Racism

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:39 pm

Seems if you state that there is more than one race you are honoured with a racist label. What exactly is racism? Are the facts in about the origins of the human race? Do we know where we come from? What's the current scientific thinking on this subject? Is there one or multiple races?
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Racism

Postby corymaylett » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:05 pm

There are obvious genetic differences between many different population groups. This holds true with most geographically widespread species. How divergent those differences must become to be labeled races, subspecies, breeds or whatever, is a grayish, fuzzy continuum with few hard boundaries.

In humans, many of the typical genetic variations that exist between, say Fiji Islanders and Poles or between Guatemalan Indians and Berbers seem obvious, but whether you want to call these racial differences or simply genetic differences of varying degrees between population groups seems largely a matter of semantics and to whom you're talking.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Racism

Postby Gord » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Hotair101 wrote:Seems if you state that there is more than one race you are honoured with a racist label. What exactly is racism?

Racism is the belief that there is more than one race of humans.

Are the facts in about the origins of the human race?

What, all of them? That can never be expected to happen. There will always be more facts to discover.

Do we know where we come from?

"France. Definitely from France." -- The Coneheads

What's the current scientific thinking on this subject?

"Out of Africa" is the usual answer.

Is there one or multiple races?

Scientifically speaking, you mean? Try and find a scientific definition of "race." I've looked for years without finding one.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

tenthie
Poster
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:42 pm

Re: Racism

Postby tenthie » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:06 pm

hmmm... replace 'idiot' with 'race'...are they the same??????

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Racism

Postby brauneyz » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:55 pm

tenthie wrote:hmmm... replace 'idiot' with 'race'...are they the same??????

Gee, ten, you're pretty quick there ...

P.S. Welcome. :wave:
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Racism

Postby landrew » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:11 pm

Thylacine wrote:There are obvious genetic differences between many different population groups. This holds true with most geographically widespread species. How divergent those differences must become to be labeled races, subspecies, breeds or whatever, is a grayish, fuzzy continuum with few hard boundaries.

In humans, many of the typical genetic variations that exist between, say Fiji Islanders and Poles or between Guatemalan Indians and Berbers seem obvious, but whether you want to call these racial differences or simply genetic differences of varying degrees between population groups seems largely a matter of semantics and to whom you're talking.

Labels are just labels. I could label everyone who practices the Muslim or Jewish religion a separate race, but it's not universal, nor is it based on measurable genetic barriers.

Human beings for the most part are fairly homogeneous with very minor differences between groups which have been separated for periods of time from each other. Skin pigment, nose shape and hair color are a few examples of these minor differences. The reason we are all so similar is probably due to two main factors. The first may be due to a super-volcano that erupted about 75,000 ago, creating a type of nuclear winter that wiped out all but a small population of humans which may numbered only a few thousand, thereby reducing the size of our genepool. The other may have been the ability of humans to travel all over the globe.

There is more and more evidence that populations have not remained static in one area for time immemorial, but have swapped territories many times in the past, often wiping out the humans who inhabited the areas they now occupy.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:25 pm

Thylacine wrote: In humans, many of the typical genetic variations that exist between, say Fiji Islanders and Poles or between Guatemalan Indians and Berbers seem obvious, but whether you want to call these racial differences or simply genetic differences of varying degrees between population groups seems largely a matter of semantics and to whom you're talking.

I think you've put it quite siccinctly here. There is no definitive definition. In fact quite the opposite.
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Hotair101 wrote:Seems if you state that there is more than one race you are honoured with a racist label. What exactly is racism?

Racism is the belief that there is more than one race of humans.

Here's an encarta dictionary definition.
racism [ráyssizəm]
noun
1. animosity towards other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
It states there are multiple races. This is in complete contradiction to your definition. Other dictionaries give this same definition. So not everyone is in agreement on what 'race' or racism is. Here's one scientist's take on why this could be. (Full articule in link.)
Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact. Nonetheless, when divorced from its popular connotations, the concept of race may be useful. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(clas ... man_beings)

Do we know where we come from?

"France. Definitely from France." -- The Coneheads

France is good. I like France. Shame it's full of Frenchies though. (Kidding.)
What's the current scientific thinking on this subject?

"Out of Africa" is the usual answer.

But that's not the only theory, that's one. Other theories still say there are more than one race of humans based on diffrent traits, skin colour, hair coarsness, etc. So there are at least two diffrent theories.
With diffrent definitions of the terms racist and racism, with differing theories on whether there is one or multiple races, you cannot yet call anyone a racist for saying there are diffrent races. Especially as this is common thought amoung the populus because of previous scientific teachings.

Is there one or multiple races?

Scientifically speaking, you mean? Try and find a scientific definition of "race." I've looked for years without finding one.

So what are you saying, you've made your own one up?
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:08 am

Political correctness states there are no races.
PC bunnies are idiots!

The reality is obvious to anyone who looks. There are a large number of different human types, each characteristic of a certain geographic origin. The usual word used to describe these different types is 'race'. Since these types indisputably exist, and since the common word used to describe them is 'race', then races exist.

Of course, there are other definitions of the word 'race', and if you choose such a definition, you can argue against my statement above. But that is just silly semantics.

Racism is something else. If you argue that people from one race are 'inferior', then you are being racist. You are also skating on very thin scientific ice. The genetic difference between people from different parts of the world is miniscule. One reference states 0.1%, which is roughly the difference in genome between myself and my neighbour - both of us being white. To the best of my knowledge, there is no credible empirical evidence showing that one racial group is different from another in any way that can be described as superior/inferior.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Racism

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Political correctness states there are no races.
PC bunnies are idiots! The reality is obvious to anyone who looks.


I agree but it is more than just looking......

I'm left handed, Am I another race subset? There are hardly any left handed pacific Islanders so left-handedness does correlate with other racial features. ( Sorry I have to use this bad example)

I guess I'm saying that skin colour is such a small part of "what makes" a person when there may be more distinct differences below the skin, that "popular racism" based only on skin colour does seem a bit weak. Who knows, If we were to "separate the races" on some internal feature, that half the "white guys" may have to stand in a separate line. That would be funny.

It is my little theory that there were once three sorts of hominids living on the planet at the same time. I imagine that "innate racism" is a legacy from when homo sapien sapiens were knocking off homo sapien erectus. Under evolution it is actually advantageous for all the races of the same species to interbreed in different combinations to allow the chance of "the most advantageous set of genes for the evironment" to arise.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Racism

Postby bigtim » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:13 pm

Race
–noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.

–adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.

Usage Note: 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 traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) 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 points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.


http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/28/r ... stines.htm

http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Classi ... on_of_race

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Race

If you are into sci-fi/fantasy race means human, elf, Vulcan, etc.

Many folks have tried to change race to ethnicity trying to state that race=species and we are only 1 species.

The best definer for that is the ability to reproduce with each other.

The best definitions of species can be found at www.biology-online.org

Species
Definition

noun, singular or plural: species

(taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another.


Supplement

A species is given a two-part name: the generic name and the specific name (or specific epithet). For example, Allium cepa (commonly known as onion)


Word origin: Middle English, logical classification, from Latin speciēs, a seeing, kind, form.
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:PC bunnies are idiots!

I'm trying to argue this point in another thread.
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Racism

Postby bigtim » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:01 pm

Hotair101 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:PC bunnies are idiots!

I'm trying to argue this point in another thread.


Well, I'll help you. If I say something that someone else says "that's offenseive" either I mean it to be or I didn't. If it was inadvertant then I'd say "hmm.. I didn't think it was". If I meant it to be then I'd say "so, what's your counter to my point?".

In the other thread instead of taking the "so what" approach you took the "it's not offensive" approach... which can't be one. The "so" approach can be:

"yeah, but homo's are all sex junkies"
"the term homo is offensive"
"big deal -- address my point that theire sex junkies"...
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4852
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Re: Racism

Postby rrichar911 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:53 am

It seems to me that our culture is full of contradictions.

One the one hand we blame everything we can on genetics, depression, homosexuality, criminal behavior, IQ, etc

While on the other hand state that race which is certainly a product of genetics has no measurable effect.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: Racism

Postby brauneyz » Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:00 am

rrichar911 wrote:It seems to me that our culture is full of contradictions.

One the one hand we blame everything we can on genetics, depression, homosexuality, criminal behavior, IQ, etc

While on the other hand state that race which is certainly a product of genetics has no measurable effect.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Sorry, too friggin' busy to address this further, but sure my mates here will for me. Do me proud, friends.
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby vanderpoel » Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:23 am

brauneyz wrote:
rrichar911 wrote:It seems to me that our culture is full of contradictions.

One the one hand we blame everything we can on genetics, depression, homosexuality, criminal behavior, IQ, etc

While on the other hand state that race which is certainly a product of genetics has no measurable effect.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Sorry, too friggin' busy to address this further, but sure my mates here will for me. Do me proud, friends.

I blame everything on organized religion.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Racism

Postby bigtim » Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:52 am

vanderpoel wrote:
brauneyz wrote:
rrichar911 wrote:It seems to me that our culture is full of contradictions.

One the one hand we blame everything we can on genetics, depression, homosexuality, criminal behavior, IQ, etc

While on the other hand state that race which is certainly a product of genetics has no measurable effect.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Sorry, too friggin' busy to address this further, but sure my mates here will for me. Do me proud, friends.

I blame everything on organized religion.


I blame everything on the small penis... too many men with small dicks go and muck {!#%@} up...
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Racism

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Political correctness states there are no races.

No, PC states that there are races, but that all races are equal.

The reality is obvious to anyone who looks.

I disagree, and would counter that with, "The illusion is obvious to anyone who investigates." The problem is that we judge by appearance, and are fooled.

There are a large number of different human types, each characteristic of a certain geographic origin. The usual word used to describe these different types is 'race'. Since these types indisputably exist, and since the common word used to describe them is 'race', then races exist.

There are a large number of different physical types, but they are spread unevenly by geographic relationships. What is common in one area may be rare in another, but not unknown. What we refer to as "race" is usually just a best guess to where a person's ancestors' lived, and depends entirely on their appearance and behaviour. There is no known genetic test that can pinpoint with certainty any person's so-called "race."

Of course, there are other definitions of the word 'race', and if you choose such a definition, you can argue against my statement above. But that is just silly semantics.

"Silly semantics" is what it's all about. The words "race" and "branch" are etymologically related, yet semantically, "race" has come to mean a division between peoples rather than a connection.

One problem when it comes to dealing with familial relationships is the "branching" idea itself. We often see family lines represented as a tree, with different male members being represented with a new branch. This method discounts the female donation to the genetic pool, however. Instead of branches diverging, first two existing branches must join together to cause a new branch, then all three separate again. (Two branches may join together more than once to produce a new branch each time, or they may go off to join with other branches to produce other new branches -- the first represents a monogamous relationship.) What he end up with, instead of a tree, is a web or a net.

There have been relatively few impassible barriers in human existence to prevent the spread of genetic material. Travellers would enter a society, and leave behind their genetic legacy in the form of offspring. As a result, the concept of "race" as we know it is heavily dependent on physical appearances rather than any guaranteed genetic markers. But this has not always been so, and even today is not necessarily the case in some other languages, where "race" and "ethnicity" are interchangeable terms. Yet in English, we are left to believe that race is derived genetically, while ethnicity is is something that people of various physical appearances and cultural attitudes can change by moving to a new region.

As Ziba Kashef wrote in a 2007 article: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi ... 24cab943bb

...The question seemed to be settled in the early 1970s when biologist Richard Lewontin compared variations in genes within and among different population groups. His conclusion, that most human genetic variation did not fall along racial lines, was widely accepted. ...Repeat experiments confirmed this finding, and many experts embraced the knowledge that the racial categories that have long divided people and justified racist oppression represented social and political beliefs rather than biological truths.

But the notion that race is real as a biological fact did not die. Even after research teams who identified and sequenced all 20,000-25,000 genes as part of the historic Human Genome Project declared in 2000 that race was not a valid scientific concept, the counterclaim resurfaced. Ironically, the more science has delved into the intricacies of our DNA, the more experts have diverged on the question of race....

...

The terms “ancestry” and “genetic diversity” have emerged as alternative ways to describe the differences we know as race. But they may be no more accurate in expressing human genetic variation than traditional racial categories are. Genetic markers attributed to one group or region of the world can be found in others. Whether scientists discuss the variations in terms of geography or ancestry, the impact will be the same: resurrecting race and racial differences as concrete biological facts, encoded deep within our DNA, and confirmed by science.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Racism

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:26 am

Hotair101 wrote:
Hotair101 wrote:Seems if you state that there is more than one race you are honoured with a racist label. What exactly is racism?

Racism is the belief that there is more than one race of humans.

Here's an encarta dictionary definition.
racism [ráyssizəm]
noun
1. animosity towards other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
It states there are multiple races. This is in complete contradiction to your definition. Other dictionaries give this same definition. So not everyone is in agreement on what 'race' or racism is. Here's one scientist's take on why this could be. (Full articule in link.)

Racism has to be defined in terms of race. The definition is not in contradiction to what I said. In order to be a racist, you have to believe that races exist.

Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact. Nonetheless, when divorced from its popular connotations, the concept of race may be useful. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(clas ... man_beings)

Just because a concept can be "useful" does not mean it is real.

Forensic anthropologists use DNA analysis as a tool to determine who's who, but they can't use it as proof because it isn't accurate. If 90% of the human population with one particular gene lived in one region of the world, you can be 90% sure that a person with that gene is related to people there, but you still can't use that as a guarantee because there's always the 10% chance they're not. Also, the population that contains 90% of that gene may be viewed as mutliple races, or as part of a larger race. The Tutsis may believe the Hutus are a separate race, but to most North Americans, they're all "blacks." Drawing the line to separate people into races can depend on appearances, or on genetics, or on any other aspects, but there's no convergence between all these methods.

"Out of Africa" is the usual answer.

But that's not the only theory, that's one. Other theories still say there are more than one race of humans based on diffrent traits, skin colour, hair coarsness, etc. So there are at least two diffrent theories.

Sure. Lots of 'em. Most of them are not backed up, though.

With diffrent definitions of the terms racist and racism, with differing theories on whether there is one or multiple races, you cannot yet call anyone a racist for saying there are diffrent races.

Sure I can. That's one of the definitions. For example, if you believed in Bigfoot, I could call you a Bigfootist.

Especially as this is common thought amoung the populus because of previous scientific teachings.

how does that change anything?

Scientifically speaking, you mean? Try and find a scientific definition of "race." I've looked for years without finding one.

So what are you saying, you've made your own one up?

No, I'm saying I'm not using one because I can't find one. It's just like saying I can't find a scientific defnition for Bigfoot. I don't need to make one up to call a Bigfootist a Bigfootist, that would just make me another type of Bigfootist. :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:34 am

Gord

I hate to say this, but on this subject you are entering fairyland.

Races exist. Very simple. An African has darker skin and a thicker bone structure than I have, as a European. That is objectively and empirically verifiable.

A Chinese type Asian has the epicanthic eye fold. I do not have that, and neither does the African.

Now, the degree of difference between different races is small. As I said before, about 0.1% of the total genome. This amount makes the differences between races quite trivial. However, it does not alter the fact that different races exist. If you try to deny that, you are living in fairyland.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Racism

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Gord

I hate to say this, but on this subject you are entering fairyland.

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong.

Races exist. Very simple.

No they don't. Even simpler.

An African has darker skin and a thicker bone structure than I have, as a European. That is objectively and empirically verifiable.

I'm pretty sure I can find an African with lighter skin than you.

A Chinese type Asian has the epicanthic eye fold. I do not have that, and neither does the African.

Likewise, I can find a Chinese type Asian that doesn't, and an African that does.

...it does not alter the fact that different races exist. If you try to deny that, you are living in fairyland.

I have no choice but to call you on that. Please prove that races exist.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Racism

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:00 am

Gord wrote:
...it does not alter the fact that different races exist. If you try to deny that, you are living in fairyland.

I have no choice but to call you on that. Please prove that races exist.

Better yet, let's remove "prove" from that. Proof levels are subjective anyway. Just show evidence that races exist, and we'll see how much weight to assign to such evidence.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby vanderpoel » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:04 am

To most people, a race is any group which they choose to describe as a race.
Thus, many national, religious, geographic, linguistic or cultural groups have, in such loose usage, been called 'race', when obviously Americans are not a race, nor are Englishmen, nor are Frenchmen, nor any other national group.

Catholics, Protestants, Muslems and Jews are not races.
People who live in Iceland or England or India are not races, nor are people who are culturally Turkish or Chinese.

From the biological standpoint, the species Homo Sapiens is made up of a number of populations defined by genetic factors.

However, the genes "responsible" for the hereditary differences between men are always few when compared to the whole genetic constitution of man and to the vast number of genes common to all human beings.
This means that the likeliness among men are far greater than their differences.

UNESCO issued a statement on 18 July 1950 following World War II.
The statement included both a scientific debunking of race theories and a moral condemnation of racism. It suggested in particular to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups."

Scientists agree that mankind is one and that all men belong to the same species: Homo sapiens.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Racism

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:39 am

Would it help any to say that races are similar to "breeds" of dogs? Dogs have various appearances, aptitudes, and sizes, but are the same species commonly called Canis domesticus. They might also be called breeds of Canis lupus, wolf, from which they all descended.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby vanderpoel » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:58 am

Tom-Palven wrote:Would it help any to say that races are similar to "breeds" of dogs? Dogs have various appearances, aptitudes, and sizes, but are the same species commonly called Canis domesticus. They might also be called breeds of Canis lupus, wolf, from which they all descended.

Dogs don't seem to care what you call them: "Here Canis Lupus, sit !"
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:30 pm

bigtim wrote:
Hotair101 wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:PC bunnies are idiots!

I'm trying to argue this point in another thread.


Well, I'll help you. If I say something that someone else says "that's offenseive" either I mean it to be or I didn't. If it was inadvertant then I'd say "hmm.. I didn't think it was". If I meant it to be then I'd say "so, what's your counter to my point?".

In the other thread instead of taking the "so what" approach you took the "it's not offensive" approach... which can't be one. The "so" approach can be:

"yeah, but homo's are all sex junkies"
"the term homo is offensive"
"big deal -- address my point that theire sex junkies"...

No, I've specifically asked why is it offensive. Which is similar to the 'I didn't think it was', or more specifically I don't believe it is.
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:04 pm

Gord wrote: Racism has to be defined in terms of race. The definition is not in contradiction to what I said. In order to be a racist, you have to believe that races exist.

Not sure that follows. You need to clarify more for me and is it your position that there is only one race or multiple or you don't know?


But that's not the only theory, that's one. Other theories still say there are more than one race of humans based on diffrent traits, skin colour, hair coarsness, etc. So there are at least two diffrent theories.

Sure. Lots of 'em. Most of them are not backed up, though.

But there's at least two that are?
With diffrent definitions of the terms racist and racism, with differing theories on whether there is one or multiple races, you cannot yet call anyone a racist for saying there are diffrent races.

Sure I can. That's one of the definitions. For example, if you believed in Bigfoot, I could call you a Bigfootist.

Never heard that term before. So if a person believed in only one true race and denied the existance of all others before the evidence was in then might not that person be called a rascist?
Especially as this is common thought amoung the populus because of previous scientific teachings.

how does that change anything?

Well depending on the definition you use you could be calling the majority of the populus rascist, meaning they hate other races, just because they have the belief there is more than one race.

Scientifically speaking, you mean? Try and find a scientific definition of "race." I've looked for years without finding one.

So what are you saying, you've made your own one up?

No, I'm saying I'm not using one because I can't find one. It's just like saying I can't find a scientific defnition for Bigfoot. I don't need to make one up to call a Bigfootist a Bigfootist, that would just make me another type of Bigfootist. :lol:

Ahhhhhhhhhhh.
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Gord

I hate to say this, but on this subject you are entering fairyland.

lol, any angels up there with the fairies, Gord?
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Racism

Postby fromthehills » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:51 pm

Damn Bigfoots need to get a job!

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: Racism

Postby Chachacha » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:17 pm

Wiki Warning to Wikiphobes


Interesting article on the subject of races: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_group.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Racism

Postby landrew » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:22 pm

Race is more a human construct than a biological one. Creating divisions based on such minor genetic differences is something rarely done with other animals, only humans.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:52 pm

Tom-Palven wrote:Would it help any to say that races are similar to "breeds" of dogs? Dogs have various appearances, aptitudes, and sizes, but are the same species commonly called Canis domesticus. They might also be called breeds of Canis lupus, wolf, from which they all descended.

Can you be careful what you say, please, Tom. I wouldn't want you to be called a 'dogist'. (It's like a bigfootist but diffrent. :? )
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Racism

Postby landrew » Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:02 pm

Hotair101 wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Would it help any to say that races are similar to "breeds" of dogs? Dogs have various appearances, aptitudes, and sizes, but are the same species commonly called Canis domesticus. They might also be called breeds of Canis lupus, wolf, from which they all descended.

Can you be careful what you say, please, Tom. I wouldn't want you to be called a 'dogist'. (It's like a bigfootist but diffrent. :? )

I believe in dogs, so count me in that group.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Hotair101
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:34 pm
Custom Title: Newton got it wrong.
Location: Essex, England.

Re: Racism

Postby Hotair101 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:13 pm

landrew wrote:
Hotair101 wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Would it help any to say that races are similar to "breeds" of dogs? Dogs have various appearances, aptitudes, and sizes, but are the same species commonly called Canis domesticus. They might also be called breeds of Canis lupus, wolf, from which they all descended.

Can you be careful what you say, please, Tom. I wouldn't want you to be called a 'dogist'. (It's like a bigfootist but diffrent. :? )

I believe in dogs, so count me in that group.

You're in.
Be an Independent Thinker, not a Critical Stinker
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."........Aristotle.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:37 pm

Re Gord's denial of the concept of race.
As I see it, it looks as if Gord sees a continuum of physical characteristics, and denies the concept of race because intermediate examples exist.

Take Africans. Skin colour varies from ebony black to pale brown. I doubt Gord could find a native African (not European immigrant) with skin paler than mine, since I am a real paleface. However, I accept that native African skin colour varies widely. If you add to native Africans, all the varying shades of skin colour from Egyptian, to Middle East, to Mediterranean and right on up to Swedish, you could probably get a continuum.

So what. The fact that not all Africans are ebony black does not alter the fact that some of them are. Therefore dark black people exist. Denying their existence as a race, does not stop them existing.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Racism

Postby fromthehills » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:49 am

What if it were in a different context? I find black women attractive. I'm a white guy. Does that make me a racist? I like hip-hop, I'm happy to have a black President, and I don't think Obama is only helping Haiti out for the props, and I wouldn't care if he was, as long as he is helping.

To be clear, I drive a big truck with a gun rack, I live in the country, I listen to country music. By all stereo-typical accounts, I'm a redneck. Except, I really believe black culture has a lot to offer our society. So, in recognizing the difference, maybe even calling it a race thing. Am I a racist?

I do understand the gene thing, whatever. I'm happy to be a part of the same species as all of you. The thing is, I'd love to say we're all the same race, but by default, according to popular definition, we have different races. My vote is to embrace, rather than ignore, and in embracing others that are different form ourselves, in skin color or language or habit, we can all gain. Just as long as we can get rid of this BS magical thinking thing, no matter where it comes from.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Racism

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Re Gord's denial of the concept of race.
As I see it, it looks as if Gord sees a continuum of physical characteristics, and denies the concept of race because intermediate examples exist.

Take Africans. Skin colour varies from ebony black to pale brown. I doubt Gord could find a native African (not European immigrant) with skin paler than mine, since I am a real paleface. However, I accept that native African skin colour varies widely. If you add to native Africans, all the varying shades of skin colour from Egyptian, to Middle East, to Mediterranean and right on up to Swedish, you could probably get a continuum.

So what. The fact that not all Africans are ebony black does not alter the fact that some of them are. Therefore dark black people exist. Denying their existence as a race, does not stop them existing.


So what's Obama? A black white guy or a white black guy? Which race do we put him in? In Sth America he is considered white. In North America he is considered black.
I think Gord was pointing out that race seems to only matter for the extremes of colour and for "people on the cusp" the definitions become arbitrary.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: Racism

Postby vanderpoel » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:56 am

Ethnic discrimination is rampant in the advertising community. It's a white-bread business. Most of it's clients are upper-class white males who see their customers in their own image. It is evident in the token staffing of minorities in advertising agencies and the token representation of minorities in group images.

Because the nature of my work for advertising clients such as Nike included the filming of celebrity sports stars, my reel featured a disproportionate large representation of black athletes including Pélé, Charles Barkley and Jerry Rice, which earned me the reputation of "n#gg@r" lover.

I had worked several assignments for Levi's and I was up for a big-time TV campaign for their 501 jeans. Some time before the presentation I was once told by the ad agency for Levi's to eliminate those black athlete spots from my reel because it would made the client uncomfortable awarding assignments to a director who's loyalties were not strictly fashion.

But I like Pélé, Charles and Jerry, so I guess I did not "get" that memo and I did not change the reel. I did not get that assignment either.

Now if the agency had simply told me that the clients were Jews who did not like blacks, I might have listened to their advice.

I hate to lose on principle.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

User avatar
corymaylett
Regular Poster
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:03 am

Re: Racism

Postby corymaylett » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:41 am

This discussion seems more about the human tendency to want to categorize than it does with biology.

Similarly, the visible spectrum consists of an unbroken continuum of wavelengths between violet and red, yet we assign names to various chunks of that spectrum. In a subtractive color space, purple is halfway between cyan and magenta, but the color halfway between magenta and purple doesn't really have a name. No one would argue that magenta and purple aren't colors just because there's a hard-to-pigeonhole color somewhere in between.

Between Moscow and Beijing, there's a slow but steady transition from European features to eastern Asian features. Either end of this continuum might be categorized as belonging to a recognized racial group, but for those halfway in between, who knows.

The genetic differences between an African pygmy and a Masai are considerably greater than those between a southeast Asian and a Polynesian, yet we mysteriously label both pygmies and Masai as negroid while categorizing the latter two groups as separate races.

The term race is both a biological and linguistic description of something that obviously exists, but which is often arbitrary, based on superficial physical features and has no firm boundaries that delineate where one ends and another begins. This mass of blurry ambiguity doesn't erase the definable differences between population groups, but it certainly makes those people in between difficult to fit into our species' tendency to want to categorize, pigeonhole and name everything.

Personally, I'm fine with the ambiguity, but our language and human nature seem predisposed to feeling more comfortable with categorization.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Racism

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:51 am

The fact that intermediate peoples exist does not obviate the idea of race. If you look at the human population, you will see a continuum in the range of IQ's. Every intermediate in the whole range exists. Yet I am still quite accurate when I talk about 'geniuses' or talk about 'morons'. Despite the continuum, both groups exist.

Now you can argue about the definition of the word 'race', but we end up discussing semantics. If we use the word in the same way as most English speaking people do, then we have a viable concept. Caucasian is a race, and negroid is a race. The fact that Obama is half caucasian and half negroid does not change the fact that both races exist.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest