by Crazyguy 133 Replies latest jw friends
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WHITE RACE.
Anthropology abandoned the whole concept of race more than 70 years ago, but back when it was accepted, it was based on subtle differences in the shape of the skull.
There were only four (Or five, depending upon what you read) races under that system.
"Caucasian" was a category that included not just light skinned Europeans, but everyone in Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Arabia, India and parts of Africa.
If topics hits is of most importance this one leads the pack currently 90 in under 24 hrs. People who live in society where there is not much cultural differences or race types typically have the most racism. I would rather deal with a kind Asian than a arrogant white man. But the real difference in races is that us white skinned people get sunburnt easier.
The irony is, that in "white" societies, the vigorous ones want to appear tanned, and in the tropics, the upward striving cultivate their paleness.
Eyes painted to be more oriental - like, lips enhanced to be more African typed. There could probably be assembled an universal trans -"race" beauty/ handsomeness index, appreciated from all view points.
It is the extremes that repel, and some grandparents like to have their offspring resemble their own parents as much as possible, carry on the line. can you blame them?
Anthropology abandoned the whole concept of race more than 70 years ago - TD
It is an affront to common sense to deny the obvious differences that are shared by groups of people whose ancestors share a particular history. It would be absolutely incredible if observable differences did not happen.
Racial differences are real, the can even be observed by forensic anthropologists from skeletons alone. . All racial differences are on a spectrum or more accurately a bell-curve. All such curves overlap. The interesting bits are at the ends. If you want to train the next 100m Olympic record holder don't waste your time coaching ginger kids in Glasgow.
In the UK the police use six "IC" radio codes to denote the ethnicity of persons they are looking for. IC1 is White - North European, IC3 is Afro-Caribbean, IC4 is Asian etc. These codes are used because they are meaningful and useful in most cases. When a policeman hears that a suspect is IC3 they can quickly eliminate a large percentage of people they observe.
All attempts to define race are of course imperfect and subject to exceptions.
I don't disagree with the substance of what you've said above, Cofty, but you've mixed various systems of categorization in your reply. "Race" as it was used by anthropologists in the past was less specific than the various systems we use to classify phenotypical traits, study sociology or collect census data today. (Which are sometimes simply definitions of convenience.) And again, there was no "white race" under that system.
chook: But the real difference in races is that us white skinned people get sunburnt easier.
Yeah! and the sunburn leads to skin cancers (like melanoma) in your old age (if not before).
So nature acts to remove freaks with white skin.
(just had a melanoma removed, so speaking from experience).
More seriously, some scholarship postulates that early humans had dark skin, and that white skin was a mutation.
Of course, if there was a mutation, it clearly could occur more than once.
So nature acts to remove freaks with white skin.
Lovely. But I think it's racist to suggest that white-people are more evolved ...
The claims that there is no such thing as "race" are simply idiotic to most people but I guess it's a quick solution to racism. Race is recognized both medically and under the law, so claiming it doesn't exist is simply daft.
Simon: Race is recognized both medically and under the law, so claiming it doesn't exist is simply daft.
But, Simon, the use of the term in any discipline like medicine or law, does not validate the term. Many terms are (in time) discarded because a recognition grows that they are not particularly useful in describing reality.
I guess I'd have to agree that the term is useful in some ways as it allows a quick understanding of what a person may be attempting to say. But is it a useful term? As a descriptive shorthand term to refer to a person's origins it does not seem to be particularly harmful, but I also think that its become so loaded with various ideological attachments to its meaning, that it is no longer, particularly useful.
Maybe its a bit like the term 'culture' which can be so cryptic that its difficult to know what meaning a person using the term is wanting to say. And, once you start having to attach other words to define your meaning, the word starts to lose its usefulness.
The Wikipedia (to use an easily available source) entry on 'Race and Society' starts its discussion by saying:
Social interpretations of race regard the common categorizations of people into different races, often with biologist tagging of particular "racial" attributes beyond mere anatomy, as more socially and culturally determined than based upon biology. Some interpretations are often deconstructionist and poststructuralist in that they critically analyze the historical construction and development of racial categories.
And, sadly the deeper one reads into the origins and usage of the term, the more complicated an understanding of the term becomes. (just try it)
Under the single word 'Race' the Wikipedia entry comments:
According to Smedley and Marks the European concept of "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, arose at the time of the scientific revolution, which introduced and privileged the study of natural kinds, and the age of European imperialism and colonization which established political relations between Europeans and peoples with distinct cultural and political traditions.[39][40] As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups.
From that viewpoint the term's descriptive capacity has its origins in the nineteenth century, which is where Professor John Hobson locates it in his book, "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation." That was a time when Europeans sought some kind of philosophical justification for their attempt at world domination. It lead to such gems as Edward Long's (A British colonial administrator) claim that an orang-outang would be a suitable husband for an African Hottentot woman.
That developed racist philosophy also led to the various examples of Chinese exclusion legislation in Australia (The White Australia Policy) and the USA.
Another lovely example of racist attitudes in action.
It was only after WW2 and the end of colonialism in S.E.Asia, that Australia amended its laws to prevent Asians becoming resident in Australia. Arthur Calwell (a Labour party leader), once declaring, "Two Wongs don't make a white."
I just know that when the traffic is going 40 kpm on MacLeod Trail that there will inevitably be an older Asian woman in a Toyota Corolla at the front of it: triple-O ... Old + Oriental + Ovaries (ha, I actually learned that from an older Chinese lady who learned it from her kids).
Don't tell me there are no differences between races.
That some people want to misuse race to ascribe negative judgements of people doesn't mean that race isn't a thing. I know the leftist wet dream is that somehow we're all a multicultural mix as though we've all been through a blender, but we're not.
We're all different in many, many ways.
Some of those differences are fantastic. Some are terrible and shameful.
Trying to deny the differences doesn't solve any of the issues or allow anything to be celebrated.
Odd racist comments from people long dead is not a reason to deny the differences either.
Crazyguy: I didn't interpret your comments as "racist" as such, but more uninformed. Aside from the information provided in this thread, some personal exploration can correct your perception of races. I've also observed that it is some degree of ignorance and not hate that makes some people perpetuate racist ideas and stereotypes. So, you can understand to some degree some of the reaction here.
But when we see comments like those from snowbird and from Ruby456 for defending her, the level of ignorance is heightened and creates a counter-productive dialog. I was going to agree with flipper and hope that a calmer discussion would not derail the object of the thread. I'm the type who would rather label an argument as "moronic" if it's illogical and has nothing to back it up. But how long does one have to argue the point on the side of facts instead of just accepting what someone believes? After failure to engage, we must conclude that the person is a moron. Upon recognizing that the arguments are stupid, we must admit they emanate from a stupid person, not just because because the argument isn't sound but more so because the individual seems unwilling to reason.
I respect belief, but I don't respect stupidity. That is quite different than ignorance. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, but always strive to find answers and solutions. The stupid refuses to seek answers or face unwanted conclusions. This is why someone famous once said: “There is no sin except stupidity.” -- Oscar Wilde
