Race

[Pearlgem]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

[mkemse]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

Could not agree more, we ar the United States, Not the Black Sttes, Asian States ect butthe United States, we are all 1 just different back ground

[craven]

i could not agree more, i have often felt that the word racist was indeed itself a derogatory and for want of a better word a "racist" or exclusive term

all humans irrespective of colour, religion or creed belong to the human race, we are the same, to treat another human differently or to disadvantage them because of their ethnicity cant therefore be racist, i feel it is maybe more akin to xenophobia.

Dont get me wrong i am all to aware sadly that such bigotry and small mindedness happens and is prevalent in some societies, however as pearlgem says to label such unpleasant behaviour as racist is i feel demeaning to the people siffering such treatment.

racist, racism is i feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack if understanding, given that we are all of the same race it is surely not possible to be racist to anything other than something not from the human race, a horse or a goat etc.

Thank you pearlgem for having the courage to raise this subject, i am not in any way trying to say or infer that people are not disadvantaged or suffer mistreatment or negative stereotyping as a result of their colour, religion or backgrounds, but it cant be racism.

Lets move into the 21st century here and call this disgusting treatment what it is, xenophobic; and not, all be it possibly unintentionally infer that people who are different from us are a different race.

Humans are one race, fact !!!!

[mkemse]

i could not agree more, i have often felt that the word racist was indeed itself a derogatory and for want of a better word a "racist" or exclusive term

all humans irrespective of colour, religion or creed belong to the human race, we are the same, to treat another human differently or to disadvantage them because of their ethnicity cant therefore be racist, i feel it is maybe more akin to xenophobia.

Dont get me wrong i am all to aware sadly that such bigotry and small mindedness happens and is prevalent in some societies, however as pearlgem says to label such unpleasant behaviour as racist is i feel demeaning to the people siffering such treatment.

racist, racism is i feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack if understanding, given that we are all of the same race it is surely not possible to be racist to anything other than something not from the human race, a horse or a goat etc.

Thank you pearlgem for having the courage to raise this subject, i am not in any way trying to say or infer that people are not disadvantaged or suffer mistreatment or negative stereotyping as a result of their colour, religion or backgrounds, but it cant be racism.

Lets move into the 21st century here and call this disgusting treatment what it is, xenophobic; and not, all be it possibly unintentionally infer that people who are different from us are a different race.

Humans are one race, fact !!!!

.........

[craven]

er i am in no way inferring that you are wrong, in fact i made no reference at all to anything posted than to agree entirely with the sentiments originally posted by pearlgem, the title and subject matter of this thread.

Not at all sure why anyone could have taken any part of my thread and thought i was implying directly or indirectly that there was any race or xenophobic issues or undertones associated with a topic that i in no way referred to, posted on or made any reference to.

sorry if my post has been misconstrued, however this was never my intention, i was as stated contributing to the thread as started by pearlgem, one of race and the inclusiveness of the human race

[Pearlgem]

racist, racism is I feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding

Thank you, craven. I must admit I am constantly amazed that no ever seems to challenge the use of this term. (Another one I object to is 'ethnic cleansing' which make murder sound like good hygiene.)

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

[Thorne]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

[Pearlgem]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

I'd use the term 'race' to signify ethnic differences if it didn't already mean something else scientifically which makes a nonsense of trying to describe differences between us this way. Might as well say 'human' and sub-human.'


Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.


This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

[hopperboo]

Are we talking about race

Open eyes.



I do not believe in judging someone on color at all. I think some people would be horrible if they were pink with lavender polka dots. (And those are my two favorite colors!)

There are however, different cultures, and different...ways of acting that one can see, and yes, sometimes based on color.

No one should be judged right off on their skin color though.

No one.

[rce]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

Modern medicine and genetics have determined that there are more differences between people within one of the traditionally defined human races than between many people of different such races.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

[rce]

..........

[denuseri]

It is absurb to attempt to ignore issues of race by trying to ignore our differences.

Did not we as human beings adapt to the different enviroments on our planet in such a way that large divisons of us were seperated from one another for long enough time period to develope different dominant genitic traits??

Eskimos dont withstand the cold better then aboringines??

Tebitians and Andeans dont thrive in the higher altitudes better than people from Sri Lanka or Hawai?

That certian genitic based disease proccessess dont threaten some segments of the population more than others and that those divisions fall along those lines (in many cases) along the same lines as those divisons politically identified with the term "race"?

I wonder why in the medical community we are tuaght to diagnose using such identifying traits in taking patient histories then, if they are not factors. Humm, mabey all that time I spent as a nurse was just a racist indoctronation program.

We are in fact all a little different from one another, with a multitude of various ways of identifing and distinguishing ourselfs as both individuals and as groups, some divisions based on genitics that produce certian traits and others based on actions/ beliefs.

To ignore that is to ignore a primary component of what being human is all about.

Diversity and survival as a species go hand in hand.

Discrimination happens, it sucks, but it is there, and I believe belays the more animal side of human nature to fear and or try and destroy that which it doesnt understand or precieves (if even incorectly as a threat). A basic evolutionary survival instinct.

But what really seperates us from most animals is that we are capable of establishing relationships with those things (people and animals) that are different from us despite any primal fears.

Acceptance of one another despite our differences is for me what really should define us as human beings.

[mkemse]

It is absurb to attempt to ignore issues of race by trying to ignore our differences.

Did not we as human beings adapt to the different enviroments on our planet in such a way that large divisons of us were seperated from one another for long enough time period to develope different dominant genitic traits??

Eskimos dont withstand the cold better then aboringines??

Tebitians and Andeans dont thrive in the higher altitudes better than people from Sri Lanka or Hawai?

That certian genitic based disease proccessess dont threaten some segments of the population more than others and that those divisions fall along those lines (in many cases) along the same lines as those divisons politically identified with the term "race"?

I wonder why in the medical community we are tuaght to diagnose using such identifying traits in taking patient histories then, if they are not factors. Humm, mabey all that time I spent as a nurse was just a racist indoctronation program.

We are in fact all a little different from one another, with a multitude of various ways of identifing and distinguishing ourselfs as both individuals and as groups, some divisions based on genitics that produce certian traits and others based on actions/ beliefs.

To ignore that is to ignore a primary component of what being human is all about.

Diversity and survival as a species go hand in hand.

Discrimination happens, it sucks, but it is there, and I believe belays the more animal side of human nature to fear and or try and destroy that which it doesnt understand or precieves (if even incorectly as a threat). A basic evolutionary survival instinct.

But what really seperates us from most animals is that we are capable of establishing relationships with those things (people and animals) that are different from us despite any primal fears.

Acceptance of one another despite our differences is for me what really should define us as human beings.

Nicely put and said

[Torq]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

Lets get back on track from the original post NOT POLITICS

If you wish to debate issues about Politics go to that area.

THANKS!!!

T

[Pearlgem]

Sorry folks, but I didn't start this thread to talk about Obama or to deny that there is diversity among humans. It's simply about the proposition that using the word 'race' to describe our differences is technically inaccurate and further, that it divides us in a way that I think is unhelpful and dangerous. If you see someone as a different 'race' from you, you are labelling them as less human than you, not merely different. We are all one race. Our differences are many and varied - biological, social, cultural - but they are not to do with 'race'.

[Thorne]

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.
I thought I had made this point, and that this is not necessarily bad.


I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.
Yes, I have to agree that 'ethnic group' is a less inflammatory way of describing our differences than 'race'. And please remember, these are simply differences, not necessarily better or worse, just different.


Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. Evolution has allowed different groups to survive in different environments, making them more adapted to those environments. As denuseri points out in her post, these traits are crucial to individuals survival, even in a modern culture. But these are not necessarily bad or good! A native of Saharan Africa would have just as much difficulty surviving in a Himalayan country, as a Sherpa would in the Sahara.

I saw a program today which stated that all of humanity's genes can be traced back about 75,000 years to about 5,000 breeding females on the African continent. Humans are among the least genetically diverse species on the planet, something which came as a surprise to me. According to this program, a person from, say, Scandinavia has fewer genetic differences from a person from Africa, than do two chimpanzees in the same social group!

At the genetic level, we are more alike than I ever realized. And continued interbreeding between ethnic groups narrows those differences even more. The time will come, I have no doubt, when we will all be same, both genetically and politically. It's inevitable.

[Ragoczy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)


In biology, a race is any inbreeding group, including taxonomic subgroups such as subspecies, taxonomically subordinate to a species and superordinate to a subrace and marked by a pre-determined profile of latent factors of hereditary traits.

Biologically, "race" is the correct term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

Anthropologically, there is debate as to whether "race" is the correct term, especially given amount of genetic mixture between races in modern cultures, but that debate is primarily driven by political correctness and not real science. Race is simply a subset of genetic traits that tend to breed true.

The "only one race" line makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't scientifically accurate. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), as marked by humanity's ability to reproduce with fertile offspring.

Redefining terms for purposes of political correctness is a slippery-slope fraught with unforeseen peril. To use a racial example, since it's the topic of this thread, I was once taken to task for using the term "black" instead of African-American -- which might have made sense if the audience hadn't been multi-national. Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

[Ragoczy]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

What demeans and dehumanizes us all is racism, bigotry and irrational prejudice (three very different things) -- changing the terms won't do away with them.

[TwistedTails]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

That would be an inrteresting conversation to hear!

[Pearlgem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Biologically, "race" is the correct term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

Anthropologically, there is debate as to whether "race" is the correct term, especially given amount of genetic mixture between races in modern cultures, but that debate is primarily driven by political correctness and not real science. Race is simply a subset of genetic traits that tend to breed true.

The "only one race" line makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't scientifically accurate. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), as marked by humanity's ability to reproduce with fertile offspring.

Redefining terms for purposes of political correctness is a slippery-slope fraught with unforeseen peril. To use a racial example, since it's the topic of this thread, I was once taken to task for using the term "black" instead of African-American -- which might have made sense if the audience hadn't been multi-national. Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

[Thorne]

Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

LOL! Yeah, that might make things a bit sticky. And what about white Africans who've emmigrated to the US? Aren't they also African-Americans?

[Thorne]

[I]...it leads to ideas like...
your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority.

[Pearlgem]

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

[clipcrop]

Back in the 50's and 60's, eugenics was (to some) a serious branch of scientific study.

[Ragoczy]

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

There is nothing in the legitimate definition of race to indicate superiority or inferiority. It refers to a set of inheritable characteristics, some good and some bad in each group.

Misuse of the term and bad science done in testing do not justify redefining scientific terms.

[Ragoczy]

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

Please read the actual definition of race -- it's simply a subset of a species with a set of identifiable, inheritable genetic traits.

Again, misuse of the term by "scientists" who's studies are demonstrably garbage and follow a flawed methodology aren't relevant to the definition of a word. By concentrating on the definition, rather than the real problem of bigotry and racism, the real problem is ignored and allowed to grow.

It's like repainting the ceiling to cover a water stain but never fixing the roof.

[Pearlgem]

The 'actual definition of race' is part of the problem - there isn't one that even scientists will agree on, not unless you go with the entirely unproblematic 'human race.'

When people talk about 'racism' it's on the assumption that this word means bigoted discrimination. In fact, it's an inappropriate term to use. Why does this matter? Because it implies that the things I don't like about you because you're different, I can dismiss as biological. And if that's the case, there's far less imperative to do anything about it/look to my own responses or examine my culpability because, after all, 'race' is a biological 'fact.'

Do I think reclaiming the term will cure all the bigotry in the world? Of course not. This isn't a thread about that. It's about the terms we use and the ideology behind them and the clearer vision we could have if we stopped misnaming things and saw them more clearly.

[Thorne]

It's about the terms we use and the ideology behind them and the clearer vision we could have if we stopped misnaming things and saw them more clearly.

And yet you would have us ignore basic, fundamental biological differences between humans just so we can have this "clearer vision"? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?

Shall we also stop using the terms male and female, just because some people associate females with lower intelligence or lesser abilities or some other derogatory features? Shall we burn all the copies of "Huckleberry Finn" just because Twain uses the term "nigger" in the book?

The negative associations that people have are not caused by the words they are using, but by their own ignorance. Better to educate them in the true meanings of words and the scientific truths of the equality of the human races.

[Pearlgem]

And yet you would have us ignore basic, fundamental biological differences between humans just so we can have this "clearer vision"? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?

Shall we also stop using the terms male and female, just because some people associate females with lower intelligence or lesser abilities or some other derogatory features? Shall we burn all the copies of "Huckleberry Finn" just because Twain uses the term "nigger" in the book?

The negative associations that people have are not caused by the words they are using, but by their own ignorance. Better to educate them in the true meanings of words and the scientific truths of the equality of the human races.


Do you really think that the ridiculous things you propose equate in any way with my pointing out that there is in fact only one human race?

[Tufty]

I just treat people as people...first and foremost. Doesn't matter to me what colour their skin is, what culural differences there may be, what their abilities are, what their sexuality is...they're all people!

[Pearlgem]

With respect, Tufty, I'm sure we all agree with your sentiments. My original post was about one specific example of language we use which, in my opinion, is an unscientific and unecessarily divisive term to express difference between us.

[Thorne]

Do you really think that the ridiculous things you propose equate in any way with my pointing out that there is in fact only one human race?


Do you really think that the ridiculous things you propose equate in any way with my pointing out that there is in fact only one human race?

Do you really think that denying that the human race is composed of biologically diverse and identifiable sub-groups will solve racism? You can call them whatever you like: races, ethnic groups, sub groups, whatever. Hell, call them banana daqueries if you like. It doesn't change the fact that, for example, any competent medical student can differentiate between Mongoloid, Negroid or Caucasians, just by examining the skulls!

True, there are many, many blends of these 'races', and the blending is growing more and more common as the years progress, and that's a good thing, both socially and genetically. But at this point in time there are still many differences, physically and genetically, between the groups.

And none of it has anything to do with racism! Racism is a strictly social and emotional issue, not a genetic one. It's an issue we must fight every day, and keep on fighting to eradicate it. But let's not try to hide the truth in politically correct statements which sound good but have no real meat to them. Are there differences between us? Absolutely, and that's a good thing. Do these differences make someone else better or worse than me? Absolutely NOT!

[Ragoczy]

Do you really think that the ridiculous things you propose equate in any way with my pointing out that there is in fact only one human race?

But that's simply not factual. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human): Homo Sapiens (Sapiens).

[Pearlgem]

And humans are a race

[Pearlgem]

Do you really think that denying that the human race is composed of biologically diverse and identifiable sub-groups will solve racism?

Wish I could claim that I thought the problem of 'racism' could be solved just by thinking about our use of a word.


You can call them whatever you like: races, ethnic groups, sub groups, whatever. Hell, call them banana daqueries if you like. It doesn't change the fact that, for example, any competent medical student can differentiate between Mongoloid, Negroid or Caucasians, just by examining the skulls!

Is there variety among humans? Of course, I would hardly deny this. I'm just claiming that this variety isn't racial variety. We ascribe too much difference and otherness and perhaps superiority through the unexamined use of this word. Many do this on the most spurious and superficial of physical or cultural evidence, not even post mortem examination!


True, there are many, many blends of these 'races', and the blending is growing more and more common as the years progress, and that's a good thing, both socially and genetically. But at this point in time there are still many differences, physically and genetically, between the groups.

And none of it has anything to do with racism! Racism is a strictly social and emotional issue, not a genetic one. It's an issue we must fight every day, and keep on fighting to eradicate it. But let's not try to hide the truth in politically correct statements which sound good but have no real meat to them. Are there differences between us? Absolutely, and that's a good thing. Do these differences make someone else better or worse than me? Absolutely NOT!

You argue unnecessarily for how could I, or anyone reasonable, disagree that xenophobia is a bad thing? I'm not for discrimination just because I draw attention to the use of a word, so do you think you could take that as read and focus more on the use of language which is the reason I started this thread?

You can turn this into a thread on political correctness if you like, but labeling something you disagree with as PC does not make it so, and tends to stymie the actual argument.

[Ragoczy]

And humans are a race

No, by definition, Race is below Species.

Apis mellifera is the Western Honey Bee species, but it is subdivided into multiple races. What makes them a species is that they can all breed and produce fertile offspring -- each race is identified by distinct, recognizable genetic traits.

Humanity is a species -- all humans can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Within humanity there are groups that have distinct, recognizable genetic traits.

Arguing semantics and redefining terms is not going to solve the problem of racism and bigotry. Too much time is spent worrying about the specific words people use and not enough addressing the underlying issues. To use a newly popular phrase, putting the lipstick of semantic change on the pig of racism doesn't do a damn thing to fix the problem.

In the last hundred years, the "right" way to describe people of African descent in the United States has gone from Negro, to Colored, to Black, to African-American -- the last three were driven by that community, and none of those changes had a quantifiable impact on racism or bigotry. All that changed was the words.

Concentrating on words is pointless, because the underlying problem, the mind of the racist, doesn't care one little bit about what words are used. Time and effort is spent complaining when a Spanish teacher teaches colors (black=negro) or when someone uses the word niggardly (because it sounds like something offensive), while both overt and covert racism and bigotry remain entirely unaffected by semantic argument.

Saying there's only one race of humans, no matter how many times it's repeated or by whom, has absolutely no impact on someone who judges people by the color of their skin. Saying that there are no differences between human races is actually counter-productive, because the racist can see with his own eyes that there are genetic differences between the groups of people and since that argument is now proven wrong to him, anything else you say must be wrong as well.

[Pearlgem]

sorry, double posting

[Pearlgem]

The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of categorizing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1][2]

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural types or socially constructed, and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.

Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[3] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs.

Even Wikipedia contains this information.

May I also refer you back to my earlier post about the 'evolution of races'? This was scientific orthodoxy at the time. We know now, not only was it scientifically wrong, it was demeaning. It surely matters the language we use, because behind language lies concepts, attitudes and assumptions that may, even unwittingly, perpetuate injustice.

[Pearlgem]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

The post I was referring to above.

[Ragoczy]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Regardless, we don't throw out a valid scientific principle because some yahoo misapplies it. What you're describing above shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts of race and evolution. That text implies a linear evolution from a common ancestor through all races -- that isn't how race works. It's a divergent principle -- from a common ancestor group, different, isolated groups develop different characteristics simultaneously, not in sequence. The text would only be remotely valid if each racial "step" stopped evolving, which simply isn't the case. There may be some common ancestor from Africa for all races, but the people of Africa today will have diverged genetically from that ancestor just as much as those in Scandinavia or China.

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

[Pearlgem]

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Nice to imagine so but you probably wouldn't, being a child and absorbing that information like hundreds and thousands of others in schools across the land. It was presented as the scientific orthodoxy of the time, not the crazy notion of some 'yahoo.' Just as well established 'facts' are sometimes challenged, eh?



And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

Again, it was the orthodoxy of the day and plenty of decent, non racist folk would have thought this must be true if scientists say so. People who discriminate in a nasty way can't justify their malice with any reasonable arguments - there aren't any. But they can maintain a 'racial difference' rationale for cultural hatred. The rest of us needn't buy into that.


It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

[tusayan]

I tried to post this earlier but the server conked out on me.

Advanced apologies if this is too academic for the forum but this is an interesting discussion that touches on aspects of my training and profession.

In terms of science. There is no legitimate scientific basis for race as it is conceived today. More specifically, there is no scientifically verifiable basis for the geographic racial categories we use today.

In fact, the concept of race we use today is a modern conceptualization of a notion that gained widespread application in the late 19th century. Even so, the concept of race has been adapted to many different interpretations. According to the general concept of race in the United States, Native American or Indian might be considered a racial type. However, members of different tribes will tell you they are different races than other tribes. Irish or Eastern Europeans were considered a different race from Anglo Saxons in the United States in the past, but would all be subsumed under the "white race" today. Race is a social construct that has no empirically verifiable basis in terms of genetics.

This is not the view of myself or a small group of scientists, the global scientific community has drafted and ratified a statement about race and science. Those that are curious can PM me and I will give a link and/or send you a copy of the statement.

There is one, single human genotype. Meaning we all have the same basic genetic makeup. Any differences are due to the natural history of particular breeding populations. The noticeable differences, such as skin color, adaptations such as increased lung capacity among Andean populations, and other traits that are often tracked as "race" are phenotypic responses to enviromental conditions. There is not a fundamental genetic difference between people of different "races."

In statistical terms, there is more variation within racial categories than between them. That means in the real world that you can't parse out geographical races via the human genome.

There is no scientific evidence that has survived rigorous testing and scrutiny that supports the notion that different races are genetically pre-disposed to any physical or psychological traits.

It has been demonstrated that the phenotypic characteristics that we track as "race" are variable through time. People 10,000 years ago did not fall into the racial categories we have constructed today. Nutrition, environment, demographics, genetic mutations and founder's effects, among other causes have lead to the geographic distribution of traits as we see them today. In another century or millennium, they will be completely different.

[tusayan]

I should amend the second to last sentence to say "in any deterministic sense."

Mutation, demography, adaptation, natural selection and other processes can result in differing frequencies of traits in a population. However, this phenomenon is part of a process - it can change. There is no immutable natural order or trait list.

[Pearlgem]

Thank you, T.

Let's be aware that when we casually use the term 'race' to denote often merely visual or spurious differences between humans, as most of us do day to day - it's the 'orthodox' term - we're wrongly ascribing the natural variations of a common humanity to 'racial'/physical differences that, to my mind, entrench them and divide us unnecessarily.
Wouldn't it be good if, having examined the terms we use, we choose to use more accurate language that unites us in our common humanity instead of placing barriers between us that don't actually exist?

[Thorne]

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

[tusayan]

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

That's a bit of a nihilistic view that anyone can claim anything to be a scientific fact. While that's true on the internet, maybe, the system of testing and peer review tends to correct for spurious claims in actual practice.

You're right in the strict sense of testing the null hypothesis that there is simply no evidence to refute the hypothesis (not the data, since the data often form the evidence but I think you probably meant to say that). You don't ever truly close the door to further testing, even of established ideas. However, there is also the principle that you sample to redundancy, then can be confident of the results. We are still learning about genetics in many ways but I'm confident we can jettison outdated concepts based on the available evidence.

In any case, don't want to jack the thread with philosophy of science talk so I'll leave it there.

[Pearlgem]

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I enjoyed the challenge!

[awakening2]

I have a feeling that every one is agreeing on the word race, but differ and argue when it comes to its meaningful application. I agree there is only one race - a human race. But then come sub classifications which can be in form of skin colour which then may be further classified on geo-biological forms; the white of Greece are different then the whites of say German race or the Aboriginal blacks are different from the African blacks, for instance. Fact, nevertheless, remains that all of these sub-classification remains under same genetic format “human race”. Thus if two matching reproductive meet within the same genetic format they will result into a productive outcome. Having said that, it is also a fact that each sub classification has its own virtues/faculties, so when different sub classified races “meet” the “purity” of each sub-classified race is lost, and is replaced by a unique blend of the faculties of those two distinguished sub-classified genes/races.

In the animal kingdom, zoos around the world has in principle decided to keep the nature in its purest form, so even if there are two similar animals (say lion or a tiger race), through investigation is done (some times to the tenth predecessor on family tree) to ensure that when breeding program is planned, exact match is there to ensure nature remains in its purest form, that is if it is a lion, it must be from the same very species background. In a more distinguishable example, let me say either a lion or a tiger. Out of the World Zoos authorities, private owners have mixed tigers and lion to derive ligress. Ligress is neither a tiger not a lion, so at its best we can say another animal sub species from amongst the big cat race; it has its own faculties that are different from that of a pure tiger or a lion. Mixed races are not what ideally nature had intended, nevertheless still remains within the extended boundaries, or say acceptable limits of the nature. Similarly within humans if two different sub-races will “meet”, the result will be a blend, which would be though within the macro human race but uniquely different then the sub-classified original races. Coming to the point, all I will say is that race and sub classified races remain a fact, those who deny …. Well, let me say that they have the right to their opinion...! However, having said that, I would sure distinguish between race and racism, both are undeniable facts. The first (race) generated by nature, the second generated by humans – the first, for me is better then the second! To me my first preference would be to have a blend of fruits – that is a fruit salad, which is at its best when each different fruit item is distinguishable so not only to give best unique flavour, but also to match with visual delight; mashed them and I may loose my appetite. But then I also nourish some time, YES some times, a blend of different fruit juices, for instance a touch of carrot in apple juice, which add both to the flavour as well as nourishment, and is not too bad!!

[Pearlgem]

The healthiest way the human race could proceed from a biological and genetic standpoint is to mix ethnicities - mix so-called 'races'. 'Hybrid vigour' produced offspring that are biologically at least as healthy if not healthier than their parents. Breeding from a small or inbred gene pool weakens us. Pure bred dogs suffer hugely increased deformities and illnesses. Interbreeding cousins over generations - well, see 'Deliverance.' Humans are not 'pure' although we have recognisable ethnic differences. It is healthiest for us to mix.

[awakening2]

Wow, I did not knew it has become an established fact...I still rather would see different colors of life...for me nature is and will always remain more beautiful...!!!

[mkemse]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

Could not agree with you more the HUMAN RACE is the one RACE, skin color is a different subject, to me anyway
I also hope now that it is 2009, that the issue of "RAce" or "Colr" vanish from the scence, who thought 10 years ago that in 2009 American would Inugurate and Afircan American President< yes strides have been mae but many, many more to go
I hope people judge people based on woh they and NOTHING ELSE

[MMI]

My comments were redundant, so I deleted them

[awakening2]

I feel personally sad...for if a black person takes over presidency it means "humans have taken stride" does it...? really? so if he had lost to Hilary and she had become president, would it have meant that human race had gone many strides backward? I would not consider a society developed as long people see blackness in Obama foremost or female gender in Hilary before their personalities, credentials and their other faculties. Respect humans, their natural colors or genders as they are, do not try to change them to your liking. Accept as they are and respect them, not as you want them to be, only then you will discover their real beauty and grow to the maturity level which our society requires. Do not say that society has developed because a black has become president, say society has developed because the better person was chosen among all; the very mentioning of the color rather then the faculties, abilities and other credentials, speaks racism is there...only not ready to be admitted

[mkemse]

Race is Only an issue in America anyway, because the American People have made it an issue since the start of the History of this Country for some reason so many issues in thiscountry seem to be based on "Race" and not who the person is

[wmrs2]

Could not agree with you more the HUMAN RACE is the one RACE, skin color is a different subject, to me anyway
I also hope now that it is 2009, that the issue of "RAce" or "Colr" vanish from the scence, who thought 10 years ago that in 2009 American would Inugurate and Afircan American President< yes strides have been mae but many, many more to go
I hope people judge people based on woh they and NOTHING ELSE
Well said gentleman. Keep saying it until all Americans see the light.

[mkemse]

Well said gentleman. Keep saying it until all Americans see the light.

They never will which is Unfortunate, There will always be Bigots and Racists but remember Rascism is not Inherited it is taught in the family, you are not born a racist you are raised to believe in Racism and Bigortry and that type of Hatred
I became "color blind "many, many years ago, when I was old enough to know what it meant you know what type of "Color Blind I mean)
Every groups of people has their good ones and bad one, there are bad Whites, African Americans ect. ect
But Racism is taught not Inheritated

[brokenartist]

I have always said

"When the lights go off, WE are ALL the SAME COLOR"

[jeanne]

Race is Only an issue in America anyway, because the American People have made it an issue since the start of the History of this Country for some reason so many issues in thiscountry seem to be based on "Race" and not who the person is


Well said gentleman. Keep saying it until all Americans see the light.


They never will which is Unfortunate, There will always be Bigots and Racists but remember Rascism is not Inherited it is taught in the family, you are not born a racist you are raised to believe in Racism and Bigortry and that type of Hatred
I became "color blind "many, many years ago, when I was old enough to know what it meant you know what type of "Color Blind I mean)
Every groups of people has their good ones and bad one, there are bad Whites, African Americans ect. ect
But Racism is taught not Inheritated

Racism is a strictly American curse? You guys are joking, right?

[TwistedTails]

Some people get such odd ideas of what America is like from watching television and soaking up the media B.S. Can't correct their views either. They just don't want to believe that they have been spoon fed a very narrow view designed to make them twitch emotionally

C'est_la_vie

[mkemse]

Racism is a strictly American curse? You guys are joking, right?

My error my wording did not come out right, Racsim IS world wide, I apologies for the way I worded it

[Thorne]

I have always said

"When the lights go off, WE are ALL the SAME COLOR"

Yeah, but some of us feel lumpier than others.

[Belgarold]

Yeah, but some of us feel lumpier than others.

With me you would be hard put to find anybody else I am so lumpy. ;-)

[Thorne]

With me you would be hard put to find anybody else I am so lumpy. ;-)

Yeah, me too. But we're lumpy in all the wrong places!

[Belgarold]

LOL. Yes, sadly. :-)

[ashamed_of_myself]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

I agree with you one hundred percent, Pearlgem! (Despite the fact that I do have a thing for Identity Play (http://www.RacePlayVideos.com) BDSM and Racial Humiliation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_humiliation), I still believe that deep down inside all of us are still Human! Yeah, I know, this may sound a little bit hypocritical, but remember, much of BDSM is just centered around fantasy acting and roleplaying, right?) :redface-new:

[iseult]

I have never really experianced race discrimination untill my daughter was born. untill that point in my life I would have said that race issues were largely a thing of the past and that as a society we had mostly moved on.

Now I am not so sure.

Its difficult to continue to feel that way when you have to comfort your 4 year old daughter who has come back from nursery in bits because a child there told her 'you are black, why don't you just go home, back to where you belong' (she is half Persian half kiwi by 'race' but her home is the u.k!). Or when you spend 4 hours after flying half way around a planet trying to convince immigration that your daughter is actually your daughter and that you are not in fact child trafficking, simply because she looks different from you and has a different last name. It's very tempting to take off the rose coloured glasses when you are asked for the 100th time 'what relationship you have with the child that you have bought into the out patient department for her appointment today' (oh you mean because we look a little different, that would be her momma, and proud). and it is easy to feel cynical when your yet to be born baby has 'HIGH T.B RISK:immunise post partum!!!!!' stamped a thousand times in her medical records on the basis of her last name only. Yes it is easy to become cynical about all that. I choose instead to feel heart broken for the 5 year old boy at nursery who who upset my wee girl so much, that he has parents who have taught him to hate and not to love. I choise to be greatful that there are people out there working so hard to tackle child trafficking. I choose to educate the nurses and the doctors who assume I can not be related to my daughter simply because I am blonde and she is dark. I choose to feel greatful that my child received an expensive immunisation for free, one that she really absolutely didn't qualify for on the basis of her risk, but that may one day save her life. Like most things in life it's all about perspective. Race discrimination is still most certainly an issue in society, less than in the past certainly, but still an issue. It is how we choose to deal with that discrimination that is important.

my 2 pence for what it is worth.

[slaveboy 6]

Let's see, we have black, white, red, yellow, and brown... But what we all are... is HUMAN!