Let me just add that my jimmy runs deep, so deep, it put her ass to sleep.
Sufferin’ Jesus, I feel cheated out of yet another opportunity to insinuate that Americans are genetically less literate us Loyalist-types. 
I reckon it couldn’t her to ast Cecil.
…literate than us loyalist-types.
The rest of it was supposed to be ironic.
[sub]While we’re boasting about Willies, while mine’s by all accounts average in length & girth, it’s got that “Clinton curve”, which I’m told counts for a lot.[/sub]
Actually, “couldn’t hurt to ast Cecil,” too.
Damned Eritrean voice-recognition software.
tomndebb,
I’m not sure what you intended with your recent post. Are you providing some helpful information about SSA? Or are you nitpicking my suggested possible application of an example?
And your second paragraph was completely irrelevant. You are bringing up a scientific study that ignored an important factor. I am specifically talking about truths that do not fall along scientifically meaningful lines.
Many people are evidently confused by these issues as it is. 
Because race reflects some reality (though not a genetically meaningful one).
This, whether true or not, is most decidedly not the point, and in fact has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
No, I’m saying that some stereotypes may be valid by virtue of having some truth to them.
No, I don’t. There are many generalizations that are hazy at the edges but are still valid in a larger sense. We are - again - not discussing hard and fast scientific laws.
So it boils down to what you “would bet”? Basically you are acknowledging that it is possible, but based on your understanding, such as it is, you don’t think it is likely. Not worth much, IMHO.
I have never contradicted anything in this mantra. In fact, I’ve gone to some length to make this clear already. Please refrain from suggesting otherwise.
That’s not what you said when you closed it, hence my comments.
Well, Izzy why would you want to promote a “truth” that has no basis in actual fact and only serves to divide the races?
Any study done on the along the classical race lines does nothing meaningful. Really, what do you hope to learn from a study that compares the size of self-identifed whites and blacks?
Why should we pay attention to these “truths” when all the do is obscure the actual facts? Any measurable differences found between blacks and whites has an explination beyone race. Unless you are really not interested in causation.
Biggirl
Two things: 1. Once again: it may have basis in actual fact (just not be a meaningful scientific concept). 2. I am not promoting anything. I am merely disputing a statement which declared the “truth” to be incorrect, and seemed to cut off further discussion on that basis.
Nothing. I have not, in fact, made, or called for, such a study.
Possibly not. In this case, people already do pay attention - as evidenced by the widespread belief that discrepancies exist in these areas. The question is whether this widespread belief has some basis in reality. Whether or not there is some value in confirming or disproving widespread beliefs of this nature is a matter of opinion, I guess. (This seems to be a lot of what goes on on these boards. YMMV.)
I so wanted to avoid a quoteathon. Really, I was having fun in this thread. But you, Izzy are talking out both sides of your mouth.
**
- What actual facts are you talking about? If you want to know if self-identified black Americans genatalia is larger than self-identified white Americans, fine. But-- and here’s the big but-- if there is a measurable difference between the two it won’t be because of race. There is something else going on here. There is no black race. There is no white race. So this “truth” you’ve just uncovered serves only to divide along lines that do not exist. Not only that, it interferes with finding out actual causation.
2.So, in actuality, there was no “truth” to be uncovered.
**
This is where you start talking out of both sides of your mouth (or perhaps it is another orifice at the other end of your body). You may not have call for this study in particular, but whatever explorations you wish would be discussed along racial lines ends up in the exact same boat.
Yes, this is what we do here at this board. Fight ignorance. And when someone says speculation along these lines yeilds no meaningful information and has a tenuous relationship to reality and is, in fact, incorrect. Then we have done our self-appointed job of fighting ignorance.
So it sounds like you agree that we don’t know for sure the answer to the question that started all of this. This is basically my point – the question was not “absurd.”
It’s kind of disappointing to see this, because IzzyR made a really good point about truth versus scientific validity, while conceding the entire "mantra."
I agree that these discussions tend to get unpleasant, and if that’s why you closed the thread, I apologize for beating you up over it.
You see, it sounded to me like you were saying that the notion of possible differences in clitoris size as between races is so ridiculous, so inconceivable, that the question is not worthy of discussion.
That is what I objected to.
I was not so much nitpicking it as denying that it had any validity. I have no idea what “truth” you think might be out their (in regards to physical reality) that would exist independently of science.
My second paragraph is the crux of the question. When people think that there might be some “science free” truth to be seen, it can affect even scientists.
At the end of one post, you said
I do not believe that there are any “factual assertions about race” outside the realm of anthropological observations regarding how people treat each other as groups. If a statement about race is not “valid from a scientific perspective” it is meaningless. Just as the perception that SSA is a “black” disease can cause poor diagnostic practices, any similar “truth” about races will tend to be invalid and cause harm. I cannot think of any application outside of sociology and anthropology (where the perceptions dictate the truth) where race provides a valid “truth” of any sort.
[[You see, it sounded to me like you were saying that the notion of possible differences in clitoris size as between races is so ridiculous, so inconceivable, that the question is not worthy of discussion.]]
Well yes, I would say that, too. I think clitoris size is more a reflection of certain hormone levels. But feel free to prove me wrong. Nobody has yet.
Respectfully, it seems to me that you should bear the burden of proof on this point.
Biggirl
I am continuing to have difficulty reconciling the arguments you seem to be attacking with the arguments that I’ve actually made. I shall let my comments stand as they are.
The fact that people of the race/ethnic group/whatever called “Blacks” are more apt to have SSA than the race/ethnic group/whatever called “Whites” is a “truth” or fact. So I used it as an example. And as one possible application of the usefulness (as opposed to existence) of that fact, I suggested a doctor. But if that is not a practical application, fine - I shall not argue with you about it, because it is an irrelevant nitpick.
Please address my differentiation between what we are actually discussing and this issue.
I don’t understand this at all. What’s all this about “applications”, “perceptions” and the like? If not for the fact that you quoted my post, I’d be convinced you were talking about someone else. 
It could be that these matters are so emotional for some people that they have difficulty discussing them dispassionately. (Of course, others may turn around and say something similar of me. :D)
quote:
Originally posted by celestina
How can my saying that race is an artificial concept that has been and remains a socio-political rather than a hard scientific concept be contradicted by the observation that folks who self identify as black generally tend to have darker skin than those folks who self identify as white?
IzzyR responds:
Because race reflects some reality (though not a genetically meaningful one).
Well, hell. Color me confused again. :rolleyes: I just discussed briefly how RACE as AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT REFLECTS the REALITY of the slave trade, the history of racism in America, and the formation of socio-political identity in America for starters. Race as an artificial construct that has been adopted and adapted over the generations HAS NO GENETICALLY MEANINGFUL REALITY; however, it DOES HAVE SOME meaningful socio-political and historical reality.
quote:
The point remains that these colors were deliberately used to redefine folks, one set of whom had been forcibly removed from and stripped of whatever African nationality, culture, language, religion they had. Black was originally designed as a way to also diminish the humanity of people of African descent, for it set up AN ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY based on the arbitrary assignation of one color to define a diverse group of people between those who were enslaved (black) and those who enslaved folks (white). Likewise, the concept of whiteness was established as a way for Europeans who came to America to divest themselves of their former countries’ nationalities and create a new identity in America. Whiteness, like blackness, is also based on the arbitrary assignation of a color to a diverse group of folks, and it also became a socio-political tool in the ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY of color to designate an artificial sense of superiority along class lines. Folks now self identify as black or white because of this artificial structure that has been in place, but their reasons for doing so vary.
IzzyR responds:
This, whether true or not, is most decidedly not the point, and in fact has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
Well, IzzyR, you are free to question the validity of the history of and probable motivations for race construction, but I have to disagree, and I would suggest that you educate yourself on the history of race relations AND race formation. I think that the history that I related DOES HAVE BEARING on what the hell is being discussed here. This thread is ultimately about RACIAL stereotypes, and I’ve just related to you the history of the FORMATION OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST STEREOTYPES OUT THERE: race. Race started out because slave traders noticed the dark color of Africans’ skin as opposed to their lighter skin, and based on the contrast in skin tones redefined the identities of diverse groups of folks. Before enslaved folks were black, they were Ibo, Yoruban, Hausa, Fulani, and so on. Yet the pervasive stereotype of color came to replace those identities. Same principle applies to white folks. Before they became white, they were Irish, English, German, French, and so on. The pervasive color of white came to replace those identities. There’s not much that’s scientific about this, but I think it’s something we need to understand if we’re going to talk about the possible validity of any type of stereotype that deals with race. Do you understand where I’m coming from?
Noting differences in skin color is nothing new. It’s a very common and human thing to do, and I’m sure plenty of folks have written about this phenomena. For starters, you might want to check out: The Souls of Black Folks by W.E.B. DuBois; Shadow and Act by Ralph Ellison; and Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (1983) by Frank M. Snowden, Jr. In Before Color Prejudice Snowden talks about how in ancient times Greeks and Romans interacted with Africans and NOTED, APPRECIATED, and RESPECTED the differences in skin tone without making the illogical leap of replacing with color the national and cultural identities of the Africans with whom they interacted. The PEJORATIVE CONNOTATIONS of color as an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT AND STEREOTYPE began with European participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and developed from there.
Now, if the elaborate stereotype of color can be blown up from the humble origin of an aesthetic observation about skin color to the means by which Americans identify themselves, then what does that say about the truth value of stereotypes or the people who create them and buy into them? What does that say about whatever point it is you’re trying to make about doctors’ assumptions about black folks having sickle cell anemia? And how does that apply to ridiculous speculations about how skin color determines the size of one’s genitalia or any other body part? It says to me that just like some folks saw the dark skin color of some Africans and replaced their national and cultural identities with the color black, and some folks see that some black folks are genetically predisposed to Sickle Cell Anemia and assume that all black folks are genetically predisposed to have it and that this could be a genetic means of establishing validity to the artificial construct of race, some folks saw that some Africans had larger genitalia than they had, and then assumed that if it was so for some, then it had to be true about all of them. To my mind, that is illogical. But the REALITY is that folks believe it. The really interesting question to ask here is WHY folks are so willing to be that illogical.
quote:
Alright, so you’re saying that even though hard science thus far shows that race is an invalid concept, that outside of hard science the concepts of race: black, white, yellow, red, still can be valid because of the deeply engrained socio-political meanings AND the stereotypes associated with them BECAUSE doctors and scientists may be influenced by the stereotypes associated with race.
IzzyR responds:
No, I’m saying that some stereotypes may be valid by virtue of having some truth to them.
Well now this is interesting. Still I question the precision of your terms, particularly since it appears to me that you’ve been generalizing in this thread about generalizations and discounting the specific information I’ve given you about the non-scientific reality of race. Stereotypes by nature have little basis in truth. They are generalizations. I really have to wonder about what good it will do to investigate the degree of truth there is in any given stereotype because I can’t figure out how anyone can ethically propose to establish in any kind of scientifically rigorous manner the validity of stereotypes that particularly deal with race and genitalia or race and anything else for that matter? The more interesting and VALID line of inquiry should be to establish to what degree stereotypes have influenced for good or ill scientific and non-scientific relations among people.
By the way Jillgat, please let me re-iterate and amplify the point I made in the OP: This is a great bboard; most of the moderators are great; and you are among the best.
celestina, see my earlier comments to Biggirl.
Izzy:
This saddens me. From it I infer that you cannot be bothered with fully communicating your points. I see a stunning lack of respect for the people with whom you are conversing. It seems to me you’re saying “you just aren’t getting it, you must be an idiot, I do not care enough about you to further explain.”
Either that or you don’t care enough about the point you’re making to explain it. I find this unlikely, based on the whole of the thread so far. But if it is the case, please say so.
-a-
And I agree with you lucwarm. About the last part, any way. The question is worthy of discussion because so many people believe that race can be causative.
Race as a cultural construct can be causative if you are talking about what kind of clothes people wear, or what type of food people eat. It is not causative when discussing innate intelligence, genetalia size or (another big race bugaboo) slow and fast twitch muscles.
So yea, I don’t beleive race threads should be shut down just because the underlying premise is incorrect.
So, Izzy what is your point? Really? Or, if explaining your point is too difficult, what arguegment am I rebutting that is contrary to the arguement you’ve presented?