[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
I didn't - I drew this conclusion (white = racist) from the following part of OAW's post:



which, roughly translated appears to me to say "whites, being the minority, must use whatever means necessary to subjugate, and if possible destroy, other races" Which in turn translates pretty close to exactly to "whites are (and inddeed are bound to be) racists.

christ,

I fear you see what you want to see and not what is written. The statement you are referring to dealt with a theory as to the origins of the ideology of white supremacy. In no way, shape, form, or fashion did I say or even imply that all whites subscribe to that ideology ... or that whites are somehow genetically predestined to be racists.

Having said that, a wise man once said ...

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit."



OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

You seem to have a very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race". You reference the situation with Egyptians and Jews and say that it was about "ethnic and religious differences". And then you make the leap to say that is an example of "racism". By that logic, the white Anglican Brits are being "racist" to the white Catholic Irish huh? I think not. Certainly there is an ethnic/religious conflict going on ... but it definitely isn't based upon "race". It seems quite obvious that they are all "white" people involved. Similarly, the various conflicts in Nigeria are ethnically and religiously based ... but everyone involved is "black".

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.

ermm, dude, that was a quote from the article you posted.

btw, mac "owners" constitute "well formed" clusters as well, - so why not divide the world into "mac owners" and those who "don't own macs"...oh, wait...

[perryp]

deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this (which you haven't responded to TWICE now! ha!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '



Basically, your argument is like saying that because some shades of blue are close to green, then COLORS DON'T EXIST. It's an idiotic semantic argument.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.

Well now you are contradicting yourself. I originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis". That it was merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct". I even referenced DNA studies that verify this. You then turned around and claimed ....

"Race is a biological reality...."

... and presented a nice little graphic (which BTW, only includes half the planet!). And now you say that "No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters."

If so-called "racial" groups are not "genetically discreet" as you concede ... then there is "no biological basis for race" ... n'est pas? The last time I looked our biology is based upon DNA ... genetic material is it not? The fact that there are groups or "clusters" of people who tend to share certain physical characteristics does not negate the fact that the notion of "race" is essentially bogus from a biological standpoint.

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this... '

To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist....

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not...

But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically...

have you read it?

do you you even have the slightest idea what this article is about? i find it a shame that you (ab)use a scientific journal/article (which actually has to do with determening the orignis of genetically related diseases) to make a case for (your?) racist views.

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:


have you read it?

do you you even have the slightest idea what this article is about? i find it a shame that you (ab)use a scientific journal/article (which actually has to do with determening the orignis of genetically related diseases) to make a case for (your?) racist views. [/B]

Please explain in detail in what way I am racist? And secondly, how can some one be racist if races 'don't exist'?

And so, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, i will quote (you will, of course, ignore it again, for the fourth time!!!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

f so-called "racial" groups are not "genetically discreet" as you concede ... then there is "no biological basis for race" ... n'est pas?

So you agree that COLORS DON'T EXIST BECAUSE SOME BLUES ARE CLOSE TO GREEN? You've already conceded that you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you're ready to believe anything.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this (which you haven't responded to TWICE now! ha!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

Basically, your argument is like saying that because some shades of blue are close to green, then COLORS DON'T EXIST. It's an idiotic semantic argument.

No one is saying that ethnic groups don't exist. No one is saying that colors don't exist. But to make the leap from that to the concept of race is uh ... "problematic" to say the least.

An example of this foolishness. According to the US government and the so-called "science" in the graphic you presented ... the people who are indigenous to North Africa are "caucasian". Now that is BS of course because the so-called "caucasians" who live there today are not the original inhabitants .... but that is beside the point. Let's say that one accepts this contention as fact. We end up with situations where people are "racially" classified in a manner that is simply preposterous. Take for example the case of Mostafa Hefny ... a native Egyptian whose family had always lived in Egypt for generations ..... is classified as "white" or "caucasian" because of this foolishness. Now even Stevie Wonder can see that this man is "black" ... but nevertheless, our good government basically said ...

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/

There's a lot of sociopolitical dimensions to these classifications. Suffice it to say that it can get real silly.

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Please explain in detail in what way I am racist?...

:: shakes head ::



okay, why do you think it is important and meaningful, to divide the human species into different "races"? (yes, that is a scientific question) why not, say, divide them into groups that eat candybars, and others that don't? or on a gentic level, ones that have one single genetic trait in common...? why stop there?

again: "what are the implications?"

Originally posted by perryp:

You've already conceded that you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you're ready to believe anything.

WTF?

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
Please explain in detail in what way I am racist? And secondly, how can some one be racist if races 'don't exist'?

And so, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, i will quote (you will, of course, ignore it again, for the fourth time!!!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

The problem here is that you are using that quote to say that the "five different groups" being referenced are racial groups. That is not what the article is saying. That quote references 5 broad groups of humanity based upon common genetic ancestry ... and they do not necessarily correspond to common notions of "race". As the article itself said ...

"The Human Race

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath. Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...mber=3&catID=2

Let me break out the stick figures for you ...

Broad groups based upon common genetic ancestry does NOT equate to "racial" groups.

OAW

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
You seem to have a very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race". You reference the situation with Egyptians and Jews and say that it was about "ethnic and religious differences". And then you make the leap to say that is an example of "racism". By that logic, the white Anglican Brits are being "racist" to the white Catholic Irish huh? I think not. Certainly there is an ethnic/religious conflict going on ... but it definitely isn't based upon "race". It seems quite obvious that they are all "white" people involved. Similarly, the various conflicts in Nigeria are ethnically and religiously based ... but everyone involved is "black".

OAW

You "originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis" (and then restated it). You contend that race is merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct", and yet you criticise me for having a "very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race"." Which is it dude?

We don't have a term for "religionism", but "racism" definitely seems to fit the bill for religious discrimination if race is "merely a sociopolitical and ethnic construct", especially when the religion is closely associated with a particular ethnic group.

I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

And I have no idea what you intended by the rock/ dog crack.

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
No one is saying that ethnic groups don't exist. No one is saying that colors don't exist. But to make the leap from that to the concept of race is uh ... "problematic" to say the least.

Actually it's not because you are using the same arguments as someone who argues that color doesn't exist simply because their is variation in those colors. In the same way you could say 'breeds of dogs don't exist because I own a mongrel'.

Originally posted by OAW:
An example of this foolishness. According to the US government and the so-called "science" in the graphic you presented ... the people who are indigenous to North Africa are "caucasian".

Can you point out exactly where it says Caucasian in the graphic I presented? As for "so-called science", it's DNA analysis - nothing 'so-called' about it. And I'm not interested in what the US government thinks at all.

Originally posted by OAW:
We end up with situations where people are "racially" classified in a manner that is simply preposterous. Take for example the case of Mostafa Hefny ... a native Egyptian whose family had always lived in Egypt for generations ..... is classified as "white" or "caucasian" because of this foolishness. Now even Stevie Wonder can see that this man is "black" ... but nevertheless, our good government basically said

So first you say race "doesn't exist" and then you complain when someone is misclassified. You can't really have it both ways.

Originally posted by OAW:
There's a lot of sociopolitical dimensions to these classifications.

Only if you allow that to impede your thinking. I don't - do you?

okay, why do you think it is important and meaningful, to divide the human species into different "races"?

Whether it's important is not the point (though obviously it is for medical reasons for instance), but that doesn't stop it being a fact. I see you've ignored the quote again. Why?

again: "what are the implications?"

Not interested in the implications. But the fact that you think I am suggests your hesitancy to admit that race exist has something to do with what you think the implications are.

That quote references 5 broad groups of humanity based upon common genetic ancestry

Which is longhand for 'races'

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath. Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists."

What in those paragraphs invalidates what I have said?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Not interested in the implications. But the fact that you think I am suggests your hesitancy to admit that race exist has something to do with what you think the implications are.

and your sidestepping my question suggests that you are very much interested in the "implications" of such a "category" in fact "existing", n'est-ce pas?

my point is, that when observing things, one can always find some sorts of patterns (which is actually what we are talking about here), which in turn can be labled and "named".

your, meanwhile, famous "quote" doesn't refer to anything else. do you have any idea how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (btw always reflecting a scoio cultural need!)? most of these categories have been discarded because, over time, they lost their meaning an RELEVANCE!!!.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
You "originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis" (and then restated it). You contend that race is merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct", and yet you criticise me for having a "very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race"." Which is it dude?

Let me try this one more time. There are commonly held notions of "race". My contention is that these are based upon common ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features (skin tone and facial features primarily). My contention is also that the idea of focusing on these things is essentially a sociopolitical construct that was created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest. But that's a subject for another thread. The point is that the physical features used to identify the commonly recognized "racial" groups are but a small fraction of the entire human gene pool ... so there is no biological basis to underscore the commonly held notions of "race".

An example. I am a dark-skinned African-American male. Now modern DNA studies show that I may very well have more in common genetically with my "white" neighbor than with my closest "black" friends. So on a social, ethnic, and cultural basis I have more in common with my "black" peers. Quite obviously, we even share certain physical characteristics. But when one examines the overall picture on a genetic or biological basis ... me and my "black" peers may be more dissimilar than me and my "white" peers.

Originally posted by christ:

We don't have a term for "religionism", but "racism" definitely seems to fit the bill for religious discrimination if race is "merely a sociopolitical and ethnic construct", especially when the religion is closely associated with a particular ethnic group.

Well see now you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. We do have a term for "religionism". It's called "religious bigotry". When it gets violent it's called "religious conflict".

Originally posted by christ:

I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

Well I suppose that is your prerogative but I must say that it only serves to confuse the issue. To say that "race" has no basis on an overall biological level does not warrant a "free for all" where any and every group conflict can be called "racism". Is the issue of gender equality a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (males) vs. another "group" (females)? Is the issue of homophobia a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (heterosexuals) vs. another "group" (homosexuals)? Quite frankly, that is beyond silly.

Originally posted by christ:

And I have no idea what you intended by the rock/ dog crack.

Nevermind.

OAW

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
and your sidestepping my question suggests that you are very much interested in the "implications" of such a "category" in fact "existing", n'est-ce pas? RELEVANCE!!!.

Why should it suggest that? Did you read it in a horoscope or something? No I'm not interested - why I should be?

Originally posted by deekay1:
my point is, that when observing things, one can always find some sorts of patterns (which is actually what we are talking about here), which in turn can be labled and "named".

Right. So what is your point? My point is that races exist, just as colors exist. Your point seems to be very vague, if you've even got one.

Originally posted by deekay1:
do you have any idea how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (btw always reflecting a scoio cultural need!)? most of these categories have been discarted because, over time, they lost their meaning an RELEVANCE!!!.

No, I don't know how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (do you put random words in quotes?). Perhaps you can tell me. To the nearest dozen please. As for 'scoio cultural need' (sic) - is DNA a social construct?

An example. I am a dark-skinned African-American male. Now modern DNA studies show that I may very well have more in common genetically with my "white" neighbor than with my closest "black" friends. So on a social, ethnic, and cultural basis I have more in common with my "black" peers. Quite obviously, we even share certain physical characteristics. But when one examines the overall picture on a genetic or biological basis ... me and my "black" peers may be more dissimilar than me and my "white" peers.

How can you talk about black and white if race doesn't exist? And why do you insist on an American-centric cultural definition of race (which doesn't exist!!).

Well I suppose that is your prerogative but I must say that it only serves to confuse the issue. To say that "race" has no basis on an overall biological level does not warrant a "free for all" where any and every group conflict can be called "racism". Is the issue of gender equality a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (males) vs. another "group" (females)? Is the issue of homophobia a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (heterosexuals) vs. another "group" (homosexuals)? Quite frankly, that is beyond silly

Yes, very silly. but that's not what he said at all. Do find it useful to make up stupid arguments and argue against them instead of the issue at hand?

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:


Which is longhand for 'races'

No it is NOT "longhand for 'races'". The article explicitly says this is not the case.

Originally posted by perryp:

What in those paragraphs invalidates what I have said?

Uh ... how about you actually read the quote? Or perhaps you actually read it but you slept through your Reading Comprehension 101 class? Let me break it down for you ...

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations?

So the article states that people can be "broadly" grouped using "genetic data". Now keep in mind that this "genetic data" is the overall picture ... not just the handful of genes that cause skin tone and facial feature variation. Let's also keep in mind that thus far it has not used the term "races" to refer to these "broad groups". In fact, it poses the question of whether or not these "broad groups" constitute the "common notions of race". Still paying attention? Let's continue ...

In some cases they do, but often they do not.

Did you see that? The question has been answered and the article explicitly stated that these "broad groups" based upon common genetic data do not constitute "race". It even uses the term "often" ... not "sometimes" ... not "every now and again" ... not "infrequently" ... to emphasize this point. Let's continue ...

For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

Now the point is driven home. The most commonly used physical traits (skin tone and facial features) used to define the commonly held notions of "race" ... does not necessarily constitute overall genetic similarity. It even goes on to give an example.

I as a dark-skinned African-American male with naturally black, straight hair (when it still grew! ) could hang out with a group of Australian Aborigines ... and if you dressed me in a similar fashion ... I would look just like them. However, on an overall genetic basis I would likely have more in common with a "white" American. Conversely, if you took an Australian Aborigine and dressed him up as a typical "black" American ... even though we are relatively dissimilar genetically he'd have just a bad a day as I would if we had the misfortune of running out of gas in "Rednecks Only, USA" during the middle of a KKK rally.

I fail to see why this doesn't seem to register with you. Quite frankly, it causes me to question if you were born this dense, or if you just practice really hard?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
How can you talk about black and white if race doesn't exist? And why do you insist on an American-centric cultural definition of race (which doesn't exist!!).

Your ability to be obtuse is absolutely astounding!

I never said "race doesn't exist". I said that "race has no biological basis". I also said explicitly that "race" was a sociopolitical and ethnic construct based upon
shared physical features (skin tone and facial features) ... so obviously it exists on some level ... just not a "biological" one.

Originally posted by perryp:

Yes, very silly. but that's not what he said at all. Do find it useful to make up stupid arguments and argue against them instead of the issue at hand?

Oh he didn't say that huh? So what do you call this ...

Originally posted by christ:
I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

Did he not explicitly state that in his view "white vs. black" was not the only possible form of racism? Did he not explicitly state that racism can be committed by any "group" against any other "group"? If it can be any arbitrary "group" vs any other arbitrary "group" then why not males vs. females? Why not heterosexuals vs. homosexuals? Hell ... why not people who can roll their tongue vs people who can't? All of these constitute "any group" as he stated, n'est pas?

OAW

[perryp]

I'm arguing with someone who doesn't believe in evolution!

This is not a Wire Hair Dachshund because breeds don't exist


This is not a Black Labrador because breeds don't exist


IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by OAW:
christ,

I fear you see what you want to see and not what is written. The statement you are referring to dealt with a theory as to the origins of the ideology of white supremacy. In no way, shape, form, or fashion did I say or even imply that all whites subscribe to that ideology ... or that whites are somehow genetically predestined to be racists.

Having said that, a wise man once said ...

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit."



OAW

So, criticizing the statement automatically makes one a racist, eh?



BlackGriffen

[christ]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
So, criticizing the statement automatically makes one a racist, eh?

Funnily enough, that is what I thought that he meant too, but he declined to elaborate when asked.

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
Let me try this one more time. There are commonly held notions of "race".

With which you disagree when it is convenient, but rely in when necessary for your point.

My contention is that these are based upon common ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features (skin tone and facial features primarily).

You "originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis" (and then restated it). You contend that race is merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct". This is not quite the same as (also your contention) 'ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features' That sounds biological to me.

My contention is also that the idea of focusing on these things is essentially a sociopolitical construct that was created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest.

Which is patent tosh - people have been fighting with each other because of ****** differences forever (I would put 'racial' in instead of asterisks, but I know that you don't believe that different races exist, which would make racial conflict impossible)

Maybe I should say that misguided people that think that there are such things as 'races' have been fighting with people that they perceive as being of a different **** (let's call it 'race' shall we) to themselves, because of that perceived difference. Do you contend that anti-semitism is a recent phenomena?

Originally posted by OAW:
... there is no biological basis to underscore the commonly held notions of "race"...

I think that you may mean 'no genetic reason', as different shaped noses and lips, different hair types etc. are all biological differentiators, and form a biological basis for 'race'

Well see now you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. We do have a term for "religionism". It's called "religious bigotry". When it gets violent it's called "religious conflict".

And we also have 'racial bigotry', 'racial hatred', and 'racial conflict'. My intended point (belaboured and subtle though it was), was that you said that there was no biological basis for 'race', and therefore any group could be considered a race by your definition. As you obviously find that a silly idea, I was inviting you to rephrase. You have, by elaborating your own mistake (using 'biological' when you meant 'genetic'), so I withdraw the analogy. I still contend that tribal conflict has more to do with racism than any other form of '-ism', and that has nothing to do with colour - look at the Hutus and the Tutsis, they have a deep racial conflict going on, and they are both 'black'.

it only serves to confuse the issue. To say that "race" has no basis on an overall biological level does not warrant a "free for all" where any and every group conflict can be called "racism". Is the issue of gender equality a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (males) vs. another "group" (females)? Is the issue of homophobia a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (heterosexuals) vs. another "group" (homosexuals)? Quite frankly, that is beyond silly.

I agree. If a 'race' is merely a socio-political construct (your idea, not mine), then any 'socio-political construct' constitutes a 'race', and conflict between these 'socio-political constructs' constitutes 'racism'. This is your idea remember, I am just phrasing it in such a way that even you can see its stupidity.

[gadster]

Originally posted by perryp:
I'm arguing with someone who doesn't believe in evolution!

No, you appear to be arguing with someone who is questioning why all black dogs, regardless of their genetic background, size, disposition, personality, and character should be arbitrarily lumped together as one 'breed'.

[perryp]

Originally posted by gadster:
No, you appear to be arguing with someone who is questioning why all black dogs, regardless of their genetic background, size, disposition, personality, and character should be arbitrarily lumped together as one 'breed'.

Yes, and he doesn't believe in evolution. I wonder if he still believes the sun goes around the earth. Additionally, I never said all dark-skinned people are members of the same race - so again, he's using a straw man argument because he is unable to meet the argument full on.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Yes, and he doesn't believe in evolution. I wonder if he still believes the sun goes around the earth. Additionally, I never said all dark-skinned people are members of the same race - so again, he's using a straw man argument because he is unable to meet the argument full on.

what makes you think that somebody who doesn't believe that there is any biological basis for race(ism), doesn't believe in evolution either? how does that follow?

why is it so important to you that people acknoweledge that races actually do exist, especially if you are, as you have mentioned, not interested in the implications?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
what makes you think that somebody who doesn't believe that there is any biological basis for race(ism), doesn't believe in evolution either? how does that follow?

He has openly admitted that he doesn't believe in evolution.

Originally posted by deekay1:
why is it so important to you that people acknoweledge that races actually do exist, especially if you are, as you have mentioned, not interested in the implications?

Simply because it's a scientific fact. If people actually believe that races don't exist, then this shows a laziness in thinking. If people don't believe races exist then they may as well believe the moon is made of cheese. Your problem seems to be that saying that race exists is unpalatable, rather than not true.

[gadster]

Originally posted by perryp:
He has openly admitted that he doesn't believe in evolution.


Simply because it's a scientific fact. If people actually believe that races don't exist, then this shows a laziness in thinking. If people don't believe races exist then they may as well believe the moon is made of cheese. Your problem seems to be that saying that race exists is unpalatable, rather than not true.

What is the scientific method to determine race? If I were to supply a cross section of the world's inhabitants, how would you process them into their proper racial categories, scientifically, using proper scientific method?

[theolein]

Well, as a white Sub-Saharan African I thought I could have something to add to this argument.

I grew up in what was probably the mosts racist society this planet has ever seen, South Africa. In apartheid South Africa there were so called racial classifications which were absurd as anything, but here they are: White, Black, Coloured, Asian. The apartheid government defined "Coloureds" as people of mixed race. What they meant were people of "white" and "black" descent, but the stuation obviously got messy (messier than it was in any case, which is saying something) when people of other races mixed, such as "Asians" and "whites" or "asians" and "blacks". Not only this but Japanese were officially classified " honorary white" while Chinese were officially classified as "asian" along with completely different peoples from the Indian subcontinent. Arabs were classified white even though, as anyone who has ever been to the middle east knows, there are many Arabs who are decidedly not very light skinned.

All of this was degrading, disgusting and totally fu�ked up, but there you go. Classifying races, to me anyhow, seems to be more a product of human stupidity than anything else.

Those poeople here who have posted that central Africans are darker than southern Africans or some such crock, have obviously never been to Africa. In South Africa alone you have tribes that traditionally (and I mean traditionally because urban blacks in South Africa are very mixed) quite light skinned with not much of the so called negroid features such as the Tswana tribe and there are tribes such as the Zulu which are traditionally very dark with more of the so called negroid features.

Even amongst black Africans you get a sort of racism (nothing as pronounced or as viscious as what the whites did but it's there). The Zulus, for instance, a tribe with a very aggressive and proud martial history (they wiped out a number of other tribes in Southern Africa in a number of their military campaigns before the whites arrived and started treating all blacks like dirt) tend to look down, traditionally, on so called weaker tribes like the Tswana (and the Tswana are traditionally the ones with the lighter skin) because the Tswana were not as good at fighting as the Zulus were. In some parts of Africa, particularly west Africa, you get countries where the tribes with the lighter skins look down on the tribes with the darker skins (note that this is an absolute generalisation). And woe betide you in Africa if you're an albino, of which there are quite a few. They traditionally got treated like dirt by almost everyone, although I think it's probably a case of where people who look wildly different to the norm get treated as outcasts.

Why white skins evolved and domanated in Europe (or the caucuses or wherever) is something I don't know. I would think that probably it was a genetic mutation, along with body hair, that helped protect our non technical ancestors against the cold. The colour white radiates heat less efficiently than a surface that is black, which means that a white skin will cool down less rapidly in the cold than a darker skin. Conversely, a dark skin will dissapate excess heat much more efficiently in a hot climate.

I presume that the most pronounced asian feature, the epicanthic folds over the eyes, was a genetic mutation that helped those people living in the steppes of central asia against the sand carried by the wind. But asians vary as much as everyone else, and you have "white" skinned Chinese and dark skinned Tibetans and Innuit.

Who cares anyway? It would be totally boring if everyone was the same "race" or whatever.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Your problem seems to be that saying that race exists is unpalatable, rather than not true.

no, my problem isn't that the notion of race is "unpalatable", but rather that it's completely irrelevant (except for maybe, as in the case of the article you posted, determening the origins of certain health probelms relating to genetic commonalities).

what one also needs to take into account, is that the term "race" is a, from a sociological point of view, heavily "laidn" term.

[perryp]

Originally posted by gadster:
What is the scientific method to determine race? If I were to supply a cross section of the world's inhabitants, how would you process them into their proper racial categories, scientifically, using proper scientific method?

Well this is the fifth time I've quoted this article...!!
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

Classifying races, to me anyhow, seems to be more a product of human stupidity than anything else.

So you believe that saving someones life because knowing what race they are means that will get the appropriate drug is stupid? should they die because you think classification is stupid?

Those poeople here who have posted that central Africans are darker than southern Africans or some such crock, have obviously never been to Africa.

That was me. I have visited Southern Africa and lived in West Africa.

In South Africa alone you have tribes that traditionally (and I mean traditionally because urban blacks in South Africa are very mixed) quite light skinned with not much of the so called negroid features such as the Tswana tribe and there are tribes such as the Zulu which are traditionally very dark with more of the so called negroid features.

As a South African, you will know that the darker skinned Bantu tribes of Southern Africa are more recent settlers than the lighter skinned (Bushmen for instance).

In some parts of Africa, particularly west Africa, you get countries where the tribes with the lighter skins look down on the tribes with the darker skins (note that this is an absolute generalisation).

The lighter skinned in West Africa (Hausa/Fulani for instance) make look down the darker-skinned (Yoruba and Igbo for instance), but they have no reason to since the darker skinned people have much higher rates of educational attainment and look upon the northerners as illiterate cattle merchants.

But none of this invalidates the biological reality of race.

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
no, my problem isn't that the notion of race is "unpalatable", but rather that it's completely irrelevant (except for maybe, as in the case of the article you posted, determening the origins of certain health probelms relating to genetic commonalities).

How can knowledge be 'completely irrelevant' if it saves lives? Is human life irrelevant to you - does it have no meaning? But I'm glad you now accept the biological reality of race, een if you think it's 'completely irrelevant'

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
How can knowledge be 'completely irrelevant' if it saves lives?

how does the "acknowledgement" of the commonality of certain geneological "patterns", and in turn labeling these "race", save lives?

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
....'


So you believe that saving someones life because knowing what race they are means that will get the appropriate drug is stupid? should they die because you think classification is stupid?


That was me. I have visited Southern Africa and lived in West Africa.


As a South African, you will know that the darker skinned Bantu tribes of Southern Africa are more recent settlers than the lighter skinned (Bushmen for instance).


...

As the great white hunter on safari in africa, you would also have known that the Tswana are not Bushmen (Khoi-san, actually, and I dare you to pronounce it -record it on your mac and post it somewhere), but are also a bantu tribe speaking a language of the bantu language group, to which the languages of the Khoi-san people are not related at all

But whatever. Classifying someone by race for biological reasons? Of course, why not, if it means someone from one race is susceptible to sickle cell anemia and someone from another race isn't. Classifying someone for dubious reasons of superiority, on the other hand, is simply yet another example of humanity's fear of change and of things different to what one knows.

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
how does the "acknowledgement" of the commonality of certain geneological "patterns", and in turn labeling these "race", save lives?

That's not an answer - it's a question.

Race is a word for 'commonality of certain geneological "patterns"', so people should use it freely. Not using it, and having to use long-winded PC euphemisms, is an impediment to science. As an analogy, millions are dying of AIDS simply because of conservative cultures where sex (and therefore AIDS) cannot be discussed in any meaningful way.

As the great white hunter on safari in africa, you would also have known that the Tswana are not Bushmen (Khoi-san, actually, and I dare you to pronounce it -record it on your mac and post it somewhere), but are also a bantu tribe speaking a language of the bantu language group, to which the languages of the Khoi-san people are not related at all

I've never been on safari, except in the browser sense. And I'm not a 'great white hunter'. Where did I say that the Tswana are Bushmen? What has pronunciation got to do with the argument? What was your point? Have you got one?

Classifying someone for dubious reasons of superiority, on the other hand, is simply yet another example of humanity's fear of change and of things different to what one knows.

Where did I suggest this?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
...Not using it, and having to use long-winded PC euphemisms, is an impediment to science.

how so?

that's like saying the word "nigger" is used by some to describe people with certain physiological attributes. does that mean people should use it freely? - nonsense!

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
that's like saying the word "nigger" is used by some to describe people with certain physiological attributes. does that mean people should use it freely? - nonsense!

I think your bad conscience is showing.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
I think your bad conscience is showing.

WTF???

[OAW]

I'll try this one more time ...

Gadster said ...

Originally posted by Gadster:

What is the scientific method to determine race? If I were to supply a cross section of the world's inhabitants, how would you process them into their proper racial categories, scientifically, using proper scientific method?

... to which you responded ...

Originally posted by perryp:
Well this is the fifth time I've quoted this article...!!
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

So again you have quoted that one paragraph .... and totally ignored the rest of the article. In my earlier post I posted sections of that article that explictly contradict what you are saying ... which is that these "5 different groups" = "races" in the commonly held definition of the term. I've already thoroughly debunked this notion using your own source ... yet you insist on this foolishness.

OAW

[perryp]

^^^
doesn't believe in evolution!

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:

Race is a word for 'commonality of certain geneological "patterns"', so people should use it freely. Not using it, and having to use long-winded PC euphemisms, is an impediment to science.

Since you seem to think that I'm just making all this up let me come at you this way ....

The problem here is that you are playing semantic games by trying to use the term "race" in a broader sense than it is typically used. The article you keep quoting explicitly does not use the term "race" to describe these "broad groups" or "commonality of certain genealogical patterns". It goes on to explicitly state that these "broad groups" do often do not correspond to typical "racial" classifications. Yet you apparently think they the participants and lurkers in this thread can't read. As if you are saying to us ... "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

First let's examine the definition of the term itself ...

Race

NOUN:
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.

ETYMOLOGY:
French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.

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

(emphasis mine)

http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/R0003900.html

Now let's break all this down ....

First and foremost, the definition of terms are listed in the dictionary in the order in which they are typically used. That is, the primary definition is listed as number 1 ... a secondary definition is listed as number 2, a tertiary definition is listed as number 3 ... etc. So let's examine the primary definition ...

"1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

Now what are these "physical characteristics"? Well the Usage Notes goes on to say ....

"European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations�Caucasoid (or Caucasian),Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid"

First, let me digress a bit and rebut christ who took exception to my earlier statement of ....

Originally posted by OAW:
"the idea of focusing on these things is essentially a sociopolitical construct that was created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest".

Well as you can see here, the dictionary clearly states that this whole "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid" crap was created by "European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries". Hmmm ... that certainly seems to correspond to what I said. The term "European" is explicitly used in both ... and "last few centuries" certainly seems to mesh with 17th and 18th centuries. So it's clear where these terms and concepts come from. What is not discussed here but is patently obvious to any student of history is that these terms and concepts were used to further the notion Caucasian (white) "superiority". "Racism", "white supremacy" ... whatever you want to call it was indeed "justified" by such "science". And many of the ills that resulted from this racist ideology ... colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow, etc. .... were without question "used to further the goal of European expansion and conquest".

Now back to perryp ....

Earlier in this thread I stated ....

Originally posted by OAW:
"There are commonly held notions of "race". My contention is that these are based upon common ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features (skin tone and facial features primarily)."

So we can see that the primary definition or commonly held notion when it comes to the term "race" is based upon grouping people by shared physical characteristics.

Let's continue and examine the secondary definition of the term ...

"2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race."

Now perhaps it's simply not registering with you, but that certainly seems to correspond to the "based upon common ethnicity" portion of my statement above ... n'est pas?

We have to get to the 3rd and 4th definitions of the term "race" to get to something that approaches what you have been saying....

"3. A genealogical line; a lineage. 4. Humans considered as a group"

Earlier I said about that section of the article you keep quoting ...

Originally posted by OAW:
"That quote references 5 broad groups of humanity based upon common genetic ancestry"

... to which you responded ....

Originally posted by perryp:
"Which is longhand for 'races'"

You went on to say ...

Originally posted by perryp:
Race is a word for 'commonality of certain geneological "patterns"

So the tertiary and quaternary (yes ... I did have to look that one up! ) definitions of the term are the ones that correspond to your statements. So yes ... you are correct in a narrow, technical sense. However, this does not in any way, shape, form, or fashion negate what I have been saying all along which is that there is no biological basis for "race" as that term is commonly used. I have been referring to the 1st and 2nd definitions of the term ... the ones that the typical person will think of when you use it. You have been referring to the 3rd and 4th definitions of the term ... things that most people will not think of when you use it. Definitions that by their very placement in the dictionary are not the meanings that are "commonly used".

.... continued

[OAW]

Let's me conclude with this final nail in your coffin. The Usage Notes conclude with the following ...

" The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points�such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another�many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

This corresponds with the other section from your infamous article that I quoted (and you insist on ignoring) ...

"The Human Race

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar."

I even went on to say that I as a dark-skinned African-American male would fit right in with an Australian Aborigine based upon physical appearance ... but on an overall genetic basis I would likely be more similar to my "white" neighbor. So in the "commonly held" definition of the term "race" ... I and an Australian Aborigine would be in the same "race" because we are both black. But that is based upon a limited set of observable physical features. However, based upon the overall set of genetic information ... we would not be in the same "race".

So my point stands. Backed up not only by your own source ... but also by the dictionary itself. So now you have the opportunity to either concede defeat or just continue to demonstrate the old adage that "Common sense isn't always that common."

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
^^^
doesn't believe in evolution!

To clarify, I never said that I didn't believe in some of the principles of evolution. I never said I was a "creationist". All I said was that I didn't believe in that aspect of evolution which states that one species "evolved" into another species. Certainly species mutate. We've seen that. But it has never been observed where one species suddenly became another. And IIRC, observation is a core principle of science. Finally, keep in mind that it is still called the Theory of Evolution for this very reason. It has yet to be proven as fact.

Having said all that, we all know that this is just your desperate attempt to draw attention away from the fact that I've been intellectually b*tch slapping you all over this thread. It's really quite pathetic.

OAW

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
First, let me ... rebut christ who took exception to my earlier statement of ....

Well as you can see here, the dictionary clearly states that this whole "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid" crap was created by "European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries". Hmmm ... that certainly seems to correspond to what I said.

Which is neat, but not what we were discussing. I was taking issue with the idea that 'racism' originated in the nineteenth century, and your dictionary doesn't rebut that - in fact your dictionary just talks about some people that invented a system of classification, not that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

It is also worth noting that your dictionary fails to step up to the plate regarding the central plank of your thesis, that terms for these 'races' were "created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest" Birds and Bees were different before anyone created names for them. Naming them helps when you are talking about them.

As in other animals, misclassification can be counter productive (Koala bears are not bears), and, yes, they got it wrong. So?.

Racists exist. They have existed for essentially ever, and they can be any colour, and be racially antagonistic to any colour, including their own. Regardless of what they are called.

If it's of any help, I agree with you on the evolution thing, as stated miles above. In general people that believe in evolution slavishly as the only means for differentiation between species haven't examined the subject much. In my opinion.

[hyteckit]

Race do exist.

All because of evolution.

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
The problem here is that you are playing semantic games

Not at all. I would suggest you are. A person who is playing semantic games would go to a dictionary and nitpick over definitions.

Originally posted by OAW:
The article you keep quoting explicitly does not use the term "race" to describe these "broad groups" or "commonality of certain genealogical patterns". It goes on to explicitly state that these "broad groups" do often do not correspond to typical "racial" classifications

And the example that it goes on to give, the fact that 'individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar' is very extreme. Who would consider Aborigines and Black Africans to be the same race? Not me. Not anyone I know. Not anyone on this board.

Originally posted by OAW:
First let's examine the definition of the term itself ...

Here come the 'semantic games' you accused me of. I'm not interested in definition from American dictionaries - though with your semantic desperation I can see why you are. Show me something from a biology book and I might be interested.

Originally posted by OAW:
"1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

But in in the primary definition I'm right anyway.

Originally posted by OAW:
"European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations�Caucasoid (or Caucasian),Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid"

Which roughly fits in with what was found by DNA analysis - from the article:
'Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, THEY WERE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH FIVE DIFFERENT GROUPS of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICANS, EUROPEANS and ASIANS WEST OF THE HIMALAYAS; EAST ASIANS; INHABITANTS OF NEW GUINEA AND MELANESIA; and NATIVE AMERICANS. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.'

If you can work out from DNA analysis that people fall into five different groups then race is a biological reality.

Originally posted by OAW:
Well as you can see here, the dictionary clearly states that this whole "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid" crap was created by "European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries".

And yet it roughly matches the groups that are found with DNA analysis. What's your point? That everything is wrong that's created by Europeans? I know you pretend to not believe in biological reality of race, but you seem to be some kind of anti-European racist too.

Originally posted by OAW:
So we can see that the primary definition or commonly held notion when it comes to the term "race" is based upon grouping people by shared physical characteristics.

No it says 'A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics'. You left out 'genetically transmitted'.

Originally posted by OAW:
So yes ... you are correct in a narrow, technical sense.

No I'm right in the primary sense. And you left out 'genetically transmitted' above to give the appearance that you are right.

Originally posted by OAW:
"many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

A cultural anthropologist is not a biologist any more than an astrologer in an astronomer.

Originally posted by OAW:
I even went on to say that I as a dark-skinned African-American male would fit right in with an Australian Aborigine based upon physical appearance

Irrelevant. I'm talking about biology, not appearance. Genotype not phenotype. It doesn't matter if a Melanesian looks like a West African. Biologically they are different races.

Originally posted by OAW:
So now you have the opportunity to either concede defeat or just continue to demonstrate the old adage that "Common sense isn't always that common."

You haven't provided one fact to repudiate me. As someone said "Common-sense is part of the home-made ideology of those who have been deprived of fundamental learning". Of that kind of common sense, you have plenty.

Originally posted by OAW:
To clarify, I never said that I didn't believe in some of the principles of evolution. I never said I was a "creationist". All I said was that I didn't believe in that aspect of evolution which states that one species "evolved" into another species. Certainly species mutate. We've seen that. But it has never been observed where one species suddenly became another.

The fossil record shows evolution on a geological time-scale. You can't 'observe one species suddenly becoming another' unless you have a lifespan of tens of thousands of years. Evidently you have difficulty with the concept of geological time as you believe humans 'hitched a ride on Pangea'

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
Which is neat, but not what we were discussing. I was taking issue with the idea that 'racism' originated in the nineteenth century, and your dictionary doesn't rebut that - in fact your dictionary just talks about some people that invented a system of classification, not that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

So we weren't discussing the very concept of "Negroid", "Mongoloid", and "Caucasoid"? I'm sorry ... but I thought that was the very title and subject of this thread! Furthermore, let's examine the statement to which you responded again ...

Originally posted by OAW:
Let me try this one more time. There are commonly held notions of "race". My contention is that these are based upon common ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features (skin tone and facial features primarily). My contention is also that the idea of focusing on these things is essentially a sociopolitical construct that was created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest. But that's a subject for another thread.

Now the portion you quoted is in bold. But I've included the sentences immediately preceding and following that portion. In it we clearly see that I am speaking about the "commonly held notions of race" that are based upon "shared physical features" and "common ethnicity". These correspond to the terms "Negroid", and "Mongoloid", and "Caucasoid" as I've demonstrated in my 2-part post a above this one. So I fail to see how you can credibly claim that that was "not what we were discussing"!

Originally posted by christ:

It is also worth noting that your dictionary fails to step up to the plate regarding the central plank of your thesis, that terms for these 'races' were "created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest"

Uh, the casual observer would see that I said that with the the following ...

Originally posted by OAW:
What is not discussed here but is patently obvious to any student of history is that these terms and concepts were used to further the notion Caucasian (white) "superiority".....

Were you not paying attention?

Originally posted by christ:

Racists exist. They have existed for essentially ever, and they can be any colour, and be racially antagonistic to any colour, including their own. Regardless of what they are called.

Again, it is my contention that "racism" ... in the modern, commonly held meaning of the term ... a meaning that you yourself are clearly demonstrating above with your use of the word colour ... did not exist in the ancient word. At least not in any widespread or significant manner. What I'm talking about here is color prejudice. It just wasn't an issue during those times. Now certainly their was ethnic prejudice and cultural prejudice. But people generally didn't have issues with each other because of skin color in those days.

Let's examine what has been said about the first group of "whites" that played a major role on the world stage ... the Greeks and the Romans. First a reference ...

Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience

Let's see what's been said about this scholarly work ...

"Frank M. Snowden Jr., a world-renowned scholar on ancient Greece and Rome who taught at Howard and Georgetown Universities, details with encyclopedic and painstaking scholarship and research the undeniable presence of Africans in the Greco-Roman world. "The experiences of those Africans who reached the alien shores of Greece and Italy constituted an important chapter in the history of classical antiquity," he writes. Using evidence from terra cotta figures, paintings, and classical sources like Herodotus and Pliny the Elder, Snowden proves, contrary to our modern assumptions, that Greco-Romans did not view Africans with racial contempt. Many Africans worked in the Roman Empire as musicians, artisans, scholars, and generals as well as slaves, and they were noted as much for their virtue as for their appearance of having a "burnt face" (from which came the Greek name Ethiopian). --Eugene Holley Jr"

As the quote above indicated, the term Ethiopia is linguistically derived from the Greek words "aithi" (burnt) and "ops" (face). It's also helpful to note that in Greco-Roman culture .. the term "Ethiopian" was often used generically to refer to any "black" person ... not just those who were from the country of Ethiopia. Just like in later centuries the term Moor ... from the Greek "mauros" and Latin "maurus" meaning "black" or "dark" was often used by Europeans to describe any "black" person ... not just those from Northwest Africa. Just like even later the term Negro ... a Spanish word meaning "black" ... was often used to describe any "black" person ... regardless of their national origin. Additionally, it helps to note that Egypt is derived from the Greek "Aegyptos" which itself is contraction of the Greek "Hi-Gi-Ptos" ... a term derived from the ancient Egyptian "Het-Ka-Ptah" which meant "Place where the Projection of Ptah Manifested." and really only referred to a particular city. Now this noteworthy in this discussion only because "Egypt" or "Aegyptos" was not what the inhabitants called their own country That term would be KMT ... alternatively spelled in English as "Kemet", "Kamit", "Khem", "Kam", etc ... which literally meant "the black land" or "land of the blacks". And we also have ancient figures like Herodotus, and Aristotle, and Diodorus who all state in their various works that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians were similar in appearance. For example, Herodotus states in The Greek Chronicles ...

Colchians are of Egyptian Descent

But it is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent...My own idea on the subject was based on the fact that they have black skins and wooly hair...and secondly, and more especially, on the fact that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision. -book II

Anyhoo .... I mention all of this just to demonstrate that fact that "black" people were indeed all over Africa ... even the North (where the Egyptians and Moors were from) in ancient times. They were not just limited to "Sub-Saharan" Africa as some would have you believe. As Herodotus and other Greek writers stated ... the Egyptians (North Africa) had "black skins and wooly hair" just like the Ethiopians (Sub-Saharan Africa). Having established that, we all know that the Greeks and the Romans had extensive contact with the peoples of North Africa. I've also established that many of the peoples at the time were described as "black". (And yes, some were lighter-skinned e.g. the Libyans). So let's see what some other scholars have said about this subject ...

Christian Delacampagne's L'Invention du racisme: Antiquit� et Moyen-Age (1983), in a study of the origins of racism, points out that most specialists accept Snowden's view that neither the Greeks nor the Romans attached a special stigma to the color of the skin.

5. P. MACKENDRICK. American Journal of Philology 94 (1973): 212-214. --- "The novelty of this book, the fruit of a lifetime's labor of love� lies in the exhaustive, impeccable scholarship with which it documents and illustrates its conclusion, that there is no evidence for racism or color prejudice in Greco-Roman antiquity� In short, in the first major encounter in European records of blacks in a predominantly white society, the Greeks and Romans counted blacks peoples in. Of this fact, and of its definitive exposition by a gifted colleague, classical scholars may well be proud."

D. L. NOEL. American Journal of Sociology 90 (1984): 226-227. --- "In the final chapter, 'Toward an Understanding of the Ancient view,' Snowden draws on contemporary social science and provides a sophisticated assessment of the ancients' lack of racism� Snowden's reasoning is sound and complements Stephen J. Gould's assessment in his The Mismeasure of Man� of latter day scientists who perceive and interpret racial differences through lenses severely distorted by prevailing racism� the author has given us the clearest and most thorough assessment of the ancient views of blacks that we are likely to have unless and until new evidence is uncovered."

http://www.howard.edu/library/Snowden/Blacks.htm

Originally posted by christ:
If it's of any help, I agree with you on the evolution thing, as stated miles above. In general people that believe in evolution slavishly as the only means for differentiation between species haven't examined the subject much. In my opinion.

Well I'm glad we agree on something!

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
If you can work out from DNA analysis that people fall into five different groups then race is a biological reality.

and this is where you are dead wrong. the reason why you can distinguish these groups is because YOU STOP AT A CERTAIN POINT IN THE ANALYSIS!

hell, if you wanted, you could make an argument that based on genetic traits you could divide humans into 10, 3, 20, or 200 individual and distinct categories (and call them "race" if you wanted to)!

IT ALL DEPENDS WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO FOCUS ON! AND HOW FAR YOU WANT TO TAKE YOUR ANALYSIS!

to use one of your examples, a simple minded person could say "this or that button is red"! somebody else would object and say it's "burgundy", a frenchman would say "il est rouge", a scientist might ad "no, it's 200 degrees kelvin" (i don't now the measurement it's just to serve as an example).

again, ask yourself! what are the implications? are the categories i define relevant?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
to use one of your examples, a simple minded person could say "this or that button is red"! somebody else would object and say it's "burgundy", a frenchman would say "il est rouge", a scientist might ad "no, it's 200 degrees kelvin" (i don't now the measurement it's just to serve as an example).

None of that stops red being red.

Originally posted by deekay1:
are the categories i define relevant?

I don't think anything you've said is relevant

[perryp]

it is my contention that "racism" ... did not exist in the ancient word ... What I'm talking about here is color prejudice. It just wasn't an issue during those times. .... "Snowden proves, contrary to our modern assumptions, that Greco-Romans did not view Africans with racial contempt."

from the Satyricon by Petronius, 1st century AD

"Listen to what I have hit on. Eumolpus, as a man of letters, of course carries ink about him; let us black ourselves with it from head to foot. Then as Ethiopian slaves we shall be at your service, light-hearted and free from fear of consequences, besting our enemies by this change of complexion."

"Why certainly," cried Giton, "circumcise us too, that we may pass for Jews, and bore our ears to imitate Arabs, and chalk our faces that Gaul may claim us as her sons! As if a change of color could modify the whole appearance; why! a host of alterations must be united to make the illusion convincing. Grant our dyed faces would keep their black; suppose no touch of water to make the color run, no blot of ink to stick to our clothes, an accident that will often happen even when no mucilage is added; pray, can we give ourselves the hideous swollen lips of the African? can we transform our hair to wool with curling-tongs? can we scar our brows with rows of ugly wrinkles? render ourselves bow-legged and flat-footed? give our beards that outlandish look? A dye may disfigure the person, it cannot change it. Now hear a desperate man's remedy; let us wind our clothes around our heads, and plunge into the deep."

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
And the example that it goes on to give, the fact that 'individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar' is very extreme. Who would consider Aborigines and Black Africans to be the same race? Not me. Not anyone I know. Not anyone on this board. [/B]

Well you can make a ridiculous claim like that but anyone with 2 cents worth of intelligence knows that it's BS. Look at this guy here ...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...UTF-8%26sa%3DN

As I mentioned earlier when my hair was still growing it was straight and curly ... not the stereotypical "nappy" associated with the so-called "Negroid" or "black" race. My point is that if you washed the tribal markings from his face this guy would look like a family member. Or if you dressed me up like him I would fit right in with his people from an appearance standpoint. And if you shaved his head you'd be looking at someone that looks uncannily like me ... from skin tone, to facial features, facial hair texture ... even build. Yet you claim that no one would consider him to be of the same "race" as a Black African (keep in mind that African-Americans are indeed descendants of "Black Africans")!

Let me put it to you this way. Dress this guy up like the typical "brother" in America and let me and him go hang out at a bar filled with white people and start hitting on some white women .... successfully. I guarantee you that a certain percentage of the white males in that room will refer to us both as n*gger! Perhaps under their breath so as not to catch a beat down ... but you can best believe no distinction will be made between us because we would definitely be considered to be of the same "race". Now you can continue to "play dumb" if you choose too.

Originally posted by perryp:
Here come the 'semantic games' you accused me of. I'm not interested in definition from American dictionaries - though with your semantic desperation I can see why you are. Show me something from a biology book and I might be interested.[/B]

So you don't refute the definition. You just don't like it ... and you simply ignore it and act like it's irrelevant. OIC.

Originally posted by perryp:
Which roughly fits in with what was found by DNA analysis - from the article:
'Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, THEY WERE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH FIVE DIFFERENT GROUPS of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICANS, EUROPEANS and ASIANS WEST OF THE HIMALAYAS; EAST ASIANS; INHABITANTS OF NEW GUINEA AND MELANESIA; and NATIVE AMERICANS. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.'[/B]

Hmmm .... and where do we see CAUCASOID, NEGROID, and MONGOLOID? After all, that is the title of this thread ... n'est pas? Where do we see WHITE, BLACK, and ASIAN? Again, I direct you to your own source ....

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

Now earlier you chose to focus on the very last sentence ... after totally ignoring the first few times I referenced the quote (yeah ... don't think I didn't notice!) .... so this time I've bolded another section. It clearly states that skin color and facial features are what? .... routinely used to divide people into races! Now that's not me talking. That's your source! So earlier I show you and example of an Aborigine who looks just like me ... an African-American. A picture of a guy who would blend right in appearance-wise in any "hood" in the USA. Yet you claim the example of Africans and Aborigines having similar skin tone and facial features is "very extreme". You said ... "Who would consider Aborigines and Black Africans to be the same race? " Well duh ... apparently the author of the very article that you keep quoting would!

The bottom line is that the Aborigine shown in the link above would be considered "black" using the traits that are .... what did your own source say? .... "routinely used to divide people into races". 24-7-365! But your own source goes on to say that he is actually quite dissimilar on an overall genetic basis to other people who are also considered "black". Yet you try to obfuscate the fact that this quote ... did I say it was from your own source already? ..... completely refutes your contention by dismissing the example.

Originally posted by perryp:
If you can work out from DNA analysis that people fall into five different groups then race is a biological reality.[/B]

Again ... what you don't seem to be able to get through your thick skull is that these "five different groups" do not correspond to the commonly held notions of race. They don't correspond to the primary and secondary dictionary definitions which reflect ... guess what? ... the commonly held notions of "race". What does your own source say about it again?

For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically.

continued .....

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
And yet it roughly matches the groups that are found with DNA analysis. [/B]

No it does not! Can you read? Do you even understand what your own source is saying? [Chris Tucker imitation]Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?[/Chris Tucker imitation]

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not.

The "five different groups" that you refer to are the ones your own source is talking about when it says "underlying genetic differences among populations". It asks the question ... do these correspond to the "common notions of race". And what is the answer that it gives? In some cases they do, but often they do not.

Post your email address here so I can PayPal you a dollar so you can go buy a clue! Jeez .... the central point that your own source is making is that these "five different groups" you keep harping on do not generally correspond to the commonly held notions of "race". Furthermore, they don't even "roughly match" the "-oid" terms identified ....

Negroid = SUB-SAHARAN AFRICANS
Caucasoid = EUROPEANS and ASIANS WEST OF THE HIMALAYAS
Mongoloids = EAST ASIANS
Australoids = INHABITANTS OF NEW GUINEA AND MELANESIA
??? = NATIVE AMERICANS.

Is that the "rough match" that you are referring to? If so, then the last time I checked New Guinea and Melanesia were not Australia and New Zealand ... so do the Aborigines really belong there? What about the Ethiopians and Somalians who are in Sub-Saharan Africa ... but are in some circles considered to be "Caucasoid" because of the lighter skin and slimmer features? As Dr. Maulana Karenga once stated ...

It is "... playing Europe's racial game to concede that Egyptians are white or Asian if they don't look like a Eurocentric version of a West African." Additionally, he states that "Ethiopians and Somalis, perhaps, resemble the ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians more than any other peoples and they are, even by Eurocentric standards, African."

So which group do Ethiopians and Somalians belong to? The "Sub-Saharan African"which would make them "Negroid" or the "Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas" since they supposedly have "Caucasoid" features? The fact of the matter is that most Africans ... even the dubious "Sub-Saharan" Africans ... do not have the stereotypical "Negroid" features of very dark skin, thick lips, broad nose, and kinky hair. And for centuries games have been played with these terms which is why they are no longer used in serious scientific circles anymore. On the one hand I'm "Negroid" because I'm without question a dark skinned black male of West African descent with full lips and a broad nose. But maybe I"m an "Australoid" because I have (or had) straight curly hair? A Maasai warrior in Kenya is claimed to be "Caucasoid" because of his slender facial features and skin tone ... but wait, he's in "Sub-Saharan" African so that makes him "Negroid". Or does it?

Originally posted by perryp:
What's your point? That everything is wrong that's created by Europeans? I know you pretend to not believe in biological reality of race, but you seem to be some kind of anti-European racist too.[/B]

My point is that there is a long, documented history among elements in the European "scientific" community of playing games with terms such as "Negroid", "Caucasoid", and "Mongloid" to justify their racist ideologies and world view. These terms have been twisted, contorted, and convoluted in so many ways that they have no real meaning. All these gyrations were engaged in to promote the racist world view that all significant developments in the history of human civilization were caused by "Caucasoids" ... and that the "Negroids" were just along for the ride. Just heathens who had to be "civilized" by the guiding hand of the Caucasian. The fact of the matter is that even among most modern European scientists ... the terms of no longer used for this very reason.

Negroid

Caucasoid

Mongoloid

Australoid

In all of these definitions you will see the phrase Not in scientific use. Yet you claim that these discredited terms "roughly match" the groups found by modern DNA analysis.

Originally posted by perryp:
No it says 'A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics'. You left out 'genetically transmitted'. .....

No I'm right in the primary sense. And you left out 'genetically transmitted' above to give the appearance that you are right.[/B]

Aren't skin tone and facial features "genetically transmitted"? Is it your contention that physical features observable with the eyes such as skin color and facial features are not "genetically transmitted" ... but other internal physical features are? In actuality you left out the Usage Notes that went on to expound upon the definition and identified that the primary physical characteristics used have traditionally been skin color and facial features. I see you need some more funds sent to you via PayPal so you can buy another clue.

Originally posted by perryp:
Irrelevant. I'm talking about biology, not appearance. Genotype not phenotype. It doesn't matter if a Melanesian looks like a West African. Biologically they are different races. [/B]

Now a minute ago you claimed that you and no one else on this board would think that an African and an Aborigine were of the same race. You go on to make a "rough match" which would put Aborigines in the "Australoids = INHABITANTS OF NEW GUINEA AND MELANESIA" category. And now you say that a Melanesian can look like a West African. A tad bit contradictory ... n'est pas? Finally, the point that just doesn't seem to register with you despite all the evidence is that the concept of race in the commonly held sense of the term ... in the primary dictionary definition of the term ... is fundamentally based upon phenotype! That is the entire point of the article you quoted! Namely that phenotypically based "racial" classifications do not correspond very well to genotypically based groupings. That is why the very section of the article you keep quoting does not use the term race. It says " five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains". In other words, 5 very broad groups of people with a common genetic ancestry. Why you insist on using a term to describe these "groups" that your very own source is debunking as invalid is the $64,000 question!

Originally posted by perryp:
You haven't provided one fact to repudiate me. [/B]

Yeah. Sure.

Originally posted by perryp:
The fossil record shows evolution on a geological time-scale. You can't 'observe one species suddenly becoming another' unless you have a lifespan of tens of thousands of years. [/B]

Sounds awfully familiar to the concept of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. 2000 years have gone by and He's a no show. "Well the Bible says ....'No one knows the hour ...'". 10,000 years have gone by and He still hasn't showed up. "Well the Bible says .... 'No one knows the hour ...'". 100,000 years have gone by and still no dice. "Well the Bible says .... 'No one knows the hour ...'". Awfully convenient isn't it?

In the meantime, I'll leave you to consider the following. Organisms on this planet die all the time. Even today. Did they all "evolve" into a new species? Or are they just not here anymore? You know ... extinct? Where is the evidence that fossils from different geological periods are related in a linear fashion? For that matter, even if they are related in a linear fashion .... where is the evidence that these were different species considering that the term means a category "consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding." Was "Homo Erectus" really a different "species" from "Homo Sapiens"? How do we really know that? Based upon bone structures left in the fossil record? Hmmm ... imagine 20,000 years from now some scientists dig up the bones of the guy that plays Mini Me in Austin Powers, along with the bones of Shaquille O'Neal, and your bones and my bones. They'd all be drastically different ... but are we different species because of it? How do we know that the transition from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens wasn't just intra-species mutation? If a modern human male built a time machine and went back into the days of Homo Erectus and found a female, do we know for a fact that he couldn't knock her up because we are now supposedly two different "species"?

The bottom line is that intra-species mutation can be observed and proven. And I don't have a problem with that aspect of evolution. Inter-species mutation is the area that I question. And until I see some evidence of it I don't accept it as fact. It is still a theory.

OAW