"Racism"

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 01:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  What I am implying in my statements is that there is no biological basis for race. Race is a cultural construct, not a biological one.

The studies showing African Americans have a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber proves this is wrong.  That is clearly a genetic marker that can be measured.

And isn't skin color a genetic marker?

The fact that there are also cultural differences does not mean there are no genetic differences.  The definition of "race" is tricky, but you can not just ignore clear biological differences.  The fact that there are grey areas between the races does not negate the proof of genetic differences.  The fact that there are differences between Africans does not mean they don't face certain problems specific to the color of their skin that they all share.

Claiming that we can not try to address problems specific to the African American community in the United States because there is no such thing as "different races" is a cop out.  To me it is clear that there are problems specific to individual minority groups.

[Belsnickel]

I see you didn't read the article. I chose a short, easy read, even!

(03-15-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The studies showing African Americans have a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber proves this is wrong.  That is clearly a genetic marker that can be measured.

It actually doesn't prove anything, mostly because your statement as stated here is inaccurate. Even if the average African American has a higher percentage of FTM fibers than others, which is a quantifiable thing, this correlation is not necessarily racially caused. Individual hereditary lines could be responsible, for instance.

(03-15-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And isn't skin color a genetic marker?

No, it is not. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6365/eaan8433

(03-15-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that there are also cultural differences does not mean there are no genetic differences.  The definition of "race" is tricky, but you can not just ignore clear biological differences.  The fact that there are grey areas between the races does not negate the proof of genetic differences.  The fact that there are differences between Africans does not mean they don't face certain problems specific to the color of their skin that they all share.

"There is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them" (from the earlier article). This is the reason why race is not a biological construct. There is no way to say that "this racial group has these genetic markers." They don't share the same ones and there is a ton of crossover between races.

(03-15-2018, 02:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Claiming that we can not try to address problems specific to the African American community in the United States because there is no such thing as "different races" is a cop out.  To me it is clear that there are problems specific to individual minority groups.

This part is you, again, building up a straw man. This is in no way reflective of my statements or arguments.

[Dill]

(03-15-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I made a point in the South Africa thread that the thing Mandela deserves the most credit for is the way he handled the transition of power form the apartheid government.  By historical precedent the transition should have been a blood bath.  Mandela knew that revenge was counter productive and wrong.  He knew that reconciliation was the way forward and that holding today's people responsible for the sins of yesterday would only perpetuate division.  

If we want to truly put racism in our rear view mirror, for the majority of us, then it can't be "it's our turn now".

I recall your reference to Mandela--praise for an actual leftist who eschewed personal attacks in all his writings and speeches.

But how much do you actually know about Mandela and South African reconciliation? Mandela touted personal forgiveness and not revenge, but he certainly didn't think that holding "todays people responsible for the sins of yesterday would only perpetuate division."  He understood there could be no reconciliation without justice, so he set up a Truth Commission to investigate crimes of both blacks and whites which documented racial violence in an exercise of "leftist" Christian restorative justice. Outside of that Commission, people were indeed prosecuted for racial violence, and that continues today. And finally, there is still a great deal of division, as some South Africans debate whether "reconciling" with people who took their grandparents land means the takers get to keep the land.

(03-15-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a great example of how a person beholden to an ideology can't see the weaknesses of said ideology.  The left certainly deserves credit for advancing the dialogue on race in this country and exposing the evils of institutional and personal racism.  They deserve equal opprobrium for then advancing racist ideas of their own.  The concept that only white people can be racist is, itself, racist and it comes solely from the left.  The idea that a person can speak about or treat white people in a way that any logical person would conclude is racist and earn, not censure, but acceptance is as nauseating as it is racist and counter productive.  Again, this is not only advanced by the left but applauded.

Someone who read your post before reading mine could be forgiven for assuming I must have "advanced" and "applauded" the "concept that only white people can be racist." And given the tendency of most on this thread to question the practice of basing generic, universal claims upon particular individuals, this reader might be additionally puzzled by the insistence that some monolithic group called "the left" is "advancing racist ideas of their own" which are "nauseating" and "counter productive."

Upon actually reading my post, however, the same reader could be forgiven for finding only an ordinary, social-scientific description of what follows when scholarship on race "comes into social media at odd and unsupported angles, where it takes on a new life, glossed onto already existing unscholarly definitions and quickly shaped to uncritical, partisan purposes."

To such a reader, "the concept that only white people can be racist" AND its attribution to a monolithic left might equally illustrate "unscholarly definitions . . . shaped to uncritical, partisan purposes."

[Benton]

(03-15-2018, 10:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not talking about Sout Africa.  I am just talking about here in the US.

Unless you are in the Rap/Hip Hop music industry white people control all the real power and wealth here.  It may be possible for an white person to be effected in a specific situation on an individual basis, but whites are not victims of the systematic racism that oppresses blacks and other minorities here.

1- Racism isn't just an issue that stops at the US border. It's worth discussion how race impacts things in other places.
2- I thought the discussion was about racism, not institutional racism. That's not the same thing. One is a person's belief/bias, the other is getting into societal, judicial and other larger issues.

[Dill]

(03-15-2018, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The whole argument that there is no such thing as race just sounds a little silly to me.

There are scientific studies that claim to show that African Americans on average have a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber.  What exactly is your position on those studies?  Are you saying they are not true?  Are you saying there is no such thing as "different races"?

How can you disagree with comments "based on race" and also say there is no such thing as different races?

Sometimes people read the claim "there is no such thing as race" to mean there aren't really darker- or lighter-skinned  people.  Hence the impulse to show "real" differences between diverse human groups--like tall Dinka and short Eskimos.

That is not what the claim means, though, at least when claimed by genetic scientists.  Nowadays saying that a preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fiber in one population proves the existence of race is rather like saying rust on iron proves the existence of phlogiston.  As a useful means of scientific categorization, race has gone the way of epicycles and other concepts which once organized data for scientists, but have been displaced by advancing knowledge.

Race and racism are still with us as legal, social and cultural categories, however. And it is very difficult to decode/interpret human behavior without reference to those categories and what people have imagined, and continue to imagine, that they mean.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2018, 06:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Every race can be racists, but only the race with all of the power can oppress minorities with racists actions.

So here in the US there is racism against white people, but since white people have a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power they are not oppressed by racism like African Americans and other minorities.

I don't disagree (well, except the insinuation that African Americans and other minorities are currently oppressed in America) but I've seen a lot of arguments from people of color that try to claim it's impossible for them to be RACIST because they don't have the power to oppress. And it bothers the hell out of me. They're basically taking the definition of oppression and applying it to racism. And that bothers me.

To be fair, it also bothers the hell out of me that 'literally' now also has the definition of 'figuratively' as one of its definitions.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-14-2018, 07:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree, here. Racism doesn't require hate. Discrimination and prejudice can flourish without any ill intent whatsoever.

Discrimination and prejudice can flourish without any ill intent, sure, but when discrimination/prejudice are due strictly to the color of one's skin, it is the antithesis of love or kindness or respect for one's fellow man or woman.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-15-2018, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is nothing contradictory.  Making sweeping statements about a race is totally different from judging an individual based on those general statements.

Sure, they're different in a variety of ways, but they're both still racist acts.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it is not. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6365/eaan8433

Yes it is.

"Although genes associated with skin pigmentation have been identified in European populations, little is known about the genetic basis of skin pigmentation in Africans."

Thsi study says there is a wide range of pigmentation among Africans,  That means there are a lot of different shades of black/brown.  It does not mean there are all different shades from white to black.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: "There is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them" (from the earlier article). This is the reason why race is not a biological construct. There is no way to say that "this racial group has these genetic markers." They don't share the same ones and there is a ton of crossover between races.

Again, just because the range of black/brown is wide does not mean the range includes white.

How many white people have the sickle cell trait?

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It actually doesn't prove anything, mostly because your statement as stated here is inaccurate.

No it isn't


Now look at the frequency of the R and X variants in different populations. According to data published seven years ago in Human Molecular Genetics, the relative frequency of the X allele is 0.52 in Asians, 0.42 in whites, 0.27 in African-Americans, and 0.16 in Africans. If you break out the data further, the frequency of the XX genotype is 0.25 in Asians, 0.20 in European whites, 0.13 in African-Americans, and 0.01 in African Bantu. Conversely, the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu. Among Asians, you can expect to find one RR for every XX. Among whites, you can expect nearly two RRs for every XX. Among African-Americans, you can expect more than four RRs for every XX.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 04:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, they're different in a variety of ways, but they're both still racist acts.

And this is where we differ on the definition of "racism"

To me it is not racists to say that on average hispanics are shorter than white Americans.  Since it is 100% true and is not being used to judge any individual I don't count that as being "racist".

I think your definition of "racist" is too broad.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 04:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I've seen a lot of arguments from people of color that try to claim it's impossible for them to be RACIST because they don't have the power to oppress. And it bothers the hell out of me. They're basically taking the definition of oppression and applying it to racism. And that bothers me.

And we agree 100% on this.

I think most black people agree that they can be racists, but I have no numbers or research to back that up.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This part is you, again, building up a straw man. This is in no way reflective of my statements or arguments.

Okay then.  How do you address "racial profiling" if you claim there is no definition of "race".

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2018, 06:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it is.

"Although genes associated with skin pigmentation have been identified in European populations, little is known about the genetic basis of skin pigmentation in Africans."

Thsi study says there is a wide range of pigmentation among Africans,  That means there are a lot of different shades of black/brown.  It does not mean there are all different shades from white to black.

Did you read the conclusion?

Quote:We identify previously uncharacterized genes and variants associated with skin pigmentation in ethnically diverse Africans. These genes have diverse functions, from repairing UV damage to playing important roles in melanocyte biology. We show that both dark and light pigmentation alleles arose before the origin of modern humans and that both light and dark pigmented skin has continued to evolve throughout hominid history. We show that variants associated with dark pigmentation in Africans are identical by descent in South Asian and Australo-Melanesian populations. This study sheds light on the evolutionary history, and adaptive significance, of skin pigmentation in humans.

So their conclusion shows that the same genetic variations for skin pigmentation exist across racial boundaries. Skin pigmentation is not a purely genetic occurence meaning the phenotypical manifestation does not correlate 1-to-1 to a genotype.

(03-15-2018, 06:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, just because the range of black/brown is wide does not mean the range includes white.

How many white people have the sickle cell trait?

Interesting that you focus on white people. Given that the sickle-cell trait exists in India and Saudi Arabia, as well, this is another genetic variation that crosses racial barriers. It's also likely correlated to people in a certain geographic band (or their descendants that have moved elsewhere) given it's increased prevalence in the equatorial band in Africa (which corresponds to SA and India to an extent) rather than further south.

(03-15-2018, 06:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't


Now look at the frequency of the R and X variants in different populations. According to data published seven years ago in Human Molecular Genetics, the relative frequency of the X allele is 0.52 in Asians, 0.42 in whites, 0.27 in African-Americans, and 0.16 in Africans. If you break out the data further, the frequency of the XX genotype is 0.25 in Asians, 0.20 in European whites, 0.13 in African-Americans, and 0.01 in African Bantu. Conversely, the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu. Among Asians, you can expect to find one RR for every XX. Among whites, you can expect nearly two RRs for every XX. Among African-Americans, you can expect more than four RRs for every XX.

I was being pedantic. You said that African Americans had more FTM fibers. That is a false statement. How you word things is important.

(03-15-2018, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then.  How do you address "racial profiling" if you claim there is no definition of "race".

And you again say I am claiming something I never claimed. Do you think that a biological construct of race is required for race to be a real thing? I've got news for you, it's not.

[Dill]

(03-15-2018, 06:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, just because the range of black/brown is wide does not mean the range includes white.

How many white people have the sickle cell trait?

Some Eastern Mediterranean whites have the sickle cell trait. And at least one in the U.S.

Sickle Cell Anemia in an American White Boy of Greek Ancestry
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/506827?redirect=true

(03-15-2018, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then.  How do you address "racial profiling" if you claim there is no definition of "race".

Fred I think I answered this for you in post #65 above.  Racial categories/definitions continue to have legal/social/political life, even when their biological basis has been undermined.

Bels is not claiming there is no definition of "race," just that there is no longer a scientific basis for biologically defining/grouping humans that way, just as there is no longer any need to identify ourselves with the Cave Bear or the Mountain Goat clan, though our ancestors may have done that at one time, and based on "real" markers like eye or hair color.

I think you are correct when you say it is not "racist" or even simply prejudiced to say a given population of Hispanics may be measurably shorter than some other ethnically defined population, just as it is not racist to check "white" on a census form or to tell a cop the guy who jacked your car was African American. But you could do ALL those things without thinking race was a biological category.

[*bfine32*]

I know whenever a medical exam gets submitted the Department of Defense they need to know their "racial construct" because they state it is medically significant.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2018, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know whenever a medical exam gets submitted the Department of Defense they need to know their "racial construct" because they state it is medically significant.

Plenty of non-biological things are medically significant.

[*michaelsean*]

Just curious: I recently heard sickle cell was an evolutionary development to fight malaria. Is that true and if so is it common knowledge? I had never heard that.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2018, 09:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just curious: I recently heard sickle cell was an evolutionary development to fight malaria. Is that true and if so is it common knowledge? I had never heard that.

That is a theory. As I mentioned in my post, it exists primarily in a certain region, not even all of Africa. It comes from regions prone to malaria outbreaks and there is evidence to suggest that the sickle cell trait makes one more resilient against malaria.

So, it is quite possible that it is a trait that has evolved through natural selection to fight malaria and then some was corrupted and caused anemia.

I just have to use language that is very generic in this way because we can see strong correlations, but to say with certainty would be difficult.