Racism, facists, and seperatist movements.

RockLee said:
well it still is used in court as arguements, and every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ? :?

Nothing. They just dislikes some individuals, not a whole race. The best way to prove it is by giving examples of people one like/love and dislike/hate in the ethnic group in question. Then, very often racists are convinced that their race (could it be another race ?) is superior to all others. Of course it doesn't have to, as hating just one particular race in the world is enough. But that could be used as an argument against those mentally limited people who call anyone who has dislike for one person from a different race a racist. Just tell them you have lots of friends from this or that ethnic group. That is often enough to make them shut up.

That brings us to another question. If someone think that one race in the world is superior to all others, but this person doesn't belong to this supeior race, can this person be called a racist ? By definition yes. The funny thing is that there are such people, who actually wish to change their look (cosmetic surgery, etc) to look more like an ethnic group they do not belong to, because they idolize them (i.e. consider them better or superior).

So is racism necessarily a bad thing ? It doesn't have to be violent or even discriminative. Some people may think that one race is superior, but without having any (negative) consequences on their behviour toward people from other races.

Then, is it worse thinking one race is better than all others, or all races are better than one in particular ? If all people in the world agreed to say that one race (could a minor one, even a tribe, or a major one...) was inferior to all the other races on earth, would it be worse than the reverse situation (one race consider itslef better than the rest). I think the latter is common is almost every culture. It's natural as people want to feel superior to others who are different, and they may not understand. In the former case, it may well be because of factual evidence that this particular race is backward or genetically less evolved. In any case, I suppose that thinking it is passable, as long as no violent or discriminative actions are taken against the ostracized race. Then it all depends on who is the strongest (could be the ostracized race).
 
There's no racism. People must be fascist. Separatism must be handled well.

There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race. Really, that's what the scientist told you. There's no racism in the human race, it's just one of the many term that is often wrongfully used.

Grouping on the other hand, do exist. There's nothing wrong with grouping, people exist in many different groups, people are social creatures. See below more on groups.

However there's always a third party that will make two group fight each other. The problem could be worsen if these two group don't know the existance of this third party.



As for fascism.

Fascism come from "fascismo", that is derived from the Italian word "fascio" which means "bundle, (political) group".

Strict controls are necessary, being a dictator isn't such a bad thing, and each group has its own rules for doing things.

Fascism do exist and must exist.

To stay that people shouldn't be in groups it's a total contradiction of human nature, it's just plain wrong. Humans are fascist in nature, and there's nothing wrong with it.

There will be chaos however if one group try to subvert its rule on another. But most groups don't do these, because in addition of fascsism, people are also egoism, which basically mind their own business.

Of course, there's always the third party factor that will try to make two groups or more fight each other. But then again, maybe the rules of that third party group is to make people fight each other, so that's their fascism rules.

As long people stay in their groups, know what their groups are, and know what the other groups are, things should stay relatively peaceful.



As for separatism.

Anyone who dare to step out of the collective, will die foolishly. This an universal law. People are social people, people will always be groups. Things go horribly wrong if people in a group are doing things not aligned with that particular group's rules. Things go more horrible wrong if people leave a group without the consent of that particular group.

However, it should be noted that most separatism movements these days actually are controlled by the same people who controlled the collectives that these separatism movements are 'officially' declared of separating.

The intentions? Nothing more but to make people fight each other.


Remember that people can't stand one their own.

However, it should be noted if people don't find that they belong in one particular group, they will move on to another group or even create a new one.

Of course, for the things to go on smoothly, should a person wanted to leave a group, he or she should ask permission to leave the group. Remember what Moses ask to Pharaoh, he didn't lead a freedom fighter movement, he asked for Pharaoh to release his people.
 
digicross said:
There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race. Really, that's what the scientist told you. There's no racism in the human race, it's just one of the many term that is often wrongfully used.
Actually, human races do exist. That's what other scientists told me.
Racism does exist, too. Although, it most often does not relate to actual races, but more to "being foreign" or "looking different" (insofar you are right, it is often wrongfully used). "Racism" evolutionary seen was probably quite useful, for people from outside your group might have posed a danger.

Strict controls are necessary, being a dictator isn't such a bad thing, and each group has its own rules for doing things.
Fascism do exist and must exist.
I can't really see the necessities you mentioned. The Netherlands for example are doing quite well without fascism & with rather lax controls (although I think it could be even laxer).

As long people stay in their groups, know what their groups are, and know what the other groups are, things should stay relatively peaceful.
Everything is relative, yeah.

Anyone who dare to step out of the collective, will die foolishly. This an universal law.
Haven't heard of that law yet. I doubt it, anyway.

People are social people, people will always be groups. Things go horribly wrong if people in a group are doing things not aligned with that particular group's rules. Things go more horrible wrong if people leave a group without the consent of that particular group.
Things not necessarily go horribly wrong, all that depends on the circumstances.

Remember that people can't stand one their own.
I think, there are examples of people stranded alone on some island & they did quite well. It really depends on the circumstances.

Of course, for the things to go on smoothly, should a person wanted to leave a group, he or she should ask permission to leave the group. Remember what Moses ask to Pharaoh, he didn't lead a freedom fighter movement, he asked for Pharaoh to release his people.
You only need to ask for permission if you had some sort of contract with the group.
I don't know exactly about the Bible story, but I think the (historic) Israelites probably were obliged to ask for permission because they had a contract to fight (or work) for the Egyptians.
 
digicross said:
There's no such thing as racism, because there's only one race, the human race.

You are confusing the meaning of race and species. For example, humans, cats, dogs and horses are all different species, but there are various races for each species. I could even say that the human sense of racism is not limited to humans, but also animals. Some people love some kinds of dogs, but hate others. Is that racism ? Well, strictly speaking yes.
 
I don?t know what?s the situation in the other countries, but in the last couple of years here in Italy I?ve seen a rise of little communist and fascist movements?it?s depressive to see 15 years old kids with Che Guevara?s T-shirts or with celtic crosses tattooed on their body?I mean, they?re free to do and think what they want, but I can?t believe that at their age they?re aware of what their ideology has produced in the last century?actually, one time I even saw a kid with Mussolini?s calendar?I couldn?t believe it :D

As for racism, here in Italy I don?t think it has ever catched on?the only form of racism I can think of is a sort of ?friendly hate? between north and south?we Romans detest the Milaneese and vice-versa?
 
sp., grammar

RockLee said:
I posted several times that RASCISM isn't only hating the whole group.

Hating an individual of that ethnic group is enough to call rascism.

You can hate people of a certain nationality, even a group....but it doesn't automatically means you hate EVERYONE OF THEM.

I never said anything in the sort of rascism is justified, but you could end up hating a other nationality's person, without hating all of them.
Glenn said:
This means that to be racist is to discriminate against an entire population solely due to their race. So just being discriminatory towards one or two people of a particular race is not racism. For example, I don't like some white people. That doesn't make me racist against whites. It just means that there are some white people whom I dislike. According to the definitions of the word "racism," it is impossible to be racist against a select few of a certain racial group.
RockLee said:
every day you see ppl getting called a racist because they dislike a few ppl who are from a different nationality....so what could you name it then ?
FirstHousePooka said:
Hatred of another person.
Winter said:
I remember as a kid, we called those people 'jerks'.
Maciamo said:
Nothing. They just dislikes some individuals, not a whole race.
I believe RockLee has a point there that's been neglected. Could I qualify as a racist when I excercise a certain discrimination against only one person from a certain ethnic group ? RockLee might say definitely, others might say never. It's also possible to say I could, but not always.

Suppose I am a Jew hating racist. My hatred/discrimination is an emotion/idea, and an emotion/idea is, by its very nature, based on personal contact. One might argue that I, as a Jew hater, could hate/discriminate the idea of someone being a Jew, but that would negate the genuineness of my emotion/idea because now I'm hating/discriminating an abstract state of possible being, not a concrete person in reality.

According to what some of you said, I'd have to hate/discrminate against every single Jew in Israel, the UK, Russia, South Africa, the US, Austalia, etc. But I can't have abstract hatred/discrimination for people I've never met, or for people that I could not possibly have contact with in my entire life. How then can I be a Jew hating/discriminating racist according to your definition that I must hate all Jews to qualify as a racist ?

The key to resolving this apparent pradox lies in the motive of my alleged hatred/discrimination. Even if I've only met one Jew in my entire life, if I hated/discrminated against him on the sole ground of his/her being a Jew, then I am a racist. If initially I harbored no hatred/discrminating thoughts towards Jews, but met this horrible Jew and generalized on it, then I am a racist eventhough I hated/discrminated against only one person in particular.

If on the other hand I had no ill feelings towards the Jewish, but met this one nasty person who happened to be a Jew, and hated him for behaving horribly, but did not generalize on the two coinciding facts of his being a Jew and his being a dislikable person to the effect of 'thinking all Jews must be such horrible people,' then I'd simply have a dislike or hatred for that person, and I'd be a jerk.

These are two different possibilities, and neither of these ideas are in conflict with the MW definition. Hence there is no conflict between RockLee's and the others' either. I could say it's an imagined, superficial, or simply mistaken conflict.

note: I didn't get to see what's been deleted, so my argument is entirely based upon what I could perceive. Do correct me if I am wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
Fascism doesn't necessarily have to be related to racism. Facism is just an ideology where the state is sumpreme and all work for it and give it all for it. I see no problem in having this ideology enforced in a multiethnic society.
 
lexico said:
Suppose I am a Jew hating racist. My hatred/discrimination is an emotion/idea, and an emotion/idea is, by its very nature, based on personal contact. One might argue that I, as a Jew hater, could hate/discriminate the idea of someone being a Jew, but that would negate the genuineness of my emotion/idea because now I'm hating/discriminating an abstract state of possible being, not a concrete person in reality.

That would be an argument against racism.

lexico said:
But I can't have abstract hatred/discrimination for people I've never met, or for people that I could not possibly have contact with in my entire life. How then can I be a Jew hating/discriminating racist according to your definition that I must hate all Jews to qualify as a racist ?

I suppose you can't, but I have known people who hate a certain group without having ever met any of them. I think it's more hating what the group represents to the hater.

Also, you're missing the "prejudice" part of the definition. It's not only about racial discrimination.

lexico said:
The key to resolving this apparent pradox lies in the motive of my alleged hatred/discrimination. Even if I've only met one Jew in my entire life, if I hated/discrminated against him on the sole ground of his/her being a Jew, then I am a racist. If initially I harbored no hatred/discrminating thoughts towards Jews, but met this horrible Jew and generalized on it, then I am a racist eventhough I hated/discrminated against only one person in particular.

I'd say that's about right.

lexico said:
If on the other hand I had no ill feelings towards the Jewish, but met this one nasty person who happened to be a Jew, and hated him for behaving horribly, but did not generalize on the two coinciding facts of his being a Jew and his being a dislikable person to the effect of 'thinking all Jews must be such horrible people,' then I'd simply have a dislike or hatred for that person, and I'd be a jerk.

You wouldn't be a jerk; he would be a jerk. Disliking someone for behaving horribly doesn't make one a jerk. Behaving horribly makes one a jerk.

lexico said:
These are two different possibilities, and neither of these ideas are in conflict with the MW definition. Hence there is no conflict between RockLee's and the others' either. I could say it's an imagined, superficial, or simply mistaken conflict.

I'd say they're three different possibilities.

I just don't see the point of basing prejudices on race alone. In fact, I don't really see the point of stereotyping any group at the individual level. I take things case-by-case, person-by-person, which to me seems to be the best way to do it.

lexico said:
note: I didn't get to see what's been deleted, so my argument is entirely based upon what I could perceive. Do correct me if I am wrong. :)

You didn't miss much.
 
"Race" is not really a scientific concept. With dogs and cats, there are significant varieties of the species. Like races, they exist because of geography, but also because of human genetic manipulation. Humans are one species and one variety with very little actual variation -minor adaptations and mutations- in things like facial features and skin color. You are likely to see almost as much significant variation between members of one "race" and two people from different continents. I had an anthropology professor say that we're a lot like dalmations splitting ourselves up by the shape of our spots.

Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.
 
sabro said:
Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.

I think that may very well be the best it could possibly be put.
 
sabro said:
"Race" is not really a scientific concept.
Well, it is. It's just not really PC.


With dogs and cats, there are significant varieties of the species.
Dog & cat are different species, like human & chimp. Among dogs (& cats) you then have differing races.

-minor adaptations and mutations-
Which can be race markers.


in things like facial features and skin color.
As most people you seem to go only for visible differences, but you cannot differentiate races simply from the look. If you do so, you simply follow the path of racism (which has a great preference for going after appearance).

You are likely to see almost as much significant variation between members of one "race"
Similar to language & dialect, yet you can differentiate languages (although there may be linguists nowadays who prefer to call that dialect continuum).

I had an anthropology professor say that we're a lot like dalmations splitting ourselves up by the shape of our spots.
Either he was talking about racism or he's heavily infected with PC.

Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices
We're all human, after all.
(Which means that we substitute one stereotype or prejudice by another. :p )
 
sabro said:
Sociologically, I think racism is just one way our human brains function- we aren't big enough to know everything empirically, so we detect patterns, we level out, we stereotype, tribalize, and eventually draw conclusions based upon our previous limited and flawed information. Hopefully as we mature, we can be a bit more flexible in our thinking and learn to ignore our stereotypes and prejudices and take the person in front of us for who they are.


I don't really agree. I think racism if often used to maintain wealth. I think people understand very well that ultimately we are the same, but racism is used to keep a certain group of people down and promote the other one up top of the ladder. It's basic conflict theory.
 
I certainly agree that there is an economic component to racism, and it is often an indication of class or caste or status for instance in Mexico: to be taller, have lighter skin, more european looks. Among African americans, it is often a sign of status to be lighter (high yellow). There are, however instances where racism works counter to the economics of the situation, or where discrimination gives no economic advantage. I think good examples can be found by looking at how the exploited underclass internalizes the overclasses prejudices and stereotypes.

They used to teach in schools that there are five races. Cacasoid, negroid, Mongoloid...Blah blah blah. It doesn't work. We aren't biologically all that different from each other. Look at the human genome project- It mapped out the 99.9% of our genes that are identical in 6 billion people. As of yet, you find a drop of blood at a crime scene and it tells us nothing of the donor's race. You can't find race in our genes as of yet. Skin color, eye color, size, hair texture, prominent facial features, it is all there in our DNA, but we haven't ID'd the markers yet.

Dogs and cats don't have races. They have varieties. Varieties have significant variations, far more striking and structural than a mere race. (Humans have a wide variation of size and color, but we are all the same species and variety) Unlike dogs and cats that have significant variations between varieties (for example a show quality chihuahua and great dane will have a 1000% variation in size) humans tend to all be about in the same size range give or take 20%, skin color which can vary almost as much in one family as in the entire human race, have the same range of blood types with some variation, hair... If you skin us we look the same. (Yeech) You grind us up and we all make the same bloody mess.

Race is a sociological construct. We tend to center on either visual clues or behavioral/cultural indicators to "tribe-up". I think we get even more tribal when under economic or socialogical stress.
 
I may be beyond myself in this thread- it is kind of outside my area of expertise- I'm a teacher not an anthropologist. I will gladly accept correction.
 
sabro said:
I think good examples can be found by looking at how the exploited underclass internalizes the overclasses prejudices and stereotypes.
I don't think that's necessary, they can very well get their own silly ideas about race.

They used to teach in schools that there are five races. Cacasoid, negroid, Mongoloid...Blah blah blah.
Not where I went to school. What I learnt are 3 major races & a number of older races (Altschichtrassen in German).

We aren't biologically all that different from each other.
That's why we are one species.

Look at the human genome project- It mapped out the 99.9% of our genes that are identical in 6 billion people.
Nope,they didn't. They sequenced 99% of the human genome, which is not the same as the genes.


As of yet, you find a drop of blood at a crime scene and it tells us nothing of the donor's race.
Ah, the old blood argument. But that only worked (well, it never really worked) as long as no DNA is involved. You actually can find racial differences in the DNA, how this can be applied on an individual instead of a statistical basis, I don't know at the moment, though.


You can't find race in our genes as of yet.
What makes you think so?


Skin color, eye color, size, hair texture, prominent facial features, it is all there in our DNA, but we haven't ID'd the markers yet.
Hmm? Change of argument? Because we don't know where it is located in the DNA, it doesn't exist. :?

Dogs and cats don't have races. They have varieties.
Err... Dogs & cats are no plants! Varieties are only used as subdivision of species in botany, not zoology. In regards to humans many scientists nowadays try to avoid the term race (PC raging on), but they don't use variety. Instead, population, cline or sub-type are preferred. Mostly PC-crap if you ask me.

Race is a sociological construct.
Nope, it isn't. Racism could be said to be, but even there I think it goes much deeper.
 
Thanks Bossel. I'm not a scientist and I am a bit out of my depth.

I thought the genome was the genetic material that we all share. This isn't related to genes?

There can't be three "races" to fit every group of human into. If you go into the Amazon basin, neighboring tribes can identify each other on sight. They would consider every other tribe a different race. And where would native Americans and other Aboriginal tribes fit? Are Pygmies and Dinkas the same race? So I guess if you wanted a human subclassification- zoology allows us to do so by physical characteristics- anyone can draw whatever lines and create as many artificial categories as they like. If there are races, in what way could we reasonably use this information? Race has been used to divide us up in silly and destrutive ways, to restrict, exploit, segregate, discriminate, and classify- without a logical and really scientific basis. Politically correct or not how is race useful as a classification?

The idea that "race" is something biological goes to the argument that you can judge a great deal of a book by its cover. Race is not used a subdivision of zoology, but "breed" is. (I used the word variety) There are no breeds of humans though. Knowing a person's color, ethnic or geographic origin, or type of hair tells you absolutely nothing about his character, personality, or behavior. Race is hadly useful as a predictive measurement (of anything other than what children will look like, and possible racially linked health issues) and you can't apply it scientifically to any one individual.

Back to dogs...Just to beat this analogy to death (and again i'm trying to think back to Prof. Suzuki's anthro class at UCLA 20 years ago- my information could be flawed either because of my memory, or because it is outdated) Siberian Huskies are a breed. They come in a great variety of colors. There are working huskies with coarser coats and show huskies with soft coats. But blue eyed huskies and brown eyed huskies are the same breed. You don't define them as huskies by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair.

Humans are the same way. Aparently, if I remember correctly- even isolated populations have not had sufficient time to diverge within the species. It has something to do with constant migration, contact, and a common ancestor we share not too long ago.
 
sabro said:
I thought the genome was the genetic material that we all share. This isn't related to genes?
It's related, but not the same. The genome is the complete information encoded in the DNA (the actual definition is more complicated, please look it up), including genes as well as other sequences. Genes are defined differently depending on the involved scientific discipline, but generally you could say that a gene is a sequence of DNA that encodes information to create & regulate molecules (mainly proteins).

There can't be three "races" to fit every group of human into.
Well, there are more races, anyway. But you also have a lot of intermediate forms, eg. many Ethiopians are a mix of caucasoid & negroid race.
Again I have to draw on linguistics: although the borderlines between dialects (& often languages) are a bit blurry (hence the notion that a language is a dialect continuum), you still can differentiate.

If you go into the Amazon basin, neighboring tribes can identify each other on sight. They would consider every other tribe a different race.
Well, I don't know. But how many in those tribes are biologists?

Are Pygmies and Dinkas the same race?
That depends where you draw the lines. Depending on the taxonomical approach, Pygmies are just like Dinkas members of the negroid race. If you go for a more detailed approach with subspecies, you may put the Dinka into the Nilotid subrace of the Central African race, while you may have the Pygmies as the Bambutid race (such a distinction can be found here ).

anyone can draw whatever lines and create as many artificial categories as they like.
Theoretically yes. Practically we still deal with science, therefore you need to be able to prove your point.

If there are races, in what way could we reasonably use this information?
It's information, that's good enough for me. In what way could we reasonably use the information that human beings are essentially pongids, while the "humans are special" faction would put us into the category hominid? In what way could we reasonably use the information that humans & chimps share the same ancestry?

Race has been used to divide us up in silly and destrutive ways, to restrict, exploit, segregate, discriminate, and classify- without a logical and really scientific basis.
You seem to confuse something here. There may be no scientific basis for the division in society, but there is a scientific basis for a biological division. You can't blame science for what people make of it. You can't blame Einstein for dropping the A-bomb on Japan (well, you can, but it's silly).

Politically correct or not how is race useful as a classification?
Depends on what you want to use it for.

The idea that "race" is something biological goes to the argument that you can judge a great deal of a book by its cover.
Nope.

Race is not used a subdivision of zoology, but "breed" is. (I used the word variety) There are no breeds of humans though.
Breed is mainly used for domesticated animals. I think, you're still confusing stuff.

Knowing a person's color, ethnic or geographic origin, or type of hair tells you absolutely nothing about his character, personality, or behavior.
That's not what race as a scientific concept is about, anyway. You seem to confuse it with racism (except for behaviour, maybe. since behaviour is connected to hormones & hormones are partly controlled by genes, there is probably a small factor involved).

Race is hadly useful as a predictive measurement
Hmm? Why should it be?

You don't define them as huskies by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair.
Not to confuse race with breed, but eg. caucasoids also come in a great variety of "colours." You don't define them as caucasoids by their color, size, eye color or the quality of their hair.

even isolated populations have not had sufficient time to diverge within the species. It has something to do with constant migration, contact, and a common ancestor we share not too long ago.
But there was no constant migration & contact. Genetic differentiation can actually come about in a surprising speed. Read Cavalli-Sforza for that!
 
Bossel, thanks. I find this fascinating.

See, I told you I was out of my depth. Be patient. As a science, racial theory seems to me a lot like divination, astrology, palmistry or most like phrenology. I think it has more to do with our limited tribal instinct than with empirical science, but you seem to have a better handle on it. How is race a scientific concept? What is it about? Maybe some history? It wasn't ever developed by biologists, was it? In what branch of science does it belong? (I keep leaning toward sociology- where they study the development and application of race usually as it applies to racism in society.) I understand observation and categorization, but science never stops there. Is there some kind of hypothesis, test, theory, or application that went on in the development of this scientific concept?

Can't we use the similarity between humans and chimps because we share the same ancestry to test behavioral theories, study brain activity, bio-psychology, pharmacology, medical technology- all of which would be less valid if we weren't so closely related. Much of what we understand about attachment theory, like failure to thrive syndrome, was gleened from observing our hairy cousins. (The US Airforce also used them 50 years ago to design helmets, ejection seats, and other safety systems- which if you think about it was probably not so valid.)

Perhaps I misunderstand: Are humans actually different breeds? Some dog breeds have significantly different behavioral characteristics including intelligence and temperment. Some are more agressive, some inherit behaviors useful to hunting or herding. The implication for humanity if we are indeed different breeds is that there may be racial differences in intelligence, character, and temperment and that some races are more suitable to certain types of work than others. So are races equivalent to breeds? (In which case I am a half breed.) I did understand however that dogs and cats are different species, and that breed was the term used for domesticated animals. (That is why I used variety initially, thinking it was the equivalent term for sub species, but now I'm not certain what it would be... just that I don't believe biologist divide any species into "races." Are there any biologists out there that can refute or confirm this?)

So is race theory useful for just its descriptive application? Or does it have some predictive value? Didn't race theory predate biology, anthropology and sociology? Hasn't it formed the basis of racism- that races are different, some inferior, some desireable, and eugenics and ultimately the "final solution?" I thought the point of science was at some level application- that even pure theorists hope one day to see some application of their work.

Tomorrow I start my job as a vice principal at a semi-rural California high school. It is very diverse ethnically. Should I treat African American students different from my Native American and Latino populations? Should each group have specifically designed curriculum? Can't I take the "science" of race and apply it to these children? Or do they all have differences that are not race based that are far more important?

If you don't define Caucasoids by their color (lt brown to white), size (small to large), eye color (varies from browns to blues and all hues in between), hair color and quality (varies from dark brown to blonde, from mildly coarse to very fine, curly to straight)... Then you have made my point. There is no real scientific basis for race. How would you then define Cacasoids (what a wonderful word.) I think it is probably more important to look at language and culture than "race."

Haven't most human populations been in nearly constant states of contact and migration? With rare exceptions- aren't most human populations in historically frequent contact with others through trade, travel, warfare, and migration? Isn't the most isolated population of humans separated by less than (I guess) about 10,000 or 20,000 years? (I'm trying to think of some study of mitochondrial DNA- that "Eve" our common great grandmother migrated from the Great Rift valley like 150,000 years ago? now I am waaaay out of my depth.)

We do keep stats in the US based upon race. (Most of which is self selected.) In this way we can look for patterns, or trends- especially those that betray some kind of racially based discrimination.

Lastly do you have a reference for Cavalli-Sforza?
 
I found this on Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race)

"Many evolutionary and social scientists, drawing on such biological research, think common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, are without taxonomic validity. They argue that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, and that the races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that race is best understood as a social construct. Some scientists have argued that this shift is motivated more by political than scientific reasons."

It is not the whole article, but it seems to summarize my POV in far more eloquent terms.

I thought this was interesting:
"A 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992) asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

* biologists 16%
* developmental psychologists 36%
* physical anthropologists 41%
* cultural anthropologists 53%

At PhD granting departments, the figure for physical anthropologists was slightly higher

* agree 50%
* disagree 42%

(This survey did not specify any particular definition of race; it is impossible to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.)

Since 1932, college textbooks introducing physical anthropology have increasingly come to reject race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race."
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 111662 times.

Back
Top