RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity.

RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/4/2007 7:05:13 PM)
"Which is very odd, given that the 'no such thing as race' over generalization is so often employed by those attempting to excuse racism by denying that it can even exist." Alumbrado, that seems not to be in character from you. Do you actually realize what you are saying there ? Or did you mis-word it somehow ? Anyway, everyone, I seem to see a growing consensus that it is the word that is used improperly. The concept of what we call "race" is in your face every day, but it would more aptly be described as breed. But human pride doesn't like that term, so we can use ethnicity. I guess it is more comfortable for some people. So now that we got that settled, I guess racial pride can now be called ethnic pride, and maybe White people can enjoy it a little bit too now. I encourage anyone and everyone to find out 'where they come from', whenever possible. And the reason is not to blow your horn. I am a Polack, and I am proud that my ancestors had the first university in Europe, and that it took the Nazis ten times longer to take Poland than France, especially given the disparity of the weaponry. But that does not make me any better, I have to do that myself. My heritage is not something that exalts me, it is something that I have a responsibility to live up to. And I have a few things to live down to as well. My family helped build this country, and now it is doing wrong. Those specifics are for other threads, but we and other Euro-Americans helped this country become the monster that it is, and I am not proud that my ancestors didn't keep a better watch on things and stop this from happening. But there is plenty of blame to go around. Enough on that. So is it ethnic pride now ? Can we just call it that and call it a day ? T

CuriousLord -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/4/2007 7:10:18 PM)
"Race" can certainly be a more generic form than the scientific usage. This application makes it no less accurate- simply a different usage. It does seem to me that a fair portion of individuals are defaulting to the scientific usage. While I'm often one of the first to point towards science, the terms of such are to be considered arbitary, not to the exclusion of common English. "Race" can mean what people normally use it for. Such races exist, as provided by the definition. A more specific, often more broad definition of "race" exists in scientific uses for the purposes of geneology. This definition does not contradict the common English one, but adds an alternate usage.

Sinergy -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/4/2007 7:10:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I am a Polack, and I am proud that my ancestors had the first university in Europe, and that it took the Nazis ten times longer to take Poland than France, especially given the disparity of the weaponry. I completely agree with your post, Termyn8or. However, the winner of the fuck with the Nazis really goes to Finland, a country where the Nazis simply gave up and went home. Sinergy

DomKen -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/4/2007 8:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: BlueCollar quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Dont say that you will upset those who have eyes,wont look, but will spew out "hi falutin" technical definitions masquerading as scientific knowledge or more importantly understanding of the inner recesses of nature. I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying. Whatever it means it wasn't a dig at you. DomKen comes to mind tho' lol So after demanding definitions for things, apparently in the belief that no one could do so, you now want to insult the one who has strived to enlighten you? That would be so pathetic as to be funny if it wasn't absolutely par for the course for creationists who have been presented with facts.

EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/4/2007 10:05:30 PM)
once again.. fast reply and i'll try to make this as succinct as possible. race is biologically moot. PERIOD. ethnicity is highly debatable as what most people equate with phenotypical "ethnicity" is not necessarily ethnicity. it is not merely a fact that the term is used improperly.. moreover it's a fact that the conception behind the colloquial usage is improper. we admit that planets revolve around the sun. we can concede to the fact that dogs can't breed with cats. yet when it comes to the issues of race, purely biologically and anthropologically speaking, well well well. that's another ball of wax. we can shun science and make inferences that simply aren't there. like my gramma used to say. you can lead an ignorant to thought, but you can't make them think. anyone see a thirsty horse milling around? culture can be another catch all, but still not spot on. because people of various races (for utter lack of willing to engage in an inane debate) can't be pigeon holed via traditional cultural bias.

BlueCollar -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 1:05:29 AM)
Ahhh, okay I think I see what you're saying here, Ebony. We've been using the term race when, we should be using the term species? So it's not accurate to make a statement of a particular RACE'S genetic disposition and identifiable traits, but rather those of a SPECIES? I've been gone for a few hours and the page has moved on considerably so I'm just trying to get my bearings here.

farglebargle -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 1:23:06 AM)
That sounds about right, but I'm just back from a party...

BlueCollar -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 1:40:57 AM)
Cool stuff. I'm back from cleaning grout. Doesn't have the same appeal, does it?

Politesub53 -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 2:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol And hence my original post: 'race' is a social and historical construct with no scientific ground. People confuse Mendelian characteristics with 'race'. And it's just incorrect. Hi kittinSol........ You are correct in as much that the theory is we all evolved from one source. Race though, and the concept of it, doesn`t go back that far. As you say it is a modern construct, so surely we can only look at the term in that context. Race, in modern terms, is determined by colour and culture. Although even within people of the same colour, there are differences. The English race and French race don`t consider themselves the same, not based on colour or dna but on culture and history, even though much of it is intertwined. MarieToo made an interesting point : " Ok...I am not very scientific-minded but can certainly understand how nationalities become "diluted" over the years and we all end up being basically 'mixed' to SOME extent, but not to enough of an extent that we all look the same....at least not yet. Frankly I dont think we ever will, but I understand the concept that kittin is talking about, but I think it's unreasonable to think that we don't notice color or use it to identify. " i think it`s not so much that we are slowly comming together, more that there has slowly been a divergence, due to migration over thousands of years. Just a point on the oldest University in Europe. Italy had the first one followed by France and the UK. The oldest in the world is in Egypt or Morocco, certainly it was Muslim. [;)]

seeksfemslave -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 3:04:54 AM)
Just a short precis of a longish post I just "lost" Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works" For example what produces conciousness, motivation and dare I say it the intellectual achievements apparent across the racial/ethnic or cultural divides ?

NorthernGent -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 5:05:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Just a short precis of a longish post I just "lost" Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works" For example what produces conciousness, motivation and dare I say it the intellectual achievements apparent across the racial/ethnic or cultural divides ? I think you're correct in the sense that theories and ideas aren't facts, but you can observe with your own eyes and gain an insight into what drives people. Look at England. What would you say are English values........individual freedom, work hard, do as would be done to, strive for personal ethics etc?.....this is the framework under which we live, but morals are created, we're not born with them. Look at the Asian "community" in England, do the vast majority really live their lives particularly different? I don't think so. Personally, I think the Asian community lap up our Western values. Yes, they have a different slant on things, but the materialism that is so valued in the West, is lapped up by the Asian community settling here. I'm sure you were making a point on another thread about Asians driving around in BMWs.....seems to be in tune with English culture, in my book. If the cultural framework didn't drive people, then you'd be able to draw a clear distinction between white and Asian English. Personally, I don't think such a distinction exists. Edited to add: look at the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who arrived here in the 1950s/60s etc...'very Eastern. Look at their grandchildren who are as fixated with Western goods and materialism as any white Englishman........race or culture? If you're unsure, study some footage of the Bradford riots and you will see a) hundreds of young Asians in designer labels, and absolutely no traditional muslim gear and b) young men doing what young Englishmen have done for centuries - lashing out at their governors in response to not getting a fair crack of the whip.

Sinergy -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 7:32:20 AM)
I also wanted to thank you for the lucid and informative post. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 7:52:17 AM)
Still waiting for the other shoe to drop. We all should have learned that the inhabitants of this planet are categorized acording to kingdom, species, and so forth, in our 4th or 5th grade earth or general science classes. So what is the point of belaboring the obvious? The results from the Genome Project regarding the lack of usefullness of 'race' as a biological definition is old news, confirming an even older belief. So what is the point of bringing that up at this late date? And is is hardly a trade secret that academic disciplines are divided into multiple categories, with some focusing on individual or organic factors and others focusing on societal or environmental ones. Likewise, we should already know that the use of terms varies from field to field...tangent in mathematics and tangent in literature carry different usages. Again, thoroughly worn out in high school, so, once more, what is the point of repeating ancient trivia, as though one were inventing or teaching anything new? On the other hand, what exactly is the point of denying that any other than biological disciplines are science, or applying the term in a manner implying exclusivity for genetic taxonomy? And again, what is the point of promoting the ignorance of the fact that race exists as a very real, scientific, and even axiomatic concept in law, criminology, sociology, econometrics, medicine, et al? So far, all I'm hearing is the sound of one jaw flapping... but still no explanation of what the point is.

Sinergy -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 8:06:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works" Are you speaking from a personal level, seeks? Sinergy

MsBearlee -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 8:23:41 AM)
<tiptoes through scattered piles of horseshit> Yeah, I see several horses milling around, Ebony. And thank you for several concise and intelligent posts here. Beverly

DesertRat -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 10:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Races certainly do exist. Though they may become more entwined now. And there is scientific basis for it... very commonly known ones, too.. Really? Hurry up and tell the anthropology community about this!! There is no objective support for the concept of race. Clines exist; races don't. In a colloquial sense, we can lump people into arbitrary groups based on commonly shared traits, but it all breaks down when we try to get objectively definitive about racial characteristics. So kittinSol is correct. We've talked about this before in another thread. Bob

seeksfemslave -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 10:40:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Those who have been on a "course" and believe that their knowledge of technical jargon explains everything should bear in mind that next to nothing is known about how the brain "works" Are you speaking from a personal level, seeks? Sinergy My brain "works" OK so long as I keep " me 'at on" thank you very much ! Thats old Anglo Saxon jargon for any illiterates out there. Then again it could be a translation of one of those Japanese poems that sums things up in as few words as possible.

EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 10:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlueCollar Ahhh, okay I think I see what you're saying here, Ebony. We've been using the term race when, we should be using the term species? So it's not accurate to make a statement of a particular RACE'S genetic disposition and identifiable traits, but rather those of a SPECIES? I've been gone for a few hours and the page has moved on considerably so I'm just trying to get my bearings here. i'm not arguing that the term "race" has no purpose. it does for some people.. it's just not scientifically correct. but if people want to run around using it i say "who gives a fuck"? the genetic differences between the various phenotypical populations are just too minimal to constitute seperate "races." most people are phenotypically grouped into one race but genetically would be grouped in a whole other race. so how would you determine race? by phenotype or genotype?

CuriousLord -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 10:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Races certainly do exist. Though they may become more entwined now. And there is scientific basis for it... very commonly known ones, too.. Really? Hurry up and tell the anthropology community about this!! I'm rather sure darker skinned people tending to have ancestry from Africia, while paler skinned people tending to have ancestry from Europe, is rather common knowledge. Then again, I could be mistaken. quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat There is no objective support for the concept of race. Besides medicines, socialogical considerations, historial considerations, etc? quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Clines exist; races don't. I'm typically the first to advise one asking about computers that brand is a very minor consideration before what it actually has in it. I'm not silly enough to deny the fact brands exist, though. quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat In a colloquial sense, we can lump people into arbitrary groups based on commonly shared traits, but it all breaks down when we try to get objectively definitive about racial characteristics. Which, despite how you may feel about the lack of usage of such divisions, does not mean that they do not exist.

EbonyFtshGoddess -> RE: There isn't such a thing as 'races' in humanity. (8/5/2007 10:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm typically the first to advise one asking about computers that brand is a very minor consideration before what it actually has in it. I'm not silly enough to deny the fact brands exist, though. that's actually a rather apropos analogy, but regardless of brand (which would be akin to phenotype in humans).. aren't they still all computers? sure a few have different features and software etc, but fundamentally they're all computers. the differences between the "brands" aren't significant enough to call different computer brands by a another name. it doesn't suddenly morph into another creature just because it's a different brand of computer. it's still a computer.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875