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.
Printable View
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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!
But that's simply not factual. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human): Homo Sapiens (Sapiens).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
And humans are a race
Wish I could claim that I thought the problem of 'racism' could be solved just by thinking about our use of a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
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!Quote:
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!
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?Quote:
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 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.
No, by definition, Race is below Species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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.
sorry, double posting
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.
The post I was referring to above.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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?
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?Quote:
Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.
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?
I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
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.
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. I enjoyed the challenge!
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!!
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.
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...!!!
Could not agree with you more the HUMAN RACE is the one RACE, skin color is a different subject, to me anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Pearlgem
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
My comments were redundant, so I deleted them
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
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 HatredQuote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
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
I have always said
"When the lights go off, WE are ALL the SAME COLOR"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
Racism is a strictly American curse? You guys are joking, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
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
My error my wording did not come out right, Racsim IS world wide, I apologies for the way I worded itQuote:
Originally Posted by jeanne