Interesting Maps and Graphs

"Black" is how African Americans prefer to be called. You can't assign them a "nationality" because they've been here since the founding of the country, and you can't even assign them a country in Africa because their ancestors came from many countries in Africa.

Much the same logic applies to "whites".

Its not because they came from many countries, the reason they don't have nationalities! Its because when they came their countries had no names. The names of all African countries were given by English when borders were drawn. So let say Nigeria has about 200 ethnic groups, many of which still don't know that their country what is called, since somebody assigned to them that name
 
As Salento pointed out, a lot of these categories are to "help" minorities like "Hispanics" and "blacks" take advantage of affirmative action programs. Also, no one is doing dna tests. You self-identify or "claim" certain ancestry. If you write "black" on a college admission form and you look vaguely African admixed when you arrive for your interview, you've got X number of points toward admission. In reality, you're in.

Heck, with American Indians it's even worse. Elizabeth Warren got a leg up with colleges and Executive Boards and professorships because she put "American Indian" on her forms. Turns out that when she got put on the spot by Trump and had to do a dna test, we found out she's probably about 5% "American Indian" and came from a normal middle class family. The colleges and universities don't care: they have a quota to meet, and the government pays the tuition so they're more than happy to go along. Likewise, employers have to meet a certain quota.

HLB-June10-10177.jpg


"Hispanics" is another minefield. They run the gamut from half Amerindian/half Spanish Mexicans, to Puerto Ricans who run the gamut from minority black and Amerindian to a lot black and Amerindian, to white Cubans with their tiny percentages, to mostly black Cubans and on and on. I don't know whether white Cubans take advantage of it. I don't know, for example, if employers, colleges etc. check family background for wealth, access to good schools etc.

It's just a mess. They should just get rid of affirmative action by "race" or "ethnic" background, and maybe look at "disadvantaged" backgrounds across the Board. I'd want to hire a person who got to college, got good grades, has made a life, who grew up in a dirt poor home in Appalachia going to crap schools.

There's a difference between real life political issues, looking at sociological trends, and genetics tests and analysis.

@Tutkun,

As always you miss the main thrust of the logic and focus on extraneous facts. Let's keep it too tribes if you prefer. When you're a product of five tribes, which one should be chosen? There's the same issue with "whites". Which nationality should an Irish/German/Italian/ put? We have a lot of them. Get it now? They can't really even put European, because as I said Lebanese are "white".

Studies which use these terms are investigating sociological trends. It has nothing to do with genetics, because most people are just self-identifying. To ask someone for a genetic test would be considered a gross invasion of privacy. Also, don't forget: if people don't want to volunteer the information they don't have to.
 
As Salento pointed out, a lot of these categories are to "help" minorities like "Hispanics" and "blacks" take advantage of affirmative action programs. Also, no one is doing dna tests. You self-identify or "claim" certain ancestry. If you write "black" on a college admission form and you look vaguely African admixed when you arrive for your interview, you've got X number of points toward admission. In reality, you're in.
Heck, with American Indians it's even worse. Elizabeth Warren got a leg up with colleges and Executive Boards and professorships because she put "American Indian" on her forms. Turns out that when she got put on the spot by Trump and had to do a dna test, we found out she's probably about 5% "American Indian" and came from a normal middle class family. The colleges and universities don't care: they have a quota to meet, and the government pays the tuition so they're more than happy to go along. Likewise, employers have to meet a certain quota.
HLB-June10-10177.jpg

"Hispanics" is another minefield. They run the gamut from half Amerindian/half Spanish Mexicans, to Puerto Ricans who run the gamut from minority black and Amerindian to a lot black and Amerindian, to white Cubans with their tiny percentages, to mostly black Cubans and on and on. I don't know whether white Cubans take advantage of it. I don't know, for example, if employers, colleges etc. check family background for wealth, access to good schools etc.
It's just a mess. They should just get rid of affirmative action by "race" or "ethnic" background, and maybe look at "disadvantaged" backgrounds across the Board. I'd want to hire a person who got to college, got good grades, has made a life, who grew up in a dirt poor home in Appalachia going to crap schools.
There's a difference between real life political issues, looking at sociological trends, and genetics tests and analysis.
@Tutkun,
As always you miss the main thrust of the logic and focus on extraneous facts. Let's keep it too tribes if you prefer. When you're a product of five tribes, which one should be chosen? There's the same issue with "whites". Which nationality should an Irish/German/Italian/ put? We have a lot of them. Get it now? They can't really even put European, because as I said Lebanese are "white".
Studies which use these terms are investigating sociological trends. It has nothing to do with genetics, because most people are just self-identifying. To ask someone for a genetic test would be considered a gross invasion of privacy. Also, don't forget: if people don't want to volunteer the information they don't have to.

Maybe so, but genetic testing is new, and will no doubt transform the way we look at identity and sociology in the future, as more people are tested. After all, consumer genomics is most popular in the United States.
 
Maybe so, but genetic testing is new, and will no doubt transform the way we look at identity and sociology in the future, as more people are tested. After all, consumer genomics is most popular in the United States.

maybe this will happen. but hopefully by the time this happens race or ethnicity will have no value anymore for identity or sociology. it shouldn't even matter now if you are black or white but obviously it does. quite a lot or it wouldn't be written in the ID. but at least those categories are flexible and change together with society.
 
maybe this will happen. but hopefully by the time this happens race or ethnicity will have no value anymore for identity or sociology. it shouldn't even matter now if you are black or white but obviously it does. quite a lot or it wouldn't be written in the ID. but at least those categories are flexible and change together with society.

Reality suggests the very opposite is happening. There are non-trival differences between people that make this rejection of the concept of ethnicity baseless, and anti-scientific.
 
Keeping with the thread, here's some info:

"Tonight, 62,000 New Yorkers will sleep in homeless shelters, the most since the Great Depression"

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/

"How many people are homeless? Every night, more than 63,000 people sleep in the New York City municipal shelter system — up 43% from 10 years ago"

https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/

DeBlasio is probably the worst mayor NYC has had in recent history. NYC is a cesspool of poverty. He has ruined the advances made by Bloomberg and Giuliani.

These people are homeless because they have mental issues. They're doing drugs and harrassing people in public. They need to be put in refugee-style camps.
 
Keeping with the thread, here's some info:

"Tonight, 62,000 New Yorkers will sleep in homeless shelters, the most since the Great Depression"

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/

"How many people are homeless? Every night, more than 63,000 people sleep in the New York City municipal shelter system — up 43% from 10 years ago"

https://www.bowery.org/homelessness/

DeBlasio is probably the worst mayor NYC has had in recent history. NYC is a cesspool of poverty. He has ruined the advances made by Bloomberg and Giuliani.

These people are homeless because they have mental issues. They're doing drugs and harrassing people in public. They need to be put in refugee-style camps.

While the corruption in NYC is continuing unabated and maybe even has gotten worse, NYC is not a poor city. It has attracted a young, energetic, high salaried crowd and a lot of tech companies. Wall Street is going gangbusters. There are infrastructure projects all over the place. The place has a vigorous vibe to it. Maybe the old people and minorities are being squeezed out because the rents keep going up but that happens in every downtown/up town area that is getting gentrified.

As far as homeless are concerned, at some point we stopped warehousing mentally ill people. I think it happened under Reagan but don't quote me on it. Unless we as a society collectively change our mind about what to do about mentally ill people there will be homeless people everywhere, particularly in States with good weather. Now not all homeless are mentally ill. Some are just economically distressed because of job losses, medical bills, etc, etc.

On the other hand be glad you're not in Chicago or god forbid, Boston!:LOL:
 
On the subject of preferential treatment I think we should base it on economic disadvantage rather than race.
 
No of cigarettes per person per year worldwide.

I'm convinced the numbers are as low as that for Italy because fewer women smoke there than in other countries. Italian men smoke like chimneys.

780VMMc)

2v9aiv6.jpg

2m53MuE

kB6WLik

I was in Milan a few years ago. Right under a giant No Smoking sign and within a few meters from a carabinieri was a young Italian, furiously smoking.

Evading or defying the law has become a national sport in both Italy and Greece.

My pet peeve is graffiti. It has gotten out of hand in Greece. I know it existed even in Ancient Greece but it's just too much.
 
While the corruption in NYC is continuing unabated and maybe even has gotten worse, NYC is not a poor city. It has attracted a young, energetic, high salaried crowd and a lot of tech companies. Wall Street is going gangbusters. There are infrastructure projects all over the place. The place has a vigorous vibe to it. Maybe the old people and minorities are being squeezed out because the rents keep going up but that happens in every downtown/up town area that is getting gentrified.

As far as homeless are concerned, at some point we stopped warehousing mentally ill people. I think it happened under Reagan but don't quote me on it. Unless we as a society collectively change our mind about what to do about mentally ill people there will be homeless people everywhere, particularly in States with good weather. Now not all homeless are mentally ill. Some are just economically distressed because of job losses, medical bills, etc, etc.

On the other hand be glad you're not in Chicago or god forbid, Boston!:LOL:

Yes, NYC is very opulent, and there's massive wealth being generated everyday. That's why it is called the "Capital of the World". I think gentrification is beneficial to the community as a whole. But ultimately, it will be the wealthiest that are the best off; that's only natural. Like I've said, hierarchical society, and divisions of class are natural and inevitable.

Yes, I also agree there's also people that are economically distressed for non-mental reasons. I don't think they should be put in with people that are mentally ill. They need to address their issues in a manner that is appropriate for their situation.
 
I was in Milan a few years ago. Right under a giant No Smoking sign and within a few meters from a carabinieri was a young Italian, furiously smoking.

Evading or defying the law has become a national sport in both Italy and Greece.

My pet peeve is graffiti. It has gotten out of hand in Greece. I know it existed even in Ancient Greece but it's just too much.

I completely agree. It's the thing I hate most about Italy: graffiti.

I don't get it. Here, many of the homes are not what I consider clean inside, but those people wouldn't dream of scrawling graffiti or not picking up after their dog. There, it's the opposite. You could literally eat your meals off my family members' floors, but they do not pick up after their dog. They don't put graffiti on buildings either, thank God, but a lot of young people do.

I also hate smoking. It killed my father finally. He started at 12, he told me, and just couldn't stop. It got him in his seventies. He used to smoke a pack and a half to two packs a day of Lucky Strikes, Lord help us. I'm ashamed to say, though, that perhaps because I loved him so much and subconsciously associate the smell of pipe tobacco (which he took to in later life thinking it was better) with him, I find it attractive to smell it on a man.
 
I was in Milan a few years ago. Right under a giant No Smoking sign and within a few meters from a carabinieri was a young Italian, furiously smoking.

Evading or defying the law has become a national sport in both Italy and Greece.

My pet peeve is graffiti. It has gotten out of hand in Greece. I know it existed even in Ancient Greece but it's just too much.

I was always too cheap to take up smoking (do you know what those things cost per pack?) . . . but it's graffiti that galls me. What is the urge to trash someone else's house, building or a public facility?

I had a professor back in my college days (way, way back in the 1970's) that told me that graffiti was art and a valid means of self-expression. I always wondered what he would have thought of some self-expression being applied to his own house?

I was vacationing in Italy about a decade ago and was depressed by the volume of graffiti (and by the number of seemingly unemployed young people in the cafes . . . perhaps these two observations are connected).
 
I was always too cheap to take up smoking (do you know what those things cost per pack?) . . . but it's graffiti that galls me. What is the urge to trash someone else's house, building or a public facility?

I had a professor back in my college days (way, way back in the 1970's) that told me that graffiti was art and a valid means of self-expression. I always wondered what he would have thought of some self-expression being applied to his own house?

I was vacationing in Italy about a decade ago and was depressed by the volume of graffiti (and by the number of seemingly unemployed young people in the cafes . . . perhaps these two observations are connected).

I hated seeing graffiti on historic monuments, when I was in Portugal. Especially that Antifa garbage.
 

This thread has been viewed 86828 times.

Back
Top