*Originally posted by Gadarene *
.
Now THAT’S an interesting topic for discussion/debate!! Something that sociologists, philosophers, cultural critics, anthropologists, historians, economists, etc. can sink there teeth into. I think what you’ve stated in your essay is an excellent start.
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
Omigod!! I hope I haven’t inadvertently started something that scares even tomndebb :eek:
Surely it must.
If you can’t objectively define a race, then how are you going to decide who qualifies for any “remedies?” (using that word loosely)[sub]very loosely[/sub]
IOW…
If you have a set aside program for blacks. What do you do when I (white as a ghost) show up and claim I am black?
I will be happy to go to another thread with you on this if you want. But…be warned…
I disagree with all those programs even with a hard, set in stone and genetically provable definition of race. I think those programs currently work more towards slowing down the process of evening out the playing field than anything else.
I say this not from some white ivory tower, but from the experience of a person who has benefitted from minority set aside programs. (my partner is black-filipino-american indian)
:::Living the ooooo so conservative multi-cultural life:::
Laws designed to prevent the abuse of a group of people do not have to be based on a biological reality. People who choose to hate and who choose to discriminate against a group are quite capable of applying arbitrary definitions to the scorned group. The law need only identify the victims of such abuse or discrimination–which can certainly use the abusers’ definitions.
If an Andaman Islander had tried sitting at a “white” lunch counter in Alabama fifty years ago, he would have been thrown out on his ear (or arrested). His protests that he was more closely related to the King of Siam than to the Emperor of Ethiopia would have been met with complete disbelief, despite the fact that it is true. The State of Virginia employed a doctor in some function in the 1920s who decided to “purify” the state. He and his crew exhaustively searched old county records of birth and marriage, looking for “tainted” blood. If he discovered that a person had as few as one great-grandparent who was identified as “colored,” or even “mulatto,” he had their race flagged as colored on the register. If they had been born “white” and had married, he then ordered them to divorce or else be punished under the state’s anti-miscegenation laws.
In these cases, science would have provided no protection from those who sought to abuse the descendants of slaves. It is not necessary, therefore, to define the laws in terms of the science–only in terms of the perceptions that people will use to abuse other people.
In fact, that is how the U.S. Census Bureau operates, now. The form requests that we identify ourselves according to how we identify ourselves. No test is required to prove that one is a member of any of the categories provided. The categories on the census form have been selected according to groups of significant size that have been shown to require either protection or assistance from the the government. (Discussions of whether the government should provide assistance to any particular group can meet in the third thread down the hall. The point is that the government is not interested in the biological debate, but in the social ramifications of groups under stress.)
Look at the number of people who have argued for a “racial” reality in the three(?) current threads. A few years ago those numbers would have included Collounsbury and me, before we encountered the biological evidence. Obviously, there are patterns in human appearance that give rise to the impression of biological races. If people can identify these accidental appearances, (Col’s trivial morphologies), they can choose to separate and classify people based on those appearances. The fact that their classifications are baseless will not stop them from doing it. Laws barring discrimination do not need to identify specific biological groups; they need to identify groups who will be abused based on perceptions. Thus, the laws read that discrimination is banned for race, creed, color, or place of national origin. The law does not worry whether race and color are redundant; it says “I don’t care why you’re being a jerk: Don’t!”
Whether remedies work as a practical matter or whether we can justify them under our Constitutional interpretation of equality before the law is a question for a different debate. However, since the reality is that discrimination occurs based on perception, then the remedy (if we agree to one) may be based on the exact same (faulty) perception.
'Zactly. Said what I was trying to say, except better.
Coll, ignore away. Your lack of even a shred of respect for me is extremely disheartening but I will get over it.
I, mipsman, disagree with you (wholeheartedly) therefore you said that I was “fairly racist” and “invested in racial purity”. That was one of my points. In your mind, you fight the good fight so any opposition is necessarily evil, ignorant, “Victorian”, … I hope you are not involved in Academia. You would stifle the kids’ budding sense of disputation. But, then again, you would get a lot of heartburn from your academic antagonists and I would enjoy that.
What I am surprised is that people here are impressed by a wealth of citations. A proponent of a cause finds references that support his views and lists them and that settles the argument? Might there be another side and an equally voluminous set of references? I don’t know and we certainly won’t find out from Coll.
Coll, your ally Tom mentions that race can be used to express cultural and ethnic identity just not genetic affiliations (I think I got that right). Is appearance included in cultural and ethnic identity? If so, Coll, you will have to fight these minor heresies after you “defeat” the major heretics.
Here is a thought experiment, a hideous fusion of Mengele and Mendel (lay off Mendel, Coll, he founded your discipline).
Let’s take 10 blonde haired, blue eyed short men and women from a village way back of some Norwegian fjord where every body has been blonde haired, blue eyed and short for generations. Let’s take another tall 10 men and women from some village 300 mile up the Niger River that has been isolated from slavers and Moorish merchants since the original Bantu times.
On an isolated island, these groups pair off. The first generation will look like OJ Simpson’s kids. When this second generation interbreeds, what will happen? I think there will be some blonde haired, blue eyed short people, some tall black people and a lot more of OJ Simpson’ kids looking people. I believe that some of the genes that are responsible for outward appearance will stayed linked.
Loathe as I am to interpret Coll’s position for him, I believe that he would say that the gene set that produced the original two groups is fractured and unlikely to ever reassemble itself as the original phenotype.
Yes there is a difference BUT the difference within the race is usually greater than that between races.
Or to put it another way… someone from a top university in India is more like someone from a top university in the USA than there respective countrymen.
IQ, looks and personality vary according to the individual, not race.
Its a bit like that book called the ‘bell curve’ talking about different races having different IQ levels then turning on the telly to see a couple of American black university professors talking about brain surgery ( it happened, honest ! ).
Yeah, I’d noticed his failure to repsond in detail to people’s arguments too. :rolleyes:
Okay, find them and post them, else we be tempted to conclude that you don’t know or care but are content to hold views which are inconsistent with the scientific literature.
Of course. Haven’t you been paying attention?
How? A large number of genes contribute to appearance. Why will they stay linked?
*Originally posted by mipsman *
Not so much the citations, but the fact that there has been a LOT of research into this area. And what’s the scientific consensus so far? That race, as a biological concept, is meaningless (or to be more precise, is not a scientifically valid concept). With regards to other matters (race as a cultural construct or why people choose to identify themselves with others that have similar physical characteristics, for example) is an entirely different matter.
No, but to willfully ignore the tons of scientific evidence mounted in support of a person’s position smacks of, well…I don’t know? Ignorance? I’m confused. What would you call it?
Sure, go ahead and provide it. Just be prepared to counter the mounds of evidence already provided regarding this very issue (re: biological/genetic validity for the concept of race). I think you’ll find that your evidence just doesn’t stack up.
Well, that may be a long, protracted fight that may never see any sort of resolution. This message board is all about fighting ignorance. But if we can win even the tiniest of battles, then there’s some hope. Plus, we wouldn’t want to put Cecil out of a job, would we?
Foistly on the Cohen gene:
I don’t have much to say on the issue since I haven’t paid any attention to any of the scientitic literature. But is seems to be fairly straightforward, patrilineal marker demonstrating that x% of guys named Cohen (or a variation thereof) share an ancestor or ancestors. I forget the %, something like 40 as I recall. Seems to imply that the Cohens formed a mildly cohesive group, patrilineally speaking.
Now Mipsman, my dense friend:
You don’t pay attention do you? Hey folks, how many times have I more or less clearly indicated I’m private sector?
Shrug. Goes to his reading comprehension/attention issue.
I honestly dearly hope people read what I cite. In fact if you do, you will find that not every author’s position 100% matches me very own analysis. I’m an honest citer of the literature. Further, you would note on the online cites, that the x-reffing allows you to track down the entire debate. But I guess that depends on you reading, no?
Ironic, ain’t it folks? Advice, mipsman: before accusing me of hiding evidence, try looking at the materials.
You haven’t understood a thing I’ve stated have you? Or is this straw man your best reply?
Frankly, folks organize themselves in all sorts of whacky ways. None of them are heresies.
[quote
Here is a thought experiment, a hideous fusion of Mengele and Mendel (lay off Mendel, Coll, he founded your discipline).
[/quote]
Lay off mendel? Was I “on” Mendel? I just happen to know what is up, whereas you’re grasping at straws.
I guess we have to exclude the non-blue eyed and blond haired Norwegians? Or do we exist only in your fantasy land? But no matter.
Hmm, original Bantu times? Well, the Bantu originate some hundreds of miles (according to best guess) to the east of the Niger. And slavers? Moorish merchants? But leaving aside gratitious mocking of your stereotypes we have to have them isolated from shorty forest zone folks, Taureqs etc.
Your point rather escapes me: Since both blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive, both traits will be vary rare together. Height is of course more complicated, but short blondish folks will be fairly rare, a function of two parents with the recessives having children and the recessives expressing together in a child. Nothing particularly informative about this. A quasi mendellian exercise in learning how recessives express.
Well, your understanding of genetics is fairly inadequate. Blue eyed, blonde haired folks are unlikely to occur in the near term --excluding environmetnal pressues or other selective pressures-- because, as I said, they’re recessive traits, to my understanding. nothing in particular links this question to height, which is a hell of a lot more complicated. All in all, without selective pressures, and as recessives, sure the trait package will have a low rate of expression.
But what is the relevance?
if races don’t exist, how am i supposed to group people so i can make generalizations and prejudge behavior? i need an answer quick - i see a black guy making his way over to my cube now and i don’t know what to do.
Give him your wallet.
(If he doesn’t want it you can mail it to me.)
Ok.
::relishing in hijacking this thread::
My problem with the position you guys have, is that it reinforces the racists.
If there are no races, and there are no natural, integral differences between what we “see” as races, then you can not try to treat people differently based on a fantasy. Especially if you want to codify this in law.
This smacks of “two wrongs don’t make a right” to me. The reason we abhor racists is that they are ignorant and make no sense. Dragging ourselves down to their level and codifying their misconceptions in our law seems counter productive to me. I don’t want to start(continue?) passing laws based on “arbitrary definitions.”
I don’t see how you can argue on one hand that we are all the same and yet, on the other hand, start passing laws that assume we are not all the same.
I don’t see how one group(or person) can gain a status by another group’s(or person’s) ignorance.
You see, both the examples you cited have two things in common.
One, they are in the past.
Two, the state was WRONG.
So, if we look at what happened, and it was WRONG, I don’t see how we can make any progress towards what is RIGHT by basing our decisions on the same exact thing that the wrong decisions were based on.
IOW…
If the screwed up laws came from not basing our decisions on science, shouldn’t we strive to make the new laws based on science?
This goes back to my question of white people claiming they are black to qualify for certain programs. After all, we are not genetically different than blacks are we? So what is the decision based on then?
Ahhhh…
But we were not talking about preventing discrimination (were we?:)). We were talking about gov’t set asides and gov’t recognition of different races.
If different races do not exist, then don’t you think it should be a priority to get our gov’t to recognize this? Wouldn’t you be pissed if the official position of the US Government was that the Earth was flat?
I mean, from where I’m standing it LOOKS flat.
Freedom
Genetics are not the only way to categorize something. Many things can be organized into groups on non-genetic grounds. What Collounsbury and others are saying is only that race distinctions are not valid on genetic grounds. That does not mean that they cannot be recognized on other grounds. (I believe tom may have already made this point). If the government made laws that distinguished between paper plates and paper cups, these laws would not be based on “ignorance”. But if someone tried to claim a “genetic” basis for the distinction it would be ignorant.
If their “sense of disputation” matches yours, it should be stifled, squelched, smothered, and utterly destroyed. A valid “sense of disputation” would include learning the basics of actually investigating facts, drawing a conclusion, then forming them into a coherent argument. Your dismissal of the citations provided is telling.
Collounsbury has not accused you of racism for disagreeing with him, he has pointed out (at length) that those who refuse to look at the biological reality underlying our racial perceptions appear to be maintaining some political goal of their own, since they are obviously not interested in the physical reality. By continuing to assert that race is a biological reality while proclaiming that you will not look at the scientific studies, you are identifying yourself as someone who has a vested interest in “race” (for some reason). As to the “Victorian” label, Col has (again) explained (on several occasions) that that is an historic reference to the period in which most of our current racial misunderstandings arose.
You have made numerous assertions without regard to any facts and have failed to provide even the most cursory support even in attempting to explain how you arrived at your assertions.
I just read the June discussion Differences between humans and the September/October battle Athletes and race…a theory in the last day or so after the current cluster of threads came up. In those I note that you asserted
In one or more of the recent threads, you have
1a) whined that Collounsbury did not “answer” your assertion regarding skeletal identification
2a) repeated your bad analogy regarding dog breeds
3a) repeated your charges that Collounsbury is guided by some Marxist agenda.
To those attacks, you have now added the absolutely withering charge
4) that he actually provides citations (from**[sub] ::: gasp ::: [/sub]**scientists) to support his statements.
In fact, it would seem that the most devastating insult that he has hurled at you is absolutely true: you are unwilling to even look at evidence if it will not be in agreement with your preconcieved notions.
Col did point out the flaws in the “skeleton” argument in his first post following your first assertion.
You have provided no evidence that races can be identified skeletally–and we went over this pretty thoroughly with peace just a few weeks ago. The only place where skeletal remains can be used generally to identify ethnic groups is when we know in advance into which groups to place them. It is the scientific equivalent of a multiple-guess test. peace was unable to provide any contradictory evidence. Are you capable of providing any evidence that “race” can be identified skeletally? Or are we going to see you re-assert the same baseless error in the next thread?
Collounsbury has noted on multiple occasions that dogs have a wider genetic variety than humans and that when human breeding pressures are removed, dogs interbreed in ways that allow their generic dog/wolf form to reassert itself. Unless you are going to address the actual issue, your insistence on harping on dog breeds is beginning to look a bit petulant.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate any relationship between the scientific citations that Collounsbury has provided and any real or imaginary Marxist (or even PC) position. Your claim that those scientists that he cites could be guided by a political agenda should be fairly easy to support: simply find a few “objective” scientists who have attacked those papers or their authors and provide the references to them.
If, however, you are going to simply make utterly unsupported assertions that you constantly fail to support by citation or even through some attempt at logic, it is really rather shameful of you to whine that Col is actually drawing on the work of real scientists, (that old meany, “Bad Col, no treat for you.”).
mipsman, if YOU are, in some way, connected with pedagogy, I certainly hope that you are instructing your charges to actually examine evidence and organize their thoughts before they begin hurling their own personal prejudices at an instructor–otherwise they will be eaten alive by any teacher who actually knows the material.
Izzy, Tomndeb, Gadarene
Please tell me what set of standards YOU think should be used then.
We have this set-aside program. There are two categories, minorities and women.
Now, I understand how we tell if some one is a woman or not (I hope:)), please tell me how we decide if someone is a minority.
Tom, I don’t see why you think I am “whining”. I am enjoying the experience of making sure Coll knows not everybody is in his posse. I have no idea who Peace is or what he said. When I asked about forensic pathologists, you said something about them not being able to racially type skeletons from the past. That sounds like a straw man argument. If one forensic pathologist has succesfully identified a victim’s race by its skeleton or somebody has correctly put a skin tint on a reconstucted face built up from a victim’s skull, then there is more to the concept of race than your idea of cultural and ethic identity.
I think you should lay off the ad hominem attacks because when you do it, it sounds like “yeah? well you’re a bigger one”.
Hey dude,
Could you stop hijacking my hijack?
YOU claim that forensic pathologists can reconstruct race from a skeleton.
They cannot.
I have made no ad hominem attacks. This is clearly whining:
You are the one who has attempted to divert the discussion away from the facts by your baseless and silly accusation that Collounsbury or his sources have some Marxist agenda.
You have also attempted to cover your obvious inability to deal with the facts of genetics with this utterly unfounded accusation:
Since you seem to have made up this whole “political” basis for Col’s facts out of whole cloth and since you do not seem to be able make any contribution to the discussion except to call people “zealot,” “fanatic,” and “Marxist” and to talk about an imaginary “posse,” I would suggest that you are unable to recognize ad hominem attacks even when they come from your own keyboard.
What is your political agenda, hmmm?