Asian, Polynesian, Caucasian, Aboriginal, American Indian, Latino.

What about Arabs, Jews, Slavs, Mongols and so forth.

And arent Indians Caucasian?

And how the hell are you grouping 'Africans' together? Aside from having dark skin, what other similarities do they share?

I mean youre talking everything from Kalahari bushmen, to Zulus to West and East Africans here, and we are talking some radically different ethnicities amongs that lot.

Same with 'Caucasian'. Some vastly different ethncities (and biologial diversity) there. How are Spaniards and Swedes similar in anything? Even biologically I fail to see how they are similar?

How are you biologically seperating these 'races' again?

 

[Malifice]

You might be expecting a bit much of someone who believes in the literal scientific existence of race.

He said American Indian too. The Americans realised it wasn't India about 2 hours after they arrived there, yet he's still calling them Indians. He's only about 250 years behind man, cut him a break.

I think I read somewhere that the majority of Native Americans actually prefer the term American Indian.

But thats a whole different debate.

 

[SpuriousPea]

Hang on, I didn't raise Franz Boas, whoever that is, you did. I don't know what the rest of your statement means but you'll need to provide a better explanation of the deep roots of race than Boas, who you first raised as an authority and then weirdly attributed to me.

You give me a universal and working definition of race again since you ran a million miles from the last one you raised.

You're getting this all arse about tit mate. Franz Boas was a twentieth century anthropologist whose anthropological views form the basis for the modern 'equality among races' belief. His views weren't based in empiricism either; his students concocted fraudulent studies to back up his theories. He has been described as a cult leader for his method of selecting and teaching students of anthropology.

I was assuming you had a sense of the history of your own ideology.

And I still stand by Mayr's definition from earlier in this thread.

 

[Malifice]

And I still stand by Mayr's definition from earlier in this thread.

Are you standing by your assertion that all Africans are one 'race'?

Can you please explain what (aside from darker skin color) they share?

Also bearing in mind:

Sub-Saharan Africa has the most human genetic diversity and the same has been shown to hold true for phenotypic diversity.[30] Phenotype is connected to genotype through gene expression. Genetic diversity decreases smoothly with migratory distance from that region, which many scientists believe to be the origin of modern humans, and that decrease is mirrored by a decrease in phenotypic variation. Skull measurements are an example of a physical attribute whose within-population variation decreases with distance from Africa.

The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ~90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within continental groups, and ~10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).

It appears, aside from skin color (and even that varies depending on distance from the equator), the thousands of various ethnic groups in Africa are incredibly biologically (and culturally) divergent. More so than anywhere else in the world.

How do you (or can you) list 'Africans' as one 'race'? Where is the line for demarcation here?

 

[SpuriousPea]

Are you standing by your assertion that all Africans are one 'race'?

Can you please explain what (aside from darker skin color) they share?

Also bearing in mind:



It appears, aside from skin color (and even that varies depending on distance from the equator), the thousands of various ethnic groups in Africa are incredibly biologically (and culturally) divergent. More so than anywhere else in the world.

How do you (or can you) list 'Africans' as one 'race'? Where is the line for demarcation here?

Show me where I said that.

 

[Malifice]

Show me where I said that.

Different person. My bad.

How many biological races are there, and what are the lines of demarcation between them?

 

[medusala]

How are Spaniards and Swedes similar in anything? Even biologically I fail to see how they are similar?

So there are biological differences but race is a social construct.

No contradiction there Mal.

 

[clogged]

And I still stand by Mayr's definition from earlier in this thread.

It would seem taxonomists struggle to get broader clades like birds and reptiles right. Why should we trust their ability to discern the more subtle differences between humans?

 

[Malifice]

So there are biological differences but race is a social construct.

No contradiction there Mal.

Of course there are biological differences. There are biological differences between you and me, and me and my brother.

Are we different 'races'?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So there are cocker spaniels and Labradors, and left to their own devices they would all end up mongrels if people didn't keep them apart.

 

[SpuriousPea]

Different person. My bad.
How many biological races are there, and what are the lines of demarcation between them?

If we treat humans as just another member of the animal kingdom we can use taxonomists "75% rule" for defining subspecies [A (usually geographically isolated) population is considered a valid subspecies if 75% of the individuals differ from 97% of the individuals of a previously recognised subspecies for a given defining character or set of characters].

If we use the above criteria, and the following defining characteristics; craniofacial morphology, skin and hair pigmentation, certain other tissue and cell properties such as hair shape and muscle fibers, and genetics; We find most of the worlds population roughly falls into three categories, defined by evolutionary anthropologists as Caucasoid, Negroid and *********.

Further division of these subspecies, like with most other animals on this planet, is also possible (Australoid, Capoid for example). How many is a matter for debate as subspecies aren't pure categories and like most scientific groupings, are just an approximate model of biological reality... But fuzzy edges on a model does not invalidate the biological reality it was trying to represent.

It would seem taxonomists struggle to get broader clades like birds and reptiles right. Why should we trust their ability to discern the more subtle differences between humans?

Are humans a special case?

 

[clogged]

Are humans a special case?

Are reptiles?

 

[SpuriousPea]

Are reptiles?

Science gets things wrong sometimes... Ban science?

 

[clogged]

Science gets things wrong sometimes... Ban science?

What an odd thing to say.

 

[Old Spice]

You're getting this all arse about tit mate. Franz Boas was a twentieth century anthropologist whose anthropological views form the basis for the modern 'equality among races' belief. His views weren't based in empiricism either; his students concocted fraudulent studies to back up his theories. He has been described as a cult leader for his method of selecting and teaching students of anthropology.

I was assuming you had a sense of the history of your own ideology.

And I still stand by Mayr's definition from earlier in this thread.

Are you nuts or something? You inexplicably raise this Boas character as an authority on the definition of race, then you back away and now you're back on him. There's still time for you to change your mind again before Halloween.

I don't really take my views from 'taxonomists' either. It's just poor reasoning, 19th century sloppy empiricist nomenclature, student hoaxes or not. I mean get this 'What is characteristic of a geographic race is, first, that it is restricted to a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and second, that in spite of certain diagnostic differences, it is part of a larger species.'

Or this 'The terms 11 subspecies and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.'

It's just tautological nonsense and not particularly taut at that. He's making his own definitions and subdivisions when he finds aberrations in his own model.

I refer you again to Nietzsche who carves right through this taxonomical nonsense.

As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things. When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal" I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be "true in itself" or really and universally valid apart from man.

 

[Old Spice]

So there are biological differences but race is a social construct.

No contradiction there Mal.

Have you tried to fathom the ludicrous gradations of Aryan caste in India?

 

[medusala]

Have you tried to fathom the ludicrous gradations of Aryan caste in India?

No why would I?

There is no dispute that geographic isolation has created biological differences. It seems some people are attempting to deny the obvious.

 

[The Coup]

No why would I?

There is no dispute that geographic isolation has created biological differences. It seems some people are attempting to deny the obvious.

Most people agree with that.

They just disagree with white separatists that it equates to a separate race of people. Which is the correct way to look at it.

 

[Malifice]

If we treat humans as just another member of the animal kingdom we can use taxonomists "75% rule" for defining subspecies [A (usually geographically isolated) population is considered a valid subspecies if 75% of the individuals differ from 97% of the individuals of a previously recognised subspecies for a given defining character or set of characters]

If we use the above criteria, and the following defining characteristics; craniofacial morphology, skin and hair pigmentation, certain other tissue and cell properties such as hair shape and muscle fibers, and genetics; We find most of the worlds population roughly falls into three categories, defined by evolutionary anthropologists as Caucasoid, Negroid and *********.

No, we dont.

 

[clogged]

No why would I?

There is no dispute that geographic isolation has created biological differences. It seems some people are attempting to deny the obvious.

We do not live in a world of geographic isolation.