PDA

View Full Version : Racial classification - Is it racism or racialism?



Dorianfinder
17-08-11, 20:15
Some people argue that dividing humans into racial categories is scientific racism. How should people be classified then? What do you propose?

Some scientific categories include:
Semitic, Indo-European, African, Middle-Eastern, Caucasian, Mongoloid etc.

How useful are these categories really?

Reinaert
17-08-11, 21:40
They are not useful.
All humans are of the same race.

I am a Celtic European, my wife is from Greece or Roman.

I am R1b, my wife is J2 (yDNA)

Dorianfinder
17-08-11, 22:35
They are not useful.
All humans are of the same race.

I am a Celtic European, my wife is from Greece or Roman.

I am R1b, my wife is J2 (yDNA)

Thank-you for sharing Reinaert. I would think that being Celtic matters to you otherwise you would not have gone to the trouble of finding out what your haplogroup is.

Racial stratification is a scientific term but most people simply call it racism because it divides humans into categories and this highlights our differences using terms less offensive such as phenotype or appearance instead of race and skin color.

I know that without the terms 'Germanic, African or Celtic' we would have great difficulty explaining our theories to one another. Population geneticists use racial stereotyping on a daily basis, are these stereotypes accurate or are these so-called ethno-linguistic classifications an attempt to uplift some and suppress others? Just a thought ..

Antigone
18-08-11, 07:29
And an interesting thought. I, personally, loathe racial classification but how is a group of people to be described without using it in one for or another? And it is disappointing (and annoying) that instead of highlighting our similarities, the great and wonderful advances in genetics has been hijacked by many to underscore their own nationalistic and racial purist agendas.

MMmm, there is much food for thought in this thread. I need to think on it and get back later in the day...

Milovan
18-08-11, 08:05
why does purity have to be a bad thing? am I evil for preferring women of my own kind?
why is race denied when it is plainly visible?
there's nothing wrong with racial classification or talking about race in general

sometimes "racism" can be a good thing, do you greeks wish your ancestors would have mixed with turks and there be no more turks or greeks but only some new turco-greek mutt population?
purity doesn't have to be a bad thing
I am glad there are separate nations instead of just one.

I hope this makes you think a little

Maciamo
18-08-11, 09:14
They are not useful.
All humans are of the same race.


That's a contradiction of term. If humans are a single race, what species do they belong to ? Apes ? That would presuppose that we can mate with chimps and gorillas, which we can't. The term 'race' is used as a category to subdivide members of a same species into phenotypically different groups, usually the result of long separate evolutions, as can be observed between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid people. There are of course many intermediary sub-races, and countless of ethnic groups within racial groups. Denying that humans can be classified in races, sub-races and ethnic groups amounts to rejecting scientific classification of humans. It is as bad as negating evolution.

Mzungu mchagga
18-08-11, 11:13
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:

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 11:51
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 born drive to do this!
It has basically three functions, first of all it serves as a 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 assessments with numbers and scientific facts, which could not have been expressed in a different unemotionally way.

DUH! :banghead:

It is interesting how we find two contrasting approaches to this question. Mzungu mchagga and Antigone are good examples. Mzungu mchagga immediately felt the need to highlight the utilitarian aspects in this way distancing himself from the human aspect. Antigone appeared emotionally drawn to the human aspect and needed time to express what she was feeling.

Utilitarianism vs. Humanism

Which one do you subscribe to? Is it possible to profess both or is this hypocritical?

Knovas
18-08-11, 16:56
Sometimes has been discussed the same here. I think different races exist, since some characteristics are perfectly apreciable (plain observation) and genetic works are showing this with numbers and graphics. Nothing bad on it.

Are useful at a descriptive level, and if we are interested to know how this ramifications appeared, we must first of all do the pertinent identifications (reports). It's part of the human background, like it or not.

Antigone
18-08-11, 17:30
why does purity have to be a bad thing? am I evil for preferring women of my own kind?
why is race denied when it is plainly visible?
there's nothing wrong with racial classification or talking about race in general

sometimes "racism" can be a good thing, do you greeks wish your ancestors would have mixed with turks and there be no more turks or greeks but only some new turco-greek mutt population?
purity doesn't have to be a bad thing
I am glad there are separate nations instead of just one.

I hope this makes you think a little

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.

Reinaert
18-08-11, 17:42
Well, what I wrote is to amplify the idiocy of "races".
I am a Dutchman from the south.
We already live in Brabant for maybe 3000 years, and I had my YDNA tested simply because I volunteered because a historian asked me to. To me it was a surprise that I had YDNA R1b P312. And my wives family had YDNA J2.
So, it doesn't matter at all.

Until a year ago, I always thought I was from Frankish origin.
At school we were told there were 3 tribes in The Netherlands, Frisians, Saxons and Franks.
Brabant was Frankish.
That turned out to be a mistake.

See the Brabant YDNA project.
I participated in that project.

And about the Celts.
You can't even say the Celts are a race.
Just tribes with the same culture, that may have had different DNA.
The same goes for the Germans. (I mean the tribes, not the people of Deutschland/Germany)

I think the word "race" is wrong. There is only 1 human race.
The YDNA tells us very clear, that all humans share the same forefathers!
How can there be different races?

RACE <------- OBSOLETE WORD

Only to be used for fast driving cars and such.

Antigone
18-08-11, 17:44
It is interesting how we find two contrasting approaches to this question. Mzungu mchagga and Antigone are good examples. Mzungu mchagga immediately felt the need to highlight the utilitarian aspects in this way distancing himself from the human aspect. Antigone appeared emotionally drawn to the human aspect and needed time to express what she was feeling.

Utilitarianism vs. Humanism

Which one do you subscribe to? Is it possible to profess both or is this hypocritical?

More classifications? But why does a person have or need suscribe to one or the other? I understood perfectly what MM has expressed and agree with his observations.

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 17:53
More classifications? But why does a person have or need suscribe to one or the other? I understood perfectly what MM has expressed and agree with his observations.

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?

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 18:05
Sometimes has been discussed the same here. I think different races exist, since some characteristics are perfectly apreciable (plain observation) and genetic works are showing this with numbers and graphics. Nothing bad on it.

Are useful at a descriptive level, and if we are interested to know how this ramifications appeared, we must first of all do the pertinent identifications (reports). It's part of the human background, like it or not.

Don't pretend that the description doesn't get you fired up sometimes. Otherwise why do the research?

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 18:12
why does purity have to be a bad thing? am I evil for preferring women of my own kind?
why is race denied when it is plainly visible?
there's nothing wrong with racial classification or talking about race in general

sometimes "racism" can be a good thing, do you greeks wish your ancestors would have mixed with turks and there be no more turks or greeks but only some new turco-greek mutt population?
purity doesn't have to be a bad thing
I am glad there are separate nations instead of just one.

I hope this makes you think a little

You are confusing diversity with racial classes, diversity is a part of nature whereas people look at things and say they belong in this or that box. You don't label diversity, it's all around us and some are better able to adapt to changes or differences. Classifying people is when one person makes a judgment based on another person's racial features, or what he may perceive to be racial features.

Your statement that 'sometimes racism can be a good thing' and 'some new '... mutt population' is a joke right?

Maciamo
18-08-11, 19:09
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's part of human nature to categorise, organise, label, differentiate... That's how we managed to develop civilisations and sciences. If we give hundreds of racial names to dogs, who are basically just one species like humans, why shouldn't we do it for humans ?

Maciamo
18-08-11, 19:12
Until a year ago, I always thought I was from Frankish origin.
At school we were told there were 3 tribes in The Netherlands, Frisians, Saxons and Franks.
Brabant was Frankish.
That turned out to be a mistake.


Because your Y-DNA is Celtic you assume that you have not inherited anything from Frankish ancestors ? That's plain ridiculous.

Btw, Frankish or Celtic are not words that refer to races, but ethnicities. Races are much broader. One could place all Europeans and Middle Easterners under the same race. The problem is to know where to put boundaries. There is obviously a gradient in genetic admixture from North-West Europe to India via the Middle East. Dravidian Indians are obviously a distinct race from Europeans or Middle Easterners. But what about Pakistanis or Indian Brahmins, for instance ? They are good examples of intermediary races.

Dorianfinder
18-08-11, 19:28
Because your Y-DNA is Celtic you assume that you have not inherited anything from Frankish ancestors ? That's plain ridiculous.

Btw, Frankish or Celtic are not words that refer to races, but ethnicities. Races are much broader. One could place all Europeans and Middle Easterners under the same race. The problem is to know where to put boundaries. There is obviously a gradient in genetic admixture from North-West Europe to India via the Middle East. Dravidian Indians are obviously a distinct race from Europeans or Middle Easterners. But what about Pakistanis or Indian Brahmins, for instance ? They are good examples of intermediary races.

Racial categories include factors such as:
Heritable phenotype
Geographic ancestry
Appearance
Culture
Ethnicity
Socio-economic status
Genetic diversity (HG)

Knovas
18-08-11, 19:33
Sometimes, because of the researcher and strange agendas we can find something wrong/strange while reading the report. This is not new.

I consider the question is already answered in my post. But I can tell the same from the opposite side: if we don't want to know anything about us, it's enough forgetting the differences we can observe. But denying the fact does not help, the only question is if we want to face it, find the explanation, correlations between world regions...or not.

I enjoy so much with genetics and, fortunately, things are going in a way I like. We know that humans are not so different from each other but, at the same time, it's posible to make some divisions and expalin quite good how is it possible to find different looks taking the migration out of Africa as reference. Of course, racism has nothing to do here.

Mzungu mchagga
18-08-11, 21:03
It's part of human nature to categorise, organise, label, differentiate... That's how we managed to develop civilisations and sciences. If we give hundreds of racial names to dogs, who are basically just one species like humans, why shouldn't we do it for humans ?
That doesn't contradict to what I've said. I didn't claim that humans can not be categorized, I was simply asking why we do it and you basically repeat it again. And I don't think I have to explain why categorizing people is yet somewhat more emotionally loaded than categorizing animals or plants. Dogs, unlike humans, were bred to races in order to fulfil a certain task in the end, and had to be kept pure in order to rise their usefullness and thus their value. And I believe that the vast majority of people who are obsessed with racial categories transfer this principle on humans.
In real nature purity means incest and on the long run closer to extinction.

Reinaert
18-08-11, 21:34
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.

Reinaert
18-08-11, 21:44
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

Antigone
19-08-11, 06:04
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.

Antigone
19-08-11, 06:59
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.

Dorianfinder
19-08-11, 12:11
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.

Dorianfinder
19-08-11, 12:23
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.

Dorianfinder
19-08-11, 13:08
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.

Mzungu mchagga
19-08-11, 18:12
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?)

Milovan
20-08-11, 09:54
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.

Dorianfinder
20-08-11, 10:12
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!

Reinaert
20-08-11, 10:34
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.

Milovan
20-08-11, 10:48
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.

Mzungu mchagga
20-08-11, 11:09
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!

Mzungu mchagga
20-08-11, 11:54
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!

Antigone
20-08-11, 16:40
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.

Reinaert
20-08-11, 18:07
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.

Antigone
20-08-11, 18:55
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.

Reinaert
20-08-11, 21:27
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.

Anton, Bear's den
20-08-11, 23:30
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.

Antigone
21-08-11, 04:08
A definition and explanation on the word race from a dictionary.

race 1 (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifs)
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 populationshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/mdash.gifCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/mdash.gifare 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 pointshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/mdash.gifsuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anotherhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/mdash.gifmany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

Reinaert
21-08-11, 13:27
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.

No, it's not true.

People develop talents in any direction.
Combined with the environment where a kid grows up, it's natural that some sports prevail in a certain area.
Again, it has nothing to do with race, but only with culture.

Why are the Dutch lousy ice hockey players? They skate very well, and they are also good football players.
The answer is their lenght, not their race. The Dutch are simply to tall to play ice hockey.
They can't sprint and stop, make the fast moves.

Just look at the way a human is built, and you know what sports he/she may be good in.

It's odd to tell this to a Russian, because the Soviet sports were based on this system. :laughing:

Anton, Bear's den
22-08-11, 00:07
No, it's not true.

People develop talents in any direction.
Combined with the environment where a kid grows up, it's natural that some sports prevail in a certain area.
Again, it has nothing to do with race, but only with culture.

Why are the Dutch lousy ice hockey players? They skate very well, and they are also good football players.
The answer is their lenght, not their race. The Dutch are simply to tall to play ice hockey.
They can't sprint and stop, make the fast moves.

Just look at the way a human is built, and you know what sports he/she may be good in.

It's odd to tell this to a Russian, because the Soviet sports were based on this system. :laughing:

I just watched that video :grin:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU4cvmk44MQ&feature=channel_video_title

Reinaert
22-08-11, 18:59
Yes, I told you ..

But David Duke is just selling a book.
I told you the real story for free. It hasn't much to do with genetics how kids develop, but a combination of factors.
I have young Italians seen riding a motorbike up a mountain, like only the best off road champions can do.
They grew up with it.
When I was young in wintertime, I could skate faster than anyone else. Why? We have little lakes. With much grass peeking through the ice. I am 1.75 m.. An advantage on bad ice. Taller guys fell again and again.
Again, I rode a motorbike years ago with -18 degrees Celcius without a problem. Other people freeze to death.
I can resist cold better than warmth.

So, it's partly genetic, partly cultural, partly physical.
People develop in so many directions, but sports emphasize only a small part of it.
That's why sports are not relevant to compare people.

And another thing.. Never believe an American, or Englishman.
Hidden racial propaganda all over the place!

Mzungu mchagga
22-08-11, 19:13
quote:
"Without white people, America wouldn't have become the greatest nation on earth!" (David Duke)

sparkey
22-08-11, 19:34
Do some Europeans consider David Duke reputable? That would be news to me. He's ignored over here.

sparkey
22-08-11, 19:36
And another thing.. Never believe an American, or Englishman.
Hidden racial propaganda all over the place!

That's some funny hypocrisy, Reinaert. :laughing: Don't you notice it?

Reinaert
22-08-11, 21:54
That's some funny hypocrisy, Reinaert. :laughing: Don't you notice it?

No. I am serious about that!
Both Americans and English write a book for earning money, telling the greatest nonsense.
Dan Brown?
Need I tell more? Books about Apocalypse, 2012?

All hogwash!

Americans and English are lacking a feeling of scientific honor.
Sorry to say that.

And it is indeed in the Anglo-American world where racism was first accepted as a normal behavior.
George Washington was indeed a slave trader! You can't deny that!

Mzungu mchagga
22-08-11, 22:04
Do some Europeans consider David Duke reputable? That would be news to me. He's ignored over here.

I've never heared about him before. But after I saw the first video I couldn't resist also watching David Duke's other videos. Though some thoughts seemed to be reasonable at first, he later turned out to become funnier and funnier. I can't understand how someone can seriously quote him.

sparkey
22-08-11, 22:18
Dan Brown?
Need I tell more? Books about Apocalypse, 2012?

Dan Brown exists, therefore you should never trust an American or an Englishman because they're all racist? That doesn't seem to follow to me...


Americans and English are lacking a feeling of scientific honor.
Sorry to say that.

There are undercurrents of rejecting science in segments of American and English culture. OK. But we're still not a bunch of racists because of it.


And it is indeed in the Anglo-American world where racism was first accepted as a normal behavior.
George Washington was indeed a slave trader! You can't deny that!

Huh? The Portuguese were trading slaves before the English. Have you heard of John Hawkins? He effectively started the English slave trade by capturing Portuguese ships.

And Washington was a slave owner who freed his slaves in his will.

That's not to excuse Americans and the English for past crimes, but there's little unique about them that warrants telling everyone to never trust them.

Antigone
23-08-11, 06:25
I've never heared about him before. But after I saw the first video I couldn't resist also watching David Duke's other videos. Though some thoughts seemed to be reasonable at first, he later turned out to become funnier and funnier. I can't understand how someone can seriously quote him.

I hadn't heard of him either, now I'm sorry I have. What a plonker.

Besides, I'd never trust a person whose teeth are whiter than their shirt!

Antigone
23-08-11, 06:42
No. I am serious about that!
Both Americans and English write a book for earning money, telling the greatest nonsense.
Dan Brown?
Need I tell more? Books about Apocalypse, 2012!

Are you so sure it is only English and Americans who do this? Even so, in a democracy people (supposedly) can believe and write whatever they like, it is the choice of the individual whether or not they are taken seriously and in the academic world neither are.

Besides Dan Brown is a bad example, as stupid as he and his books are, they are only novels.

Mzungu mchagga
23-08-11, 11:27
There have been books published in Europe very similar to this of Mr Duke. It is not only limited to the English speaking world.

Anton, Bear's den
24-08-11, 19:19
Never believe an American, or Englishman.
Hidden racial propaganda all over the place!
Ok comrade :good_job:
:laughing:

Anton, Bear's den
27-08-11, 12:56
People develop talents in any direction.
Combined with the environment where a kid grows up, it's natural that some sports prevail in a certain area.
Again, it has nothing to do with race, but only with culture.

Why are the Dutch lousy ice hockey players? They skate very well, and they are also good football players.
The answer is their lenght, not their race. The Dutch are simply to tall to play ice hockey.
They can't sprint and stop, make the fast moves.

Just look at the way a human is built, and you know what sports he/she may be good in.


I checked the lenght of our best ice hockey players, most are very high. Best attacker Ovechkin - 188 centimeter height, best player of Czech Republic the Jaromir Jagr have 191 centimeter height. Plus all Scandinavian teams play very well and their height of players even higher.
Maybe there is just not enough amount of ice rinks in Netherlands? :idea:

Reinaert
28-08-11, 04:44
Hmm I played ice hockey, and it is an advance to be 175 centimeter. When I was young I also could have been a good rugby player, but there is no rugby in The Netherlands. Also there is a problem with the number of ice facilities in the Netherlands.
They are only in some cities. But I guess the main factor is, the Dutch are too individualistic to play ice hockey.
No team spirit. Look at football.. Always had good players, the best of the world, but never got anywhere, because they behave like prima donna's.
I am not interested in football very much, but if I look all over the world I like Brasil the most. And Germany as a second.
Brasil because of the Samba, and German football because of their spirit.

leemadison11
25-11-11, 15:04
Racial Classification is'nt that bad. I don't think its wrong. If a person has to report about some theft or robbery and the Police says that you can describe the person anyway but his/her race. How exactly would you be able to come to an exact look of the number. Its ok, but racial abuses is not fine.

joyee
03-03-12, 15:56
Agree with you, you really expose the informational ideas,,

Eldritch
28-11-12, 15:52
Racial classification is pseudoscience.

Vallicanus
30-11-12, 10:39
Racial classification is pseudoscience.
It's accurate if based on the latest genetic studies.

Ziober
10-12-12, 11:53
As scientist I am, I can't denied races exist as the evolution exists. Denied human races is denied reality. And we can't forget that in medicine, the knowledge of human races helps doctors to save lives. As every matter in life, knowledge can be used to do good things and to do evil things. It depends of everyone. Sorry by my English. Regards.

FBS
10-12-12, 16:08
I agree with Ziober.

In order to get passed the taboo and misunderstanding about division of races, humanity needs to make a quantum leap in the way we perceive things.

The division into races should be understood only as a fact that it exists and accept it as such, just as a mere fact nothing more nothing less.

Second thing would be to learn more about races and cultures without judging, since this gives us power of knowledge and understanding and that is a predisposition for betterment. When we understand that races are the richness and the resource to make a better world, only then these paradigms will disappear, only then we will understand the power of synergy.

All the races can learn from one another, but until fear is the main driver, human race will always find things that will prove one race (or whatever group they identify one selves) better over the other.

oriental
11-12-12, 01:52
Race is only an intermediate holding pattern of phenotypes. Over a thousand years those features might not be visible with mixing genes, diet, environment, etc. Yes in upto twenty years a race could be identifiable and static but in hundred years there might not even be that race in existence.