"Racism"

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Rather than Racism, shouldn't it be called "Breedism"?

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2018, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well there are "groups" that the specific breeds fall into.  There are lots of different breeds in the "hound" group.  They come in different sizes and colors, but they are all hunting dogs that can track and chase by scent.  They are genetically distinct from other groups like "sporting" which are genetically designed to help bird hunters by pointing, setting, or retrieving and "terriers" which are genetically designed to hunt animals underground.

Yes, they're divided into groups based on specific genetic traits that have been bred into them to serve a function. You kept repeating the word "genetically" and that is critical here because that same link is missing within race. Like I said, we do not divide them into groups based on the color of their fur. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2018, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A trans woman can dress however she wants, but it will not make it impossible for her to get prostate cancer.

I can get a tight perm and a dark spray tan, but I still do not have to worry about sickle-cell anemia.

The fact that it is complicated to divide people into a small number of races does not mean there are not biological differences between people that are generally determined by where their ancestors originated.

I am not saying that we have to pigeonhole every person into one of 4 or 5 broad categories, but at the same time it is silly to ignore the genetic differences.  The reason that an overwhelming majority of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black is because on average they have a genetic advantage.  When you try to pretend it is cultural instead of biological you end up saying that white people just don't try as hard or some other silly bullshit like that.

If you really want to address racial issue you can't pretend that all the differences are just cultural.  No one wants to say that blacks on average have lower test score because they are genetically inferior, but if that is the truth we don't gain anything by denying the facts.  There are still plenty of black people who have very high test scores and there are some white WRs and NBA players.  As long as we don't judge the individual based on racial stereotypes then there is no problem. 

Instead of claiming there are no differences we need to get people to not judge individuals based on racial stereotypes.  We don't solve anything by denying the truth.

Again, your examples have the same problems that you're ignoring. You're suggesting that specific African ethnicities are representative of a whole race, even when the trends you're pointing to do not extend to every ethnic group that has black skin. 


Also the point being made is that there ARE genetic variations in people based on the origin of their ancestors and that focusing on ethnicity reveals far more than race as there are no common gene clusters for race. It appears that you believe ethnicity is just cultural, not genetic. 

[Dill]

(03-16-2018, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well there are "groups" that the specific breeds fall into.  There are lots of different breeds in the "hound" group.  They come in different sizes and colors, but they are all hunting dogs that can track and chase by scent.  They are genetically distinct from other groups like "sporting" which are genetically designed to help bird hunters by pointing, setting, or retrieving and "terriers" which are genetically designed to hunt animals underground.

Maybe if human beings could be isolated and bred to enhance certain attributes, then we would have the great differences we see between dog breeds--from chihuahua to great dane, from sheepdog to dachshund.

As it is, our human differences are more like differences between arctic wolves and timber wolves. No doubt some timber wolf populations are larger than others--Canadian vs Coloradan. Arctic wolves are mostly white and timber wolves mostly grey.

But all this talk of fins and wolves and dogs that "can chase by scent" still misses the point, since no one on my side of this debate is arguing that differences like "white" and "brown" and "black" skin color are not really there.

(03-16-2018, 10:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not trying to claim that a gorilla from Africa is the same as a man because they both have arms and legs.

What I am talking about is more like the different breeds of dogs.  There are all sort of mixed up mutts out there, but that does not mean that I can't tell the difference between a Beagle and a German Shepard.

You are missing the relevant part of the analogy.  I was describing a shift in scientific paradigms of organization and classification, which are ultimately cultural, though they may be rooted in "real" features of the natural world. To risk a clumsy analogy, when Copernicus argued against a Ptolemaic model of the planetary system, he was not arguing that planets don't exist.  He was not claiming that no one could tell the difference between Saturn and Mars. 

The argument is about a correlation between an older system of biological organization/classification informed by all manner of cultural pre-judgment (prejudice) and a newer one. Finding that one human population somewhere may have feature that others do not doesn't validate that older system of classification any more than discovery of a new planet would validate Ptolemy.

But you do continue to say that "fins are real" while I continue to tell you that no one is saying they are not. That is, you continue to insist that there are real differences in physical features of human beings as if others are saying there are not.

That means there is mismatch between what is being claimed and what you are refuting.

[Dill]

(03-16-2018, 11:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, they're divided into groups based on specific genetic traits that have been bred into them to serve a function. You kept repeating the word "genetically" and that is critical here because that same link is missing within race. Like I said, we do not divide them into groups based on the color of their fur. 

I think this is what racial classification has traditionally done with humans, with the addition that we assign a wholly non-biological valuation to the color--white is "good" and non-white less so. And political/legal/social classifications have followed. Still do.

Though I think Fred might argue he is getting around the superficies of color by looking at "internal" features like a gene for sickle cell or fast twitch muscle fibers. 

If I understand him, I think he is correct that, when enough data is compiled, we might find some "pure" populations of humans which have a trait that others do not. That could be a valid biological grouping for, say, medical reasons.

But it would not likely correspond to current racial classifications in any useful way. I don't know why we would want to call such a population a "race."  There could be a premise for a science fiction novel in this this though, about a society in which it has become possible to identify fast twitchers and sickle cells by sight, or perhaps electronic identification.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2018, 08:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do believe it, and constructs are absolutely factors that can affect you medically. Race is a social/cultural construct. Your culture is entirely perception, however it impacts how you live your life. It impacts your schedule, your eating habits, your social interactions, everything you do is guided by culture and race is a part of that. Race has huge implications with how you move through life and that affects your medical records.

Race is not biological or genetic. It is a cultural construct, but that cultural construct is as real as any biological construct. It can have tangible, physical effects on a person.

Alrighty, I'll let the medical folks know. But they're probably still going to want folks to include race because it is medically significant. Cause what you wrote just seems like a really long way to say there are biological differences in races.

[Dill]

(03-16-2018, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: A trans woman can dress however she wants, but it will not make it impossible for her to get prostate cancer.

I can get a tight perm and a dark spray tan, but I still do not have to worry about sickle-cell anemia.

The fact that it is complicated to divide people into a small number of races does not mean there are not biological differences between people that are generally determined by where their ancestors originated.

I am not saying that we have to pigeonhole every person into one of 4 or 5 broad categories, but at the same time it is silly to ignore the genetic differences.  The reason that an overwhelming majority of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black is because on average they have a genetic advantage.  When you try to pretend it is cultural instead of biological you end up saying that white people just don't try as hard or some other silly bullshit like that.

If you really want to address racial issue you can't pretend that all the differences are just cultural.  No one wants to say that blacks on average have lower test score because they are genetically inferior, but if that is the truth we don't gain anything by denying the facts.  There are still plenty of black people who have very high test scores and there are some white WRs and NBA players.  As long as we don't judge the individual based on racial stereotypes then there is no problem. 

Instead of claiming there are no differences we need to get people to not judge individuals based on racial stereotypes.  We don't solve anything by denying the truth.

Two quick points:

1. Murray and Herrnstein, in their book The Bell Curve, claim that blacks on average do have a lower IQ. And they make this argument in hopes it will inform public policy, reduce the amount of taxpayer money "wasted" trying to equalize "natural" differences. Their conclusions have been widely disputed, but their appeal to biology is typical of how the right has traditionally constructed and used "racial facts" which we have to accept because they are "true."

2. You keep saying Bels is claiming or pretending there are no differences.  But he just distinguished between "sex," which is biological, and "gender" which is a social role based upon sex and varies culturally. For example, in an island culture where men fish, farming might be a woman's role, a gendered activity unfit for men. In 19th century US, farming was a man's job. In each culture, people might assume that biology rather than culture is the real basis for their division of labor. Women are "naturally" farmers in one and "naturally" not in another. No ethnologist would be surprised if people in either culture assumed you were denying biological, sexual difference if you told them these women's roles were culturally determined.

Until Bels claims that sex, not gender, is just a cultural construct, you are not refuting any point he has made when you remind us that dressing like a woman will not prevent prostate cancer.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2018, 01:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Alrighty, I'll let the medical folks know. But they're probably still going to want folks to include race because it is medically significant. Cause what you wrote just seems like a really long way to say there are biological differences in races.

Then you didn't understand what I wrote.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2018, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Then you didn't understand what I wrote.

Maybe the medical folks will; I must admit that I read it as there are biological differences based on race and all these different perceptions lead to it. 

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2018, 01:25 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. You keep saying Bels is claiming or pretending there are no differences.

Until Bels claims that sex, not gender, is just a cultural construct, you are not refuting any point he has made when you remind us that dressing like a woman will not prevent prostate cancer.

Bels agrees there are differences, but he says they are all "cultural" instead of biological.

I don't see how "height" is cultural.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2018, 01:25 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Murray and Herrnstein, in their book The Bell Curve, claim that blacks on average do have a lower IQ. And they make this argument in hopes it will inform public policy, reduce the amount of taxpayer money "wasted" trying to equalize "natural" differences. Their conclusions have been widely disputed, but their appeal to biology is typical of how the right has traditionally constructed and used "racial facts" which we have to accept because they are "true." 

And in my opinion this is exactly why some people have tried to claim that the only differences are cultural.  That way they don't have to address difficult issues like a genetic difference in intelligence.

I just find it ironic that the same people who insist that "gender identity" is genetic or biological also try to claim that the only differences between races are cultural.  It seems like they pick and chose when to label something as "genetic" and when to say it is "cultural".

To me it does not matter if homosexuality is genetic or a "choice".  They should still have the same equal protection under the law.  And I am also not afraid to admit there are genetic differences between races because I don't think that should change how we treat people of different races.

What cultural issue explains why 80 to 90 percent of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black?

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2018, 12:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Though I think Fred might argue he is getting around the superficies of color by looking at "internal" features like a gene for sickle cell or fast twitch muscle fibers. 

If I understand him, I think he is correct that, when enough data is compiled, we might find some "pure" populations of humans which have a trait that others do not. That could be a valid biological grouping for, say, medical reasons.

But it would not likely correspond to current racial classifications in any useful way. I don't know why we would want to call such a population a "race."  There could be a premise for a science fiction novel in this this though, about a society in which it has become possible to identify fast twitchers and sickle cells by sight, or perhaps electronic identification.

The problem with that is it assumes all black ethnic groups are homogenous. Sickle cell isn't a black gene trait, it's a gene trait for ethnicities from malaria stricken areas. In the US, most of our black population comes from those groups, but if we tried to make that claim for all black people world wide, we'd be incorrect. 

No one is arguing that genetic variation doesn't occur. The argument is "ethnicity is genetically relevant, not race". 

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2018, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I just find it ironic that the same people who insist that "gender identity" is genetic or biological also try to claim that the only differences between races are cultural.  It seems like they pick and chose when to label something as "genetic" and when to say it is "cultural".



What cultural issue explains why 80 to 90 percent of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black?

I have no clue why you keep repeating this. No one is arguing this. We're telling you to look at specific ethnicities (not cultures) when discussing genetic variations as they're a more proper indicator. 

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make your argument stronger. 

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2018, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And in my opinion this is exactly why some people have tried to claim that the only differences are cultural.  That way they don't have to address difficult issues like a genetic difference in intelligence.

I just find it ironic that the same people who insist that "gender identity" is genetic or biological also try to claim that the only differences between races are cultural.  It seems like they pick and chose when to label something as "genetic" and when to say it is "cultural".

To me it does not matter if homosexuality is genetic or a "choice".  They should still have the same equal protection under the law.  And I am also not afraid to admit there are genetic differences between races because I don't think that should change how we treat people of different races.

What cultural issue explains why 80 to 90 percent of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black?

Fred, aside from what Pat has been saying, which is also correct, I really want to try to drive this home again. Just because race is seen as a social/cultural construct and not rooted in genetics does not:

1. Make it any less real.

2. Mean it should be discounted when discussing equality.

The language you use and the points you are trying to make really make me infer that you are concerned about those two things, because you are focusing a ton on that. I just want to make it clear that just because the scientific community is saying that race is not biological does not mean it lacks any tangible ramifications for a person. In fact, it makes the argument stronger that the idea we should be separating people out based on race and using it to discriminate is bullshit. It shows that the idea of categorizing people along racial lines is much more arbitrary than we like to think it is.

I'm not going to continue this argument because I feel like trying to alter your perception of race is a bit too paradigm shifting for you. Just know that what I am saying is how science is talking about race, and has been for years. It isn't new, unique, or radical in any way.

[BmorePat87]

If you had 50 Irish men and 50 Greek men, could you tell the difference between those two groups?


No one is arguing that groups of people do not have genetic variations that make them very different from each other. What is being argued is that lumping these groups together simply because of their skin color has no genetic basing. There is no common gene cluster based on race.

In the US, we can make generalizations because our white population is mostly German or Italian, but those same generalizations will not be true for people outside of those categories. We can make generalizations about our black population because most of them come from West Africa, but those same generalizations will not be true for people outside of those categories.

So why do we ask for race in the US? Because in general it'll identify people as likely being Western European or Western African. Many people, particularly those descendent of enslaved populations, cannot get anymore specific. Lactose intolerance runs in my family, so when I went to the doctor, he asked me if I know my specific ethnicity. He said that the Irish tend to be predisposed to lactose intolerance. The side of my family that is lactose intolerant is my Irish side, not my Italian side. Of course, I could make the claim that it means all white people are, but that would be false.

[Dill]

(03-16-2018, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I just find it ironic that the same people who insist that "gender identity" is genetic or biological also try to claim that the only differences between races are cultural.  It seems like they pick and chose when to label something as "genetic" and when to say it is "cultural".

What cultural issue explains why 80 to 90 percent of WRs, DBs, NBA players, and track stars are black?

Who "insists" that gender identity is genetic or biological?  Who are these "same people" who then claim the only differences between races are cultural.   It would be helpful to look at actual arguments, if you can cite someone.

You keep confusing the claim that race is a cultural construct with such biological facts as some people are taller or darker than others.  I don't think you can cite anyone who actually says that height is cultural (though changes in diet traceable to changes in culture may produce some changes in that respect).

No "culturalist" thinks that Somalians have darker skin than Koreans because of Somalian culture. No one thinks there are so many tall black NBA players because more African Americans listen to hip hop. But it would be odd to call tall people a "race," wouldn't it? Yet you seem to be arguing for something lie that.

If someone classifies a Dravidian from southern India and a Somalian as both members of "the black race," as the British often did in the 19th century, it is accurate to say this classificQation is "cultural" without saying their very dark skin color is simply "a construct" which did not exist before the classification system.  When the British created their caste system in South Africa, they didn't imagine the differences in color between British, Indians, and Africans, but they did wholly imagine a "natural" rank order of racial value based upon those differences.

Question: The U.S. military had a problem during WWII when Japanese American soldiers were stationed in Mississippi--how were they to be defined in the existing system of racial segregation? Were they white or were they black?  If was decided they were white. Do you think that classification was biological or cultural?

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2018, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bels agrees there are differences, but he says they are all "cultural" instead of biological.

I don't see how "height" is cultural.

Height is a perception. Depending on how tall you are is how you will perceive height in others.


At least that's what I'm going to tell the medical folks moving forward when they tell me they need height.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-16-2018, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Who "insists" that gender identity is genetic or biological?  Who are these "same people" who then claim the only differences between races are cultural.   It would be helpful to look at actual arguments, if you can cite someone.

You keep confusing the claim that race is a cultural construct with such biological facts as some people are taller or darker than others.  I don't think you can cite anyone who actually says that height is cultural (though changes in diet traceable to changes in culture may produce some changes in that respect).

No "culturalist" thinks that Somalians have darker skin than Koreans because of Somalian culture. No one thinks there are so many tall black NBA players because more African Americans listen to hip hop. But it would be odd to call tall people a "race," wouldn't it? Yet you seem to be arguing for something lie that.

If someone classifies a Dravidian from southern India and a Somalian as both members of "the black race," as the British often did in the 19th century, it is accurate to say this classificQation is "cultural" without saying their very dark skin color is simply "a construct" which did not exist before the classification system.  When the British created their caste system in South Africa, they didn't imagine the differences in color between British, Indians, and Africans, but they did wholly imagine a "natural" rank order of racial value based upon those differences.

Question: The U.S. military had a problem during WWII when Japanese American soldiers were stationed in Mississippi--how were they to be defined in the existing system of racial segregation? Were they white or were they black?  If was decided they were white. Do you think that classification was biological or cultural?

I don't really have much to add or refute with your post except for the bolded part. I suspect that you probably meant something else, but as worded, this statement is quite wrong, or at least in the most "common" way of understanding your sentence, the meaning is wrong. This sentence comes off as saying that classifying Dravidians and Somalians as members of the "black race" is accurate due to "culture", is correct due to them having the same "culture" or being more lenient, many "cultural" similarities. And that meaning couldn't be more wrong. There is a vast array of differences between Somalians and South Indians -- language, religion, ethnicity, food being some places to start with. If you intend to mean "cultural" in the sense that these are both different from the British "culture" and this "otherness" provides a commonality from a cultural perspective, then, that's a more accurate but quite a tangential point to make. 

I do agree that their varying shades of skin color are a very real thing.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2018, 02:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I have no clue why you keep repeating this. No one is arguing this. We're telling you to look at specific ethnicities (not cultures) when discussing genetic variations as they're a more proper indicator. 

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make your argument stronger. 

Not sure why you are accusing me of repeating a falsehood when all i did was ask a question.

Why are 80 to 90 percent of NBA players and track athletes black?

More specifically why are they African American and not dark skins Asians?

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2018, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: No "culturalist" thinks that Somalians have darker skin than Koreans because of Somalian culture. No one thinks there are so many tall black NBA players because more African Americans listen to hip hop. But it would be odd to call tall people a "race," wouldn't it? Yet you seem to be arguing for something lie that.

Okay Dill, just explain to me why 80 to 90 percent of DBs and track athletes have black skin?

And why are they of African American descent instead of dark skinned Asians?