So no response to the actual facts about sickle-cell prevalence, then? Well, if you want to own the racism, feel free. No skin off my nose.
I had thought it was a true correlation. But even if it’s wrong, how is it racist? It isn’t making a value judgement; it isn’t denigrating anyone. If I point to a guy and say, “Him, that black guy over there,” is that racist? It isn’t indicating that he is of lesser worth.
But, go back to sickle cell. Can you expand on your point? Your discursions about Turks and Italians seems a non sequitur. If there really is a correlation between a population and a particular genetic ailment, why is it racist to observe this? For instance, only women get ovarian cancer: is that a sexist thing for me to say?
Not really, no. But that’s a social act, not a scientific one.
Did you see the map of Sickle cell prevalence? Southern Italians and Turks are way more likely to have the sickle cell gene than Blacks from South African or NE Africa.
Because there isn’t a correlation between the Black “race” and sickle cell. There are non-exclusive correlations between sickle cell and some African populations that are traditionally, wrongly and unscientifically clustered in an umbrella Black race. But that’s it.
Nope.
I don’t know if there is a traditional race model. I understand that in sub-Saharan Africa that 3 non-white races are delineated IIRC, according to my memory of Guns, Germs and Steel (which may be inaccurate). In the US all of those would be grouped into a single category.
One hundred and fifty years ago, there were a greater number of races in America: they included the Italians, Germans, English and Irish. Basically nobody in the US categorizes the world that way today and I suspect few know of that particular taxonomy, knowledge of ethnic prejudice notwithstanding.
There wasn’t just one, but there were a few common ones, from the ridiculous 3-race model (Caucusoid-Negroid-Mongoloid) to the only very slightly less ridiculous ones that add various permutations of “Australoid”, “Oceanoid”, “Mediterranean”, “Amerindian”, “Capoid”, etc, etc. Or else they just cut to the chase and named the 5 races: Black, Brown, Red, White, Yellow…
If you go by classic race theory, there are Negroids (Bantus), Capoids(Khoi-San), Ethiopoids/Nilotics(N-E Africans) and Pygmies. Why the latter don’t merit an -oid, I don’t know 
Only if done for the purpose of discrimination against one of those groups. If done for neutral reasons, it’s merely stupid and ignorant.
You seem to misunderstand what “more likely” means. I assume you think it’s sexist to say women are more likely to get breast cancer than men, because some men will get it - and some specific men will be far more likely to get it than the average woman.
Er, yes… For the purposes of haircare and cosmetics advertising, black people are those with dark skin and kinky hair. I’m not in America, so they won’t be called African-Americans here. Again, as there’s no discrimination happening here, there’s no racism.
Persistent race-based “stupidity and ignorance” is racism, in my view. There’s no “neutral” in stubbornly insisting on the existence of biological races this late in the game.
No, I’m saying it’s being applied to the wrong level of grouping. Saying it’s “more likely that Blacks…” anything is as wrong as saying it’s “more likely Hobbits…” anything, in a science context. It’s a fictional group, a relict of Victorian/Edwardian thinking that bears no relation to actual population studies.
You can keep trying to force humans into a binary race classification all you want, it isn’t going to make the dumb analogy any more meaningful. Black:White is not analogous to Woman:Men, and never has been.
So you admit it’s a tautological grouping? That’s kinda not scientific. Where do the Tamils fit in? What about Ethiopians? “Dark skin” is a continuum. So is hair kink. The kinkiest hair in the world isn’t even that of Black people.
Saying "dark skin = kinky hair’s fine for cosmetic companies, which are lumpers for reasons of parsimony. Not so much for science.
Hobbits may not have been the best example Make that:
‘as wrong as saying it’s “More likely Gnomes…” anything’
I really don’t see how. Now, I’ll accept that most people who do this are probably racist. But, if your point is that making generalisations about groups of people is bad, then you should probably stop doing it.
You’re claiming black people don’t exist? That’ll come as quite a shock to plenty of people I know, who are pretty sure that they’re black.
I really can’t work out what your point is here. You seem to be saying that medical announcements and procedures that distinguish on the basis of ethnicity for the sole purpose of providing better, more effective treatment are racist, on the grounds that actual genetic populations don’t map onto archaic social divisions. That’s, frankly, so confused as to be almost meaningless, and I wouldn’t know where to begin arguing against it.
Frankly, there’s probably no point, as I don’t see how you arrived at that opinion other than with a general view that “race=bad”, with no nuance or reason involved.
No, it’s advertising. The development and manufacture of haircare products is extraordinarily scientific, however, and I guarantee you that those who make and market them know exactly what populations have what type of hair. And, presumably, what descriptors to use to get those populations to pay attention.
It’s fine for medicine, too, if the point is to remember that black people should be checked for sickle cell, or might need a higher dose of a particular medicine. It would not be fine if, upon checking the individual, instead of using the results of those checks one used something different because of the person’s race. That would be racism.
As keeps getting brought up in these threads: “Black” as a sociological grouping exists. “Black” as a self-defined group exists. “Black” as a genetic grouping…doesn’t. And if the topic at hand is about genetic differences between groups, putting people who are phenotypically similar but genotypically dissimilar together, particularly where some of that group are closer genetically to the opposing group than to members of the same group, produces meaningless results.
And repeatedly doing it looks like deliberate misrepresentation of data for racist purposes.
It may very well be, indeed I’d say that in the majority of cases it is. But not always.
To go back to the sickle cell example, the best way I can put it is that a far higher amount of people who self-identify as black are from populations at risk of it than people who self-identify as white. That, I can’t see anything wrong with.
Wow. You actually agree with the cartoonish depiction I presented:
Not much to say after that. Except that you’re either a true idiot or have biases that are getting in the way of logic.
No, my point is that making scientific statements about* non-existent* groups of people is bad.
As a taxonomic grouping, yes, they don’t exist.
Firstly, argumentum ad populum. Secondly, they’re only socially sure they’re black. Scientifically, they’re no such thing.
What’s confused about it? Using race as a predictor of genetic anything is useless - worse than useless, as it can obscure real correlations, as the sickle cell example clearly shows. So you seem to get the point. You just seem not to agree with it, for whatever reason.
BwaaHaaHaa!!!
I don’t doubt it - but since those populations are tautologically-defined, it’s hardly relevant. And yes, they can get populations to pay attention - but that’s sociological groupings, not genetic ones.
Zulus are Black. Should they be checked for sickle cell?
No, even suggesting running the checks just because of someone’s traditional race would be racist. Not the case if you check for SC because you know someone’s West African (or African-American, or Haitian, which is at a similar level), but definitely so if you routinely check just because they’re Black.
Gee, I must be the only person in the world fooled by this racialism vs racism distinction, and who sees mostly racists bothering with the distinction. The only one. Try googling “It’s racial, not racist!” and see the kind of company you willingly associate with. No surprises there, though.
…in certain areas, for certain Black populations. The sickle-cell=Black distinction is functionally useless in Southern Africa, for instance.
I will, on his behalf.
Racistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracist.
Glad to be of service.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay, I’m game - under what circumstances would it not be racist to repeatedly make conclusions about false genetic groupings based on phenotype after being similarly repeatedly informed that those genetic groupings were in fact false?
Mushroom mushroom.
So you use a different method for distinguishing there than in America or the UK. Because the social groupings there are different. In the US, for example, black/white is a strong indicator for vulnerability to sickle cell. It’s an indicator of other things, as well, even if you want to pretend otherwise.
Where racism occurs is when one moves from that indicator to discriminating against people for it.
It is not, for example, racist to claim that black Americans are convicted of more crimes per capita than white ones*. It is racist to act as though any particular black person is a criminal without actual evidence. For one thing, it’s entirely possible that the fact that they are convicted of more crimes isn’t because they commit more.
*This is a true claim, but even were it false it wouldn’t be racist, just false. Someone sticking to a false claim about race is a good indicator that they are a racist, but just as we shouldn’t judge black individuals based on statistics, neither should we judge someone based solely on this sort of statement. They may just be extremely stupid.
I’ve defined my terms a while ago. So you can’t claim ignorance of what I meant when I said “Black” this late in the discussion. So no, I don’t mean “African-American” or “West Indian”, I mean Black as it is used by the scientific racists and their fellow-travellers on this Board.