PDA

View Full Version : blondes are smart but discriminated



bicicleur
24-03-16, 17:38
Blondes score on average 3 points higher in IQ than other women, says this study.
But they are discriminated by the stereotype 'dumb blonde'.
Is this racism too?

https://news.osu.edu/news/2016/03/21/blond-intelligence/

Angela
24-03-16, 22:01
Wow! It must be all those dumb "fake" blondes I run into who give blondes their bad rep! :)

Oh wait...maybe we should look at this important question a little more carefully...

"The study found that the average IQ of blondes was actually slightly higher than those with other hair colors, but that finding isn’t statistically significant, said Zagorsky, who works in the university’s Center for Human Resource Research (http://chrr.osu.edu/) (CHRR).
“I don’t think you can say with certainty that blondes are smarter than others, but you can definitely say they are not any dumber.”

"The resulting findings showed that blonde-haired white women had an average IQ of 103.2, compared to 102.7 for those with brown hair, 101.2 for those with red hair and 100.5 for those with black hair."

Ah, wait again..."In 1985, all participants were asked, “What is your natural hair color?”

Mistake number 1: trusting that a woman will answer truthfully when asked if she is a natural blonde. A certain percentage will lie, even to other women.

Mistake number 2: assuming that a man who thinks blondes are dumb will therefore be inclined not to hire them. It doesn't always work that way.

Mistake number 3: forgetting that hiring and promotion practices are affected by other stereotypes, like the fact thatanother stereotype about blondes is that they are perceived to be more promiscuous.

So, it's complicated. One man might hire a woman even if he believes her to be "dumber", because he thinks she will be more "sexually available". Another man might not hire her for either or both of those reasons, even though he's mistaken. Or, a man might hire her, but not pay her very well, or not promote her.

A further factor to be considered is that perhaps these judgments are not actually being made about "natural" blondes. How many "natural" pale blondes are there who are in their twenties and thirties? I haven't come across all that many in any part of this country. I think the stereotype is about women who are actually bleaching their hair a rather unnatural color, perhaps wearing too much make-up, wearing certain types of clothing. Even if that woman is indeed smart and capable, she is giving, at the least, the impression that she cares way too much about her appearance, and a pretty sexualized appearance at that.

How to go to an interview:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/f8/e9/1ff8e9ad9afcd27f01f7c8e5747e8b41.jpg

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1837831.1403289958%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/467886611.jpg


How not to go to an interview:
http://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/11/sexy-lawyer.jpg

bicicleur
24-03-16, 22:37
I don't think that those who lied about their hair colour were smarter than the average real blonde.
On the contrary, I think those who dye their hair and lie about it are lacking confidence about themselves.
I would expect them to have a lower IQ if anything.
But I am a man, I don't know. Tell me Angela, why do women lie about that?

By comparing with men, Zagorsky estimates that about 1 in 6 of the women who reported themselves as blond actually are not.

Angela
25-03-16, 00:39
In my experience both personally and professionally, the smarter someone is, male or female, the more they tend to lie and the better they are at it.

Psychological studies, for what they're worth, support that conclusion.

http://www.limitlessmindset.com/limitless-lifestyle/494-20-notorious-problems-smart-people.html

"When they put smart people in MRI machines there's a strong higher correlation between Executive Functioning and lying. Smart people are also better at keeping track of the myriad small details needed for a complex deception."

Interestingly, they also are more liable to be scammed and fooled themselves.

I also don't know why you think intelligent women are necessarily confident about their looks or confident generally. Again, in my experience, usually the more intelligent someone is, the more self-critical that person is about absolutely everything. Again, research seems to support that correlation. That's particularly true for women, I think.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/whats-link-intelligence-confidence/

Meanwhile, as the article points out, projecting confidence is key if you want to be thought of as credible. So, it can't be ruled out that the expert projecting the most confidence is actually less knowledgeable than the more tentative one. That's something that people should keep in mind. From the other angle, if you're a very intelligent and competent person you might do well to learn to project a total confidence that you don't necessarily feel. You know, "Don't ever let them see you sweat."

Getting back to the study, women lie about these things precisely to seem more confident. They don't want to give the impression that they have to work at their looks. It's the same reason why so many of them say they don't diet and can eat anything they want, or don't need to go to the gym. To turn to the other gender, it's the reason men lie about their sexual experience or how much money they make. Both genders might lie and say they really didn't study that much for an exam, when in fact they'd been working for days.

I don't claim any special ability for figuring people out. I was trained to look for some of these behaviors. I do think, however, that women tend to be better in picking up these patterns in human behavior, and the more mathematically oriented people are, the less good they are in picking up on these "cues" or "clues" in other people.

Fire Haired14
25-03-16, 00:53
Stupid Blonde sterotype or more or less a sterotype of some girls, usually teenage girls. No one actually thinks Blondes are less intelligent.

Angela
25-03-16, 02:54
Oh, really? And you base this certainty on what... your vast experience of life and work situations?

I beg to differ.

So do psychological and sociological researchers who have studied the issue.

"This "dumb blonde" stereotype doesn't just exist in the world of teen movies and humor. It's quite real.

In one study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/315527.stm), researchers showed a picture of a women wearing a platinum blonde, natural blonde, red, or brown wig. Subjects rated the platinum blonde as less intelligent. In another study (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2081156/Men-brunettes-attractive-intelligent-blondes.html) a model was seen as more approachable when her hair was blonde but more intelligent when her hair was brunette.

The stereotype isn't just limited to social situations; it also carries over into the workplace. A 2006 study (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J137v13n03_06) analyzed the hair color of 500 UK CEOs and found that blondes were underrepresented compared to the rest of the population. In a 1996
study (http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/20/3/447.short), subjects read resumes that included head-shots of the supposed applicants. Although all the resumes were identical, the blonde applicants were rated as less competent."

In my opinion, stereotypes are just lazy thinking based on a lack of in depth experience.

Fire Haired14
25-03-16, 02:59
@Angela,

This is just my opinion, Blonde hair is more youthful and feminine and colorful looking, while Brown hair looks more mature, masculine, and serious. So, that's why women with blonde hair are perceived as more youthful and gullible and stupid.

EDIT: Also, "stupid blonde" characteristics are more frequent in girls. That's why it only refers to female blondes. Not trying to offend anyone. There's stupid characteristics usually in boys to.

LeBrok
25-03-16, 04:01
@Angela,

This is just my opinion, Blonde hair is more youthful and feminine and colorful looking, while Brown hair looks more mature, masculine, and serious. So, that's why women with blonde hair are perceived as more youthful and gullible and stupid.Hmmm, I never noticed that. I wonder if there was a study rating not intelligence but age of blondes versus brunettes. Preferably same model changing hair colour.

Maleth
25-03-16, 09:25
I am not sure if blonds are discriminated, but according to Rod Steward Blondes have more fun and he sang about it too :confused2:

bicicleur
25-03-16, 09:34
Oh, really? And you base this certainty on what... your vast experience of life and work situations?

I beg to differ.

So do psychological and sociological researchers who have studied the issue.

"This "dumb blonde" stereotype doesn't just exist in the world of teen movies and humor. It's quite real.

In one study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/315527.stm), researchers showed a picture of a women wearing a platinum blonde, natural blonde, red, or brown wig. Subjects rated the platinum blonde as less intelligent. In another study (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2081156/Men-brunettes-attractive-intelligent-blondes.html) a model was seen as more approachable when her hair was blonde but more intelligent when her hair was brunette.

The stereotype isn't just limited to social situations; it also carries over into the workplace. A 2006 study (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J137v13n03_06) analyzed the hair color of 500 UK CEOs and found that blondes were underrepresented compared to the rest of the population. In a 1996
study (http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/20/3/447.short), subjects read resumes that included head-shots of the supposed applicants. Although all the resumes were identical, the blonde applicants were rated as less competent."

In my opinion, stereotypes are just lazy thinking based on a lack of in depth experience.

if this were about people with a different skin colour, there would be a lot of commotion about it

Fire Haired14
25-03-16, 15:02
if this were about people with a different skin colour, there would be a lot of commotion about it

This is differnt because blonde hair doesn't represent a culture or race or ethnicity, it represents a trait some white people have, like big noses. If there were stero-types about white people with abnormally dark skin, no one would think it was racist either. People with all kinds of traits are stero-typed, sometimes for good reason.

Angela
25-03-16, 16:42
if this were about people with a different skin colour, there would be a lot of commotion about it

As I said above, I have my doubts whether this is the subconscious perception about women who have naturally blonde hair. "I think the stereotype is about women who are actually bleaching their hair a rather unnatural color, perhaps wearing too much make-up, wearing certain types of clothing. Even if that woman is indeed smart and capable, she is giving, at the least, the impression that she cares way too much about her appearance, and a pretty sexualized appearance at that."

I'd be really surprised to find that people would look at this woman and think "BIMBO!"

http://cdn29.us1.fansshare.com/pictures/merylstreep/full-meryl-streep-movies-2120283799.jpg

So, it's an easy fix: cut it out and go natural. Skin color can't be fixed that easily.


Fire-Haired: This is just my opinion, Blonde hair is more youthful and feminine and colorful looking, while Brown hair looks more mature, masculine, and serious. So, that's why women with blonde hair are perceived as more youthful and gullible and stupid.

You didn't state it as an opinion; you stated it as a certainty, when, in fact, whatever science exists contradicts you, or at least is far more nuanced than your presentation of it. I always find that it's a good idea to inform myself before making blanket, emphatic statements, and especially when I don't have sufficient life experience to rely on.

This is a case in point. There's some speculation in the literature that perhaps some men's preference for blonde hair has to do in part with a subconscious association of lighter hair with youth because most people are fairer haired as infants and children. That's different from saying it literally makes a person look younger.

For instance, does the bleaching and processing and botox and face lifts and breast implants really make this "Real Housewife" look more attractive and younger? Maybe it's a subjective thing. To me, she just looks like an aging woman who's spent a fortune to look garish, fake, and trashy without fooling anyone at all about her age.

http://i1.wp.com/allthingsrh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Vicki-Gunvalson.png?resize=389%2C410

This is how to go about aging, in my opinion:
http://www.fanphobia.net/uploads/actors/3061/Juliette-Binoche-in-In-My-Country.jpg
@Maleth:

I'd be willing to bet he's had more fun than practically anybody! :grin::grin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCjPDonlvjA

Maleth
25-03-16, 17:45
For instance, does the bleaching and processing and botox and face lifts and breast implants really make this "Real Housewife" look more attractive and younger? Maybe it's a subjective thing. To me, she just looks like an aging woman who's spent a fortune to look garish, fake, and trashy without fooling anyone at all about her age.

:laughing::laughing::laughing:






@Maleth:

I'd be willing to bet he's had more fun than practically anybody! :grin::grin:

Hmm seems like it. Thanks for the song its quite pleasant and up tempo :smile:

Fire Haired14
25-03-16, 19:00
I'd be really surprised to find that people would look at this woman and think "BIMBO!"
......

You didn't state it as an opinion; you stated it as a certainty, when, in fact, whatever science exists contradicts you, or at least is far more nuanced than your presentation of it. I always find that it's a good idea to inform myself before making blanket, emphatic statements, and especially when I don't have sufficient life experience to rely on.

This is a case in point. There's some speculation in the literature that perhaps some men's preference for blonde hair has to do in part with a subconscious association of lighter hair with youth because most people are fairer haired as infants and children. That's different from saying it literally makes a person look younger.

For instance, does the bleaching and processing and botox and face lifts and breast implants really make this "Real Housewife" look more attractive and younger? Maybe it's a subjective thing. To me, she just looks like an aging woman who's spent a fortune to look garish, fake, and trashy without fooling anyone at all about her age.



I'm just referring to trends. I'm not saying every single individual with Blonde hair looks younger or feminine. When I see a guy with long blonde hair from the back and far away, I usually think it's a girl at first. As muscular as the Thor actor is, the long Blonde hair is a colorful aspect.
http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/145982/thor-the-dark-world.jpg?w=600

EDIT: I'm not arguing people with Brown hair look older and more masculine. Brown hair definitely doesn't make girls look male-like. I'm saying Blonde hair adds a colorful aspect, which looks feminine and young. Purple hair does the same. It's colorful, and I could really only imagine girls wanting purple hair. If Blonde hair wasn't so frequent in Europe, it'd be as weird to us as purple hair is.

Same with women. This is why I think so many, even non-white women, dye their hair blonde. They like how colorful and bright it is, especially when their hair is long. Blonde hair in our culture is associated with females, even though it is naturally as frequent in men. Male Blondes are never called "Blondes", we only use this word to refer to female Blondes.Just look at advertisements, 90% of the time white couples are a blonde female and brown haired man.

bicicleur
25-03-16, 21:22
the blond hair of the woman has to match her eyes and skin
if not you notice something is wrong
most women don't flater themselves by dying their hair blond

a natural blonde doesn't look like a bimbo
a woman who does to much effort to conceal her natural appearance does
you don't have to dye your hair blonde for that nowadays
you can also buy a pair of breasts that are way to heavy

ThirdTerm
25-03-16, 21:53
To eliminate any bias in the IQ tests caused by ethnic and racial differences, Zagorsky dropped all African Americans and Hispanics from the analysis. The resulting findings showed that blonde-haired white women had an average IQ of 103.2, compared to 102.7 for those with brown hair, 101.2 for those with red hair and 100.5 for those with black hair.



There is some empirical evidence to support the theory that haplogroups R1a and I are associated with blonde hair. The Slavic haplogroup R1a is only found at 4.5% among the British and one in five Britons belong to the Scandinavian haplogroup I (20%). Around 25% of British women are natural blonde (R1a, I) overall as a result. Brown hair and red hair are more closely associated with R1b.

Fire Haired14
26-03-16, 03:55
There is some empirical evidence to support the theory that haplogroups R1a and I are associated with blonde hair. The Slavic haplogroup R1a is only found at 4.5% among the British and one in five Britons belong to the Scandinavian haplogroup I (20%). Around 25% of British women are natural blonde (R1a, I) overall as a result. Brown hair and red hair are more closely associated with R1b.

Y DNA has nothing to do with Blonde hair. It mostly derives from Late Neolithic(4,000-5,000 years ago) Central/East Europe. It also might have gradually rose in frequency after that. Those people, basically repopulated all of Northern Europe, which is why it's frequent there today. The blonde woman below, died 3,000 years ago in China, her ancestors left Central/East Europe around 5,000 years ago.
http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/2012/march/images/tarim_45.jpg

ThirdTerm
27-03-16, 01:29
92% of Tarim mummies discovered in Xinjian belonged to R1a1 and they had blonde or red hair. Xinjian was also a home of the Andronovo culture. In August 2013, Andronovo culture remains, including 17 tombs and 3 ritual sites, were discovered in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and the Andronovo people belonged to R1a/Z93 mixed with Q1a2a1/L54. After DNA tests, the blond-associated allele at rs12821256 was detected in three persons with R1a, R1b and U5, which is a mtDNA haplotype closely associated with I in Scandinavia. The two persons with R1a and U5 were blondes and the R1b person was a brown-haired man. I would like to see a comprehensive study on this subject in the near future.

Fire Haired14
27-03-16, 04:09
92% of Tarim mummies discovered in Xinjian belonged to R1a1 and they had blonde or red hair.

Most of the mummies had Brown or Black hair. I'm pretty sure all of the ones tested for DNA had Black hair, because they had lots of Siberian ancestry. The "red and blonde" Tarim mummy thing is an internet myth. I've seen 8, and 6/8 had Black or Brown hair and 2 had Blonde. That's normal for modern North Europe. Others were more admixed with Siberians, and so had darker hair.


Xinjian was also a home of the Andronovo culture. In August 2013, Andronovo culture remains, including 17 tombs and 3 ritual sites, were discovered in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and the Andronovo people belonged to R1a/Z93 mixed with Q1a2a1/L54. After DNA tests, the blond-associated allele at rs12821256 was detected in three persons with R1a, R1b and U5, which is a mtDNA haplotype closely associated with I in Scandinavia.

100% of Andronovo so far have R1a-Z93. The ones who didn't, weren't Andronovo, they were Siberians who intermarried and died with Andronovo. Th


The two persons with R1a and U5 were blondes and the R1b person was a brown-haired man. I would like to see a comprehensive study on this subject in the near future.

People of the same population and with identical DNA, have differnt hair colors. For example, R1b people in Norway don't have darker hair than R1a people in Norway. Y DNA doesn't affect hair color.

GhostRider
04-04-16, 22:39
Can I throw in my two cents, as a natural pale blonde "stupid" girl? And yes as a 28-year-old woman who works as a specialized pain management clinic as part of the pharmacy division I say "stupid" with a smile because the truly stupid people are the ones that were never taught "don't judge a book by the cover". Before this, I was the first woman hired at a mental health facility for the criminally insane by 24-years of age. I am not actually stupid, I am very intelligent [and it is probably that intelligence which intimidates the more-often-than-not simpler interviewers].

However, I don't get my "knickers" in a twist about this, because simply put, life is far too short to worry about arses that are ill-educated, discriminatory, and ignorant. If some idiot doesn't hire me because of my hair color, of all things, why on earth would I want to work for him or even her?


First, I'll deal with Thor. Hollywood really messed up - there's belief Thor & Odin were, in history, either brunettes or red haired. Not blonde.


Secondly, I'll tackle the idea that blonde = youth. There seems to be a misconception that youth = stupidity. It'd be more youth = immaturity, unreliability, and lack of responsibility. Neither stupid or immaturity is highly desirable in any serious career choice.

Now the funny thing about Fair Haired14's comment is most of my colleagues say as long as I don't open my mouth I look in my late teens - early twenties. So that supports the blonde hair = youth mentality. I still get IDed routinely for lotto tickets and the occasional times that I stop by the local liquor store. On the other hand, if I do open my mouth, I sound far older than my age and far more intelligent than an 18-year-old "brat".


Third, are blondes discriminated against. Sure. So are red heads in some areas. Portuguese - widely considered to be of the same "Caucasian" race, so is that racism - are still discriminated against. Go to some of the other countries - have the misfortune of being born in the wrong family / class and good luck ever finding yourself a good job - however, as racists would say, but they're all the same - all look the same.


Now racism - well unless your Hispanic, African descendent, mid-eastern/Asian or native with NATURAL blonde hair [as dye / bleaching jobs are oftentimes eye-burningly obvious to anyone with a lick of sense] it isn't racism in the slightest because blonde hair isn't a race - or as it should be properly termed discrimination has been part of human society since we first evolved. Show me one culture that has never, ever in its entire history had a case of racism or discrimination and I'll start looking for a flying spotted cow.

If a blonde feels she [or he] is been discriminated against then they should do as our forefathers did - Martin Luther King, any of the original feminists - show that they are BETTER than the people discriminating against them. Let's kindly not turn blonde hair into another "discrimination" card. People already abuse true discriminatory terms - screaming at the top of their lungs whenever they don't get their way - that those who originally brought such issues to light are likely spinning in their graves faster than a plane's turbine.

bicicleur
05-04-16, 11:33
it is racism actualy, and sometimes discrimination
blond hair isn't a race, neither is black skin
and Martin Luther King had a good reason to act against discrimination
but today, I agree people can prove they are better than those discriminating whether they are blonde, black or any other minority

Angela
05-04-16, 14:55
it is racism actualy, and sometimes discrimination
blond hair isn't a race, neither is black skin
and Martin Luther King had a good reason to act against discrimination
but today, I agree people can prove they are better than those discriminating whether they are blonde, black or any other minority


Racism is when people of one race believe people of another race are inferior, and discriminate against people of that other race.

How on earth can this silly stereotype that blonde women (not men) are dumb be a form of racism when it was created by white people about a sub-group of other white people, or Europeans, if you will, long before minorities had any power to create any pejorative stereotypes about white people? Who do you think created it? This existed when most African-Americans lived under Jim Crow laws for goodness' sakes.

You can't twist this into some sort of saga of discrimination against white people.

bicicleur
05-04-16, 16:21
Racism is when people of one race believe people of another race are inferior, and discriminate against people of that other race.

How on earth can this silly stereotype that blonde women (not men) are dumb be a form of racism when it was created by white people about a sub-group of other white people, or Europeans, if you will, long before minorities had any power to create any pejorative stereotypes about white people? Who do you think created it? This existed when most African-Americans lived under Jim Crow laws for goodness' sakes.

You can't twist this into some sort of saga of discrimination against white people.

racism of today is about prejudices based upon apearances
racism of the time of Martin Luther King was about discrimination by laws and rules, it was a kind of apartheid

both are different things indeed, today we shouldn't talk about racism any more, everyone is the same to the law

Angela
05-04-16, 16:53
racism of today is about prejudices based upon apearances
racism of the time of Martin Luther King was about discrimination by laws and rules, it was a kind of apartheid

both are different things indeed, today we shouldn't talk about racism any more, everyone is the same to the law

Sorry, but you don't get to create idiosyncratic definitions of common words and concepts. Racism is about race; this stupidity about blonde women being dumb has nothing to do with race. End of story.

If someone thinks blacks are inferior and doesn't give a black person a job because of it, even though that's not the stated reason, that's racism.

If some white executive doesn't give a job to a blonde woman because he thinks she's probably dumber than a dark haired applicant, that's a stupid prejudice or stereotype, but it's not racism.

I agree with a lot of your posts, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

Tomenable
05-04-16, 17:43
Sorry, but you don't get to create idiosyncratic definitions of common words and concepts. Racism is about race; this stupidity about blonde women being dumb has nothing to do with race. End of story.

If someone thinks blacks are inferior and doesn't give a black person a job because of it, even though that's not the stated reason, that's racism.

If some white executive doesn't give a job to a blonde woman because he thinks she's probably dumber than a dark haired applicant, that's a stupid prejudice or stereotype, but it's not racism.

I agree with a lot of your posts, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?


Racism is about race

About ethnicity or religion too. And there are some ethnic groups which are largely blonde-haired.

If I said "people with black peppercorn hair are stupid", it would be considered Anti-Afro racism:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/racial-differences-in-scalp-hair/

bicicleur
05-04-16, 19:39
the racism that existed in the days of Martin Luther King does not exist any more

they should use 2 different words for what happened then and what is considered racism today
that would put todays discussions a bit into perspective

mihaitzateo
05-04-16, 21:17
Being blonde or not I think has nothing to do with how intelligent someone is.
There are a lot of ethnicities that have natural blondes,starting from North people like Finns,Swedes,Norwegians,Russians and going till Middle East.
As for this test ,on which ethnicities or ethnicity was done ?
Since actually those more blonde people could have come from a different area where the IQ was higher while those with black hair from a different area,where IQ was lower.

Fire Haired14
06-04-16, 00:14
The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?

What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.




About ethnicity or religion too. And there are some ethnic groups which are largely blonde-haired.

Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.


If I said "people with black peppercorn hair are stupid", it would be considered Anti-Afro racism:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/racial-differences-in-scalp-hair/

That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.

Angela
06-04-16, 01:44
What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.





Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.



That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.


Logically argued and clearly expressed. Bravo! I can't think of anything to add, which is rare for me, as you know. :)

RobertColumbia
06-04-16, 04:38
The problem with this is that "whites" and "blacks" are not even legitimate racial categories.

For example a "black" Australoid Papuan is genetically very distinct from a "black" Negroid Nigerian.

Also a "white" Irish-American is genetically very distinct from a "white" Ashkenazi Jewish-American.

Don't tell me that you think that U.S. census race categories have much to do with genetic reality?

...

It doesn't. Race, as defined in various official forms (including the US's standard categories) is a social construct that has some utility in understanding trends involving large groups of people but that is much less useful when you start digging into smaller populations or individuals. The US's categories, for example, don't work well for Australian Aborigines. They might be able to classify themselves under "Asian and Pacific Islander", but that means that they are being grouped together with Chinese people which which they share very little ancestry or culture. There is also a political battle going on now in the USA over whether "Middle Eastern or Arab" should be added to the list of choices because many of them do not consider themselves to be "white", and because many people in the USA do not consider them white either despite the protests by our government that they are, in fact, "white people".

Fire Haired14
06-04-16, 06:33
It doesn't. Race, as defined in various official forms (including the US's standard categories) is a social construct that has some utility in understanding trends involving large groups of people but that is much less useful when you start digging into smaller populations or individuals.

Race is not just a social construct. That's baloney. Our racial categories in America don't perfectly explain human genetic diversity, but they do perfectly explain colonial American diversity. There were Indians and whites and Negros, and that was it. Our racial terms were not meant to be used on Iraqis or Papuans or whoever else lives in the world. All they claim, is that Africans and Amerindians and Europeans are differnt.

bicicleur
06-04-16, 08:35
What?! Are you serious?

They're real racial categories. If you have to understand the origin of the terms/ideas. In America, in 1500s, there were 3 races: Indians, Whites, and Negros. Each came from differnt regions of the world, and each were very related to each other(Mayans are very related to Cherokee, Spanish are very related to British). Those racial categories are genetic realities. In America, up until very recent times, pretty much all Americans were white or black(who all lived in the South till 1900s). These were/are very real genetic/racial categories.

Ashkenazi Jews are differnt in significant ways to Irish, but the ancestry they share is what makes them both "white". First of all just being from West Eurasia is very significant. Also, most Ashkenazi jews do have 374F, unlike anyone in the Middle East, and they did receive this via European admixture. Their Light skin certainly is of mostly European origin. Ashkenazi Jews are 20-30% North European-like. They have significant European ancestry.

For Papuans and Africans it's differnt. You're right they share nothing(besides being humans) but both look "black". However how many Papuan tribesman live in America? The Blacks of America, have always been the descendants of mostly West African Slaves brought here 100s of years ago. Only recently did some(still very few) African immigrants come here.





Yeah, but Blonde is still not a race. The "stupid Blonde" sterotype was never used to make fun of Swedish. It was created by Northern European-descended English speakers to referee to other Northern European English speakers. It never had anything to do with ethnicity or race or whatever. It's like making fun of people who are tall or have big noses.



That's differnt, because everyone in Africa has that hair and they're some of the only humans with it. It;s referring to a race, while making fun of Blonde hair isn't. That's comparable to saying people with white skin are stupid.

I don't find any logic here.
If I would follow your logic, Hitler was not a racist when he persecuted the Jews.

All definitions about race are chosen arbitrarily and thus without any logic, or at best a logic that is confined to a certain area and time period.

Racism today - in western countries where everyone is equal to the law - is judging people upon their appearances.
Also discriminating on the basis of religion is considered racism, though it has nothing to do with race.