Racial classification - Is it racism or racialism?

Hear hear!

There is only one human race, although there are different cultures.
That's the main point!

In my village live kids who came from different regions all over the world, when they were young.
They speak the same dialect like me, they have the same culture.
A black man that speaks Brabant dialect is a man from Brabant.
Language and culture are much more important than skin color or DNA, like I told you before.

The Dutch from the Holland provinces are strange to me.
They talk very strange.
So they are not Dutch anymore..
(Dutch means literally.. People that speak your language.. Dutch word "duidelijk" means "clear/understandable")

I have worked in my career with people from all over the world, and the only thing that is important is that people have to learn to speak the language of the country they live in. Otherwise they don't make it.
It has nothing to do with race, or skin color.

Only language and culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
Because your Y-DNA is Celtic you assume that you have not inherited anything from Frankish ancestors ? That's plain ridiculous.

No, it isn't, and you should know that.
The Franks were passing The Netherlands and Belgium on their way into France.
Frankish remains are very rare in The Netherlands.

The only thing that makes sense is some remains of a court in Nijmegen. Valkhof.
It could have been a resting place of Charlemagne.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkhof
 
Does the usefulness of racial classification make it okay in your mind then? Do you agree with MM and say that it doesn't matter when people role their eyes or feel get upset, it is what it is?

But he didn't say that it doesn't matter. He merely questioned WHY people get upset over the issue of racial classification, and gave some fairly insightful answers.
 
The question is rather why does someone want to divide people into racial categories? But each time I ask this question the only answer I get are rolling eyes and pitiful head-shakes. Well, actually I can answer that question for myself: because people have the innate drive to do this!
It has basically three functions, first of all it serves as a simplifying cognitive economy, in order to get along with reality which would be too complex and complicated without these classifications. Secondly it provides an own identity, which the individual was unable to find without. It is supposed to answer the questions where do I come from and what is my mission for the future? And third, it is a way of describing, explaining and predicting inner sentiments and judgements with numbers and scientific facts, which could not have been expressed in a different unemotional way.

DUH! :banghead:

Also, is the need for racial classification something even more instinctive? At the basic level, man is a pack animal and with no natural weapons (i.e man is not particularly fast, nor strong, nor has big teeth, nor claws, nor any venom etc for self protection) living in a group or tribe was necessary to man's survival as a species. Co-operation as a group meant added security, safety, greater success at feeding ourselves, the ability to protect hunting grounds/territory from outside incursion plus the ability to more successfully raise and protect the young.

Is this where the idea of race was born, that them and us mentality? But, as already said above, there is much confusion between what is race and what is culture. If we all came out of Africa then, by definiton, we are one race or one species. Evolved into many different cultures certainly but only one race, mankind.
 
Last edited:
He merely questioned WHY people get upset over the issue of racial classification, and gave some fairly insightful answers.

people have the innate drive to do this ... it is a way of describing, explaining and predicting inner sentiments and judgements with numbers and scientific facts, which could not have been expressed in a different unemotional way.

It is called rationalization not insightful at all. He simply distanced himself from the emotional aspects.

He got it wrong IMHO, a natural drive does not make people angry (role eyes or upset). Human nature is to associate not dissociate? To form relationships and to bond with others comes from a basic human drive, not to classify, predict, use numbers, scientific facts and all that snottiness.
 
Also, is the need for racial classification something even more instinctive?

To control something you need to classify it, place it in a box and exercise authority over when and how you would like to use it. Statistics and research is about taking control of the data.

A person's need for control is directly proportional to their feelings of inadequacy or insecurity.

The state collects personal details of the man in the street to better control society.
Companies collect personal information of the man in the street to better control societies spending habits.

Racial classification is a form of control, we would not be able to extract meaning from our data as easily otherwise.
 
People get upset when they feel not listened to. They want to relate to others and racial classification separates people.

I believe the rationalization that people use to justify racial classification as an attempt to understand 'other people unlike themselves' shows just how far from reality some people are.
 
It is called rationalization not insightful at all. He simply distanced himself from the emotional aspects.

He got it wrong IMHO, a natural drive does not make people angry (role eyes or upset). Human nature is to associate not dissociate? To form relationships and to bond with others comes from a basic human drive, not to classify, predict, use numbers, scientific facts and all that snottiness.

Oh sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough and created some confusion. I'm not sure whether you understood me so I'll try to explain it again.
First of all I agree with Antigone and also believe that taking distance from other groups of people, dividing between 'them and us', also stereotyping, is a natural drive which exists in every human being. And it has a function, by tying together members of one's own group and thus strengthening the survival of it.
It does become a problem when sentiments created by this natural drive have an influence on science. Of course, every field of science can be distorted by emotional perceptions, not only racial classification. But in this field the risk of distorting reality is exceptionally high, as describing the group (nation, culture, ethnicity, race etc...) someone belongs to is about the same as describing oneself. So objectiveness is on the brink. But I believe that most 'race scientists' or amateurs are not aware of this. They create numbers and alleged facts out of sentiments, without knowing.

I think you understood that I was trying to explain how sentiments can be transfered to rational numbers, in order to make them understandable. Well, that would be scientific if someone at least tried to do this conscientiously. But that's not what most race researchers do. What they do is creating facts OUT OF sentiments, which is something completely different and unscientific!

And as Maciamo already said, categorizing things as such (not only human races) is also an inate drive people use in order to get along with reality, otherwise we wouldn't have any science. But I believe that most people who are obessed with classifying humans didn't take humans just by chance of any subject, but because they are on the search of their own identity and perhaps also of their own value, which of course everyone hopes to be higher than that of others. But people are not aware of this, so when confronted with this question the answer are rolling eyes. Or the reply doesn't fit the question. Most frequent example:
Q: "Why do you want to classify human races?"
A: "Science as proved that races do exist!"

(Well, it might be true, but that wasn't the answer to the question, or was it?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
Well the insecurity makes me want to laugh anyway, but sorry Milovan, you are barking up the wrong tree. I may live in Greece, am married to a Greek but am not of Greek ancestry myself.

As I said, and from my experience, the racial purity angle is BS.


All balkan nations when they bicker and insult each other you immediately start hearing them call each other turks and gypsies. you want a normally peaceful serb family to want to attack you, tell them they look like turks or gypsies. this works on greeks, romanians, bulgarians, and albanians too. you ever hear serbs and albanians argue with each other?
the same I find to be true of italians and spaniards when someone says they look north african.

every greek I've ever met is proud to be greek. is this just because they are stuck that way by birth and make the best of it or are they glad they aren't something else? the same can be said of other nations as well.
 
Oh sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough and created some confusion.
Q: "Why do you want to classify human races?"
A: "Science as proved that races do exist!"

This is called a rationalization and in psychological terms highlighted as a 'Defense Mechanism'. Simply stated, you appear threatened by the emotional aspect of racial classification and it is easier for you to express yourself using scientific jargon. It feels safer, you can control it and it distances your personal opinion from the emotional debate. This is what upsets many people, people do not like it when we rationalize or intellectualize their feelings away in one foul swoop!
 
This is what upsets many people, people do not like it when we rationalize or intellectualize their feelings away in one foul swoop!

Look..
I mostly talk for myself. The above sentence shows how the trick is done to pretend to speak for a majority.

Like I said, I am from The Netherlands. My feelings about my country and the people are neutral.
I know the Dutch have positive but also negative things.
So, there is absolutely no reason to be proud, of being a Dutchman, or even what appears to be my own ethnic group.

And, yes, I am a typical left wing libertarian.
I guess because I make up my own mind.

People who are afraid of the world, seek company to feel safe.
It doesn't matter what image the group has, when the group paints their noses blue, they also do that.
That tribal urge seems to be natural, as a defense mechanism.
And so we see blue noses fighting red noses within a few days.

But there is nothing scientific in putting them in a blue nose, or red nose category.
It's just 2 different cultures.
 
I like to make people think outside the box, to stir the pot. I like to use words that there is nothing wrong with but for some reason make people uncomfortable. I do this intentionally, their reactions to it tells me something about them as a person, how they think or you could say their mentality.

Earlier I used the word mutt when referring to people, if you are offended by that word it tells me something about you, that for some reason you think that is a bad word and you wish people wouldn't use it because of an insecurity to it. I myself am a euro-mutt, my ancestry is from several nations, I am perfectly comfortable with the word mutt. If we were talking about dogs and used the word mutt or let's just say we used the word half-breed, no one would bat an eye but you say the same thing about people regardless if it's true or not or even a joke and you get a reaction. If your dog is a mutt or a half-breed do you have an inferior dog? of course not, then why do these so-called anti-racist types immediately think bad things if you use those same words in a different context? I believe it is their own insecurities that make them uncomfortable, they possibly even look for things to be uncomfortable about.

The world is turning into George Orwell's 1984 newspeak, when you cannot even talk about things that are blatantly obvious without getting knee-jerk reactions and people instantly judging you because of the words you use. Why does the words "racial classification" instantly bring up bad thoughts? Why can't it be a good thing? The term aryan or IE whatever, highlights similarities between europe and parts of asia. The term caucasian groups europe together with the middle east, north africa and central asia.
Is that, in and of itself a bad thing?
When political correctness censors science because it does not like the results, there can be no progress. It has happened before, King Tut's y-dna, Tocharian mummies, many other examples where someone with a political bias trying to stand in the way of science.
 
This is called a rationalization and in psychological terms highlighted as a 'Defense Mechanism'. Simply stated, you appear threatened by the emotional aspect of racial classification and it is easier for you to express yourself using scientific jargon. It feels safer, you can control it and it distances your personal opinion from the emotional debate. This is what upsets many people, people do not like it when we rationalize or intellectualize their feelings away in one foul swoop!

Ah, now I got what you mean! This is practically how other people react then on these scientific facts. Yes, I agree!
 
I like to make people think outside the box, to stir the pot. I like to use words that there is nothing wrong with but for some reason make people uncomfortable. I do this intentionally, their reactions to it tells me something about them as a person, how they think or you could say their mentality.

Earlier I used the word mutt when referring to people, if you are offended by that word it tells me something about you, that for some reason you think that is a bad word and you wish people wouldn't use it because of an insecurity to it. I myself am a euro-mutt, my ancestry is from several nations, I am perfectly comfortable with the word mutt. If we were talking about dogs and used the word mutt or let's just say we used the word half-breed, no one would bat an eye but you say the same thing about people regardless if it's true or not or even a joke and you get a reaction. If your dog is a mutt or a half-breed do you have an inferior dog? of course not, then why do these so-called anti-racist types immediately think bad things if you use those same words in a different context? I believe it is their own insecurities that make them uncomfortable, they possibly even look for things to be uncomfortable about.

The world is turning into George Orwell's 1984 newspeak, when you cannot even talk about things that are blatantly obvious without getting knee-jerk reactions and people instantly judging you because of the words you use. Why does the words "racial classification" instantly bring up bad thoughts? Why can't it be a good thing? The term aryan or IE whatever, highlights similarities between europe and parts of asia. The term caucasian groups europe together with the middle east, north africa and central asia.
Is that, in and of itself a bad thing?
When political correctness censors science because it does not like the results, there can be no progress. It has happened before, King Tut's y-dna, Tocharian mummies, many other examples where someone with a political bias trying to stand in the way of science.

Now you bring up a good point! "Racial classification" is not only about scientific correctness, but also about political correctness.
First of all, using the word mutt, or also bastard, are no scientific terms and therefore shouldn't be used when we talk intellectually. It is about the same thing Dorianfinder mentioned before, these words have emotional connotations. If you use them you'll get suspected that all of your scientific work is emotionally driven and so without any further importance.
Further, being called mutt or bastard may be no insult for you, but for most people it actually is considered a form of humiliation. PC was invented to prevent humiliation. Especially in racial classification you can intentionally take a lot of words which are on the dividing line between humilitation and scientifc expression.
And if you demean or rise the "value" of people in words, then you have also a legitimate reason to treat them according to their alleged value in real life. And that is exactly what the Nazis did during their reign. I don't know exactly what it is like in other countries or languages, but basically all Nazi rhetoric, even if it doesn't sound politically incorrect on first glance, has been abandoned in Germany (e.g. aryan, negro, ethnic hygiene/pest/purity). Yes, in German even the word race as such, has been abandoned. I still have a school book from the year 1989, which shows a map of the distribution of human races (including Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean etc...). One year later, with the next edition, this map was removed. That was about in the years of the end of the Soviet Union and the German unification, that also the Nazi past was reappraised again. Also the terms "First, Second and Third World" were abolished.
But basic thing is, you actually can create violence and harm with words!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FBS
All balkan nations when they bicker and insult each other you immediately start hearing them call each other turks and gypsies. you want a normally peaceful serb family to want to attack you, tell them they look like turks or gypsies. this works on greeks, romanians, bulgarians, and albanians too. you ever hear serbs and albanians argue with each other?
the same I find to be true of italians and spaniards when someone says they look north african.

every greek I've ever met is proud to be greek. is this just because they are stuck that way by birth and make the best of it or are they glad they aren't something else? the same can be said of other nations as well.

So?

You are talking about differences between various cultures, not various races. Even so, it doesn't have a lot to do with the topic.
 
But basic thing is, you actually can create violence and harm with words!

I agree!
That is what the consequences are of the hate speak of the lunatic Geert Wilders.
 
It is not only the use of offensive words and their consequence. There is something a bit creepy about someone who says they deliberately use hateful words just so they can see the reaction those words create.
 
Of course.
But my father told me that every racist word you use, is a brick in the wall of a Nazi concentration camp.
He fought for liberty.
So I have to do that also.
 
I believe that racial classification have sense because races have different characteristics, far not only different skin colour.
For example in sport: blacks always were very good runners, basketball players while white europoids & asians often dominate in strength kinds of sports, gymnastics etc... is not it real racial differences? And list does not end with sports.
 
A definition and explanation on the word race from a dictionary.

race 1 (r
amacr.gif
s)
n. 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations
mdash.gif
Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid
mdash.gif
are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points
mdash.gif
such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another
mdash.gif
many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
 

This thread has been viewed 49183 times.

Back
Top