 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
This argument again . . .
I believe we should study the human genome to try to fully understand that DNA and be able to better treat a multitude or diseases.
It is obvious that discrete races do not exist. If they did, I would challenge someone to list them. Once that was done, we could all come up with thousands of people that would hardly fit any category due to intermingling of people with different origins.
All that said, it is also obvious that certain diseases and disorders, whether it be sickle cell , thalassemia or whatever, are more prevalent in populations of certain origins. Trying to divide the population into some sort of groupings to better understand these disorders strikes me as a worthwhile scientific/medical endeavour.
As for race mattering, it matters because we make it matter. The Canadian government has posted a job at the directors level in the Department of Fisheries for which "white people" need not apply, it is restricted to 'visible minorities". Whether you call it "race" or "ethnicity", it is obvious that somebody is grouping humans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
there are no races.
people with different skin colour and/or facial body characteristics sure but races nope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
only to those who belive there are no races though
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Of course there is! "Race" exists in the minds of those who promote it, making them, by definition, "Racists." These are the people who are quick to point out things like skin pigmentation differences, cultural and ethnic differences, and magically blend these into an amalgamation that they call "Race." If the population with a significantly different skin pigmentation/cultural heritage/ethnic background is sufficiently different from his, then he might treat that person "differently" and we get discrimination.
Nonetheless, the discrimination is not based on any "real" notion of race, because there is none (or at least, no one has come forward with a difinitive list, which I would be very curious to see!)
And more questions for the "racists" out there:
Are the Native American Indians a separate "race"? If so, how far do their boundaries spread? (ie - are the natives of North America a different "sub-race" from those of South and Central America? And, the folks living in the Arctic circle....what are they? How 'bout the various tribes in Africa? All one big "race" or are there sub-divisions (remember that there are vast differences between some of the tribes).
Are the Scythians a "race" unto themselves?
The Celts?
Genuine curiosity....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
I think race is a matter of perception, for the person who it affects, and the person who judges. Personally, I dont think that race exists, but if a person believes he is from a different race, or one believes that another is a different race, then race is real for that person. In a different context, I can critique his reasoning behind that judgement, and conclude that race does not exist, but in this context, that is subjective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
How strange that white South Africans still exist. I guess they just have really good sunblock. |
First, the indigenous people of South Africa, the Hottentots, are actually rather light skinned. You would assume that they are mixed to look at them. This is because South Africa is actually rather far from the Equator and has a Mediterranian climate, rather than equatorial. The reason that most Blacks in South Africa are dark skinned is because they are decended from the Bantu, an equatorial group that migrated to the area only recently, about the same time as the Dutch showed up.
Two, South African "race" was legislated. A Black person from the US who went to SA was legally white. Indians were considered Coloreds, even though many Indians are very white looking (generally upper class Aryans who kept their bloodlines relatively free from indigenous Indians).
In fact, race only exists in places where it is legislated into existence. If the old race laws still applied, many white Americans would not be considered white under the law there. If you had one drop of colored blood (Indian, Black, Asian, etc) you were colored, not white. Of course, if you look white, you can pass, no one cares. So, many Black people in the US were legally white.
Asians who live near the Equator are much darker than Mongolians. Dravidians are almost Black in skin color. American Indians even showed some color division. Melaneseans are darker than Polynesians, which is why the Australian aborigines are darker than the New Zealand Maoris.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
OK.. .what is wrong with existance of races? That is a fact... |
A fact based on what? Looks? The physical appearance of something is hardly "proof" of a fact.
If you can givbe us genetic proof that there are distinct sub-categories of human beings (beyond male-female), then go ahead. but the point of those of us saying there is no such thing as race is that sub-dividing humans in the way 'race' does simply has no biological basis.
As we asked Bodd's: can YOU list the "races" and what their characteristics are? And then answer Vels question about what is the result of their interaction? |
yest the fact based on looks... if you are of "white" origin you have some certain physical things incommon, color being the most dominant but so are facial and body features, as do people from "black" background, or those from "yellow" etc... and so what? we people love to categorize... as we do with all things... however it is just a historical conincidence that people from mainly "black" origin - (there were slaves from other "racial groups too" but not in such number) were used as slaves 300-150 years ago, and you get all the racial halabaloo that persists to this day... the only reason that people from Africa that were from black origin were most readily available as slaves during the last slave trade period... in ancient times everyone could be a slave, so noone cared to categorize...
there is nothing wrong with it (races as categories), however it is wrong when someone abuses someone else on "racial" base when he loses the plot - and it is wrong when someone abuses me as "bloody foreigner that should **** off" even I am white but have "continental accent" when you get accross some drunk fool... and??? is it true that I am from the continent ? - it is , and so what? bloody drunken morons ... that is the fact too...
the "racial" abuse is most likely color based as opposed to what you sound like and it should be estinguished too... even worse when such abuse becomes institutionalized... that should really be taken out, but it is even harder... and culture should change as all those idiotic ideas of "white superiority" etc.. based on religion ...
fortunatly British superiority over us continental folk is not institutionalized, just some morons now and than - BNP voters and such 
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 05-06-2003 at 22:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
See...the funny thing about "race" is that, once you convince yourself it exists, then suddenly, it's extremely important to categorize *yourself*. If there are races, what group to I belong to?
And you gotta belong to a group...after all, there's those government and employment forms to consider. You only get to check one block (of course, "multi-racial" folks could just check "other" I suppose, but then, everybody would be checking "other" and it would render the whole game pointless!). That's why the whole "multi-racial" notion doesn't work. You're either in a group, or not-in a group. Can't claim both.
So where are the lines? If I'm 1/32'd black, does that make me "more black" than if I'm 1/86th? (and what if the fellow who is 1/86th black happens to have darker skin coloration than the fellow who's 1/32nd? Does that magically change his race or make HIM "more black" percentages notwithstanding? For that matter, if I get a honkin' good tan this summer, can I become a "Native American" for the summer and then switch back?).
All sorts of funny things start to happen when you ask a racist to really identify and quantify what it is, exactly, that makes up "race." Even funnier that none of the proponents of "race" can come up with a globally agreed upon standard to judge by, which is further evidence that it's just so much hot air.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Racism is a social construct, it exists but only in the minds of those who decide to be racist.
Race, on the other hand, it prbably a bad word to call, I like ethnicity too. Yet, I do feel that there a genetic differences between different ethnicities. In the same way that there is bulldog genes, dalmation genes, and cocker spaniel genes. Pretty much today, however, we are all mutts... We are all dogs, but are different breeds, and as any breeder will tell you, there are traits associated with different breeds, not just in appearance, but in attitude, personality, mentality, etc... Luckily for us, mutts are generally the smarter of all dogs.
I have mutt (German Shepard/Chow). GS are territorial and Chows are hyper and can be protective. She is territorial, hyper, and protective. This is her nature. She still barks when someone knocks on the door and she will stand between anyone and my wife... Yet, we were able to train the hyperness out of her. What does this say? It says that there is the ability to change. It is this change that leads to the evolution of different breeds, and these changes that led to the evolution of other ethnicities...
IMO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
yest the fact based on looks... if you are of "white" origin you have some certain physical things incommon, color being the most dominant but so are facial and body features, as do people from "black" background, or those from "yellow" etc... and so what? |
I am sorry, but this very "explination" shows the wholly unscientific basis of your belief in race, which is the point of the thread:Cali sugest that there is genetic evidence to porve significant "racial" difference.
quote:
we people love to categorize... as we do with all things... however it is just a historical conincidence that people from mainly "black" origin - (there were slaves from other "racial groups too" but not in such number) were used as slaves 300-150 years ago, and you get all the racial halabaloo that persists to this day... the only reason that people from Africa that were from black origin were most readily available as slaves during the last slave trade period... in ancient times everyone could be a slave, so noone cared to categorize...
|
Categorization by 'race' is ancient (there is some in the Bible itself) and preceeds any notions of the slave trade. The problem is that skin color has little to do with "race" once people begin to try to make it into a scientific notion. After all, no Nazi doctor of eugenics would have ever placed "white" slavs with "white" Germans. In fact the very category "white" is secondary to the category "black" (as in, whites are those who aren't black)
People may love to categorize, but thier love of it does not mean every category made is valid or usefull, nor that it should be preserved and enshrined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but this very "explination" shows the wholly unscientific basis of your belief in race, which is the point of the thread:Cali sugest that there is genetic evidence to porve significant "racial" difference.
Categorization by 'race' is ancient (there is some in the Bible itself) and preceeds any notions of the slave trade. The problem is that skin color has little to do with "race" once people begin to try to make it into a scientific notion. After all, no Nazi doctor of eugenics would have ever placed "white" slavs with "white" Germans. In fact the very category "white" is secondary to the category "black" (as in, whites are those who aren't black)
People may love to categorize, but thier love of it does not mean every category made is valid or usefull, nor that it should be preserved and enshrined. |
OK... i do not claim any scientific base for this categorisation, it is purely subjective and based on the physical features of certain groups... I view "race" as such, not on some scientific level etc...
and that is true that not every category is useful... especially not this one as so much evil has been done in its name... so that was the end of my conclusion above - quote:
Well at least it is an attempt to change the society on the better... facing the problems straight on should be the best, but how do you do that? |
but anyway it is so apparent that it's not going to go away... still some people should learn that it makes no difference where you come from to for an opinion about your "abilities" or similar... most likely the differences are cultural and that's the whole deal... but hey a little tolerance can go a long way for having a better life with those around you, not only with those from diffecent cultures but with those from your own culture who are a "little annoying" too... give a little understanding and you will get some respect back... that should be preached 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Two, South African "race" was legislated. A Black person from the US who went to SA was legally white. Indians were considered Coloreds, even though many Indians are very white looking (generally upper class Aryans who kept their bloodlines relatively free from indigenous Indians).
In fact, race only exists in places where it is legislated into existence. If the old race laws still applied, many white Americans would not be considered white under the law there. If you had one drop of colored blood (Indian, Black, Asian, etc) you were colored, not white. Of course, if you look white, you can pass, no one cares. So, many Black people in the US were legally white.
|
and in the 1890s many in the US did not consider (south ) Italians or Jews "white" - as they assimilated and rose socially, they "became" "white" .
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2003 20:52
|