PBS lies in an attempt to prove that race does not exist

[Whaleboy]

"So there are no races, but there is racism? "

Racism is the active or passive persecution of those one perceives to be of a different race. If the victim or society perceives there to be no racism, that is irrelevant, as to the racist, races exist.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

OK.. .what is wrong with existance of races? That is a fact... however abusing on racial bases - now that should be a crime, pretty much like abuse one way or the other... still if abuse is institutionalized - well institutions have to be corrected

and as this is almost impossible, the ppl are trying to deny the race alltogether so it somehow slips out of the public conscience, together with all the problems that resulted with the ideas of racial "superiority"... so that people can finally start from scratch and not have prejudices that are built into them socially...

Well at least it is an attempt to change the society on the better... facing the problems straight on should be the best, but how do you do that?

[Q Classic]

well, along the lines of racial superiorty, we humans also have it bad, thinking we're better than all the other races. like the chimps, the dolphins, the fvcking bonobos, and the regular bonobos.

[GePap]

OK.. .what is wrong with existance of races? That is a fact...

A fact based on what? Looks? The physical appearance of something is hardly "proof" of a fact.

If you can givbe us genetic proof that there are distinct sub-categories of human beings (beyond male-female), then go ahead. but the point of those of us saying there is no such thing as race is that sub-dividing humans in the way 'race' does simply has no biological basis.

As we asked Bodd's: can YOU list the "races" and what their characteristics are? And then answer Vels question about what is the result of their interaction?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
How strange that white South Africans still exist. I guess they just have really good sunblock.

First, the indigenous people of South Africa, the Hottentots, are actually rather light skinned. You would assume that they are mixed to look at them. This is because South Africa is actually rather far from the Equator and has a Mediterranian climate, rather than equatorial. The reason that most Blacks in South Africa are dark skinned is because they are decended from the Bantu, an equatorial group that migrated to the area only recently, about the same time as the Dutch showed up.

Two, South African "race" was legislated. A Black person from the US who went to SA was legally white. Indians were considered Coloreds, even though many Indians are very white looking (generally upper class Aryans who kept their bloodlines relatively free from indigenous Indians).

In fact, race only exists in places where it is legislated into existence. If the old race laws still applied, many white Americans would not be considered white under the law there. If you had one drop of colored blood (Indian, Black, Asian, etc) you were colored, not white. Of course, if you look white, you can pass, no one cares. So, many Black people in the US were legally white.

Asians who live near the Equator are much darker than Mongolians. Dravidians are almost Black in skin color. American Indians even showed some color division. Melaneseans are darker than Polynesians, which is why the Australian aborigines are darker than the New Zealand Maoris.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GePap

OK.. .what is wrong with existance of races? That is a fact...

A fact based on what? Looks? The physical appearance of something is hardly "proof" of a fact.

If you can givbe us genetic proof that there are distinct sub-categories of human beings (beyond male-female), then go ahead. but the point of those of us saying there is no such thing as race is that sub-dividing humans in the way 'race' does simply has no biological basis.

As we asked Bodd's: can YOU list the "races" and what their characteristics are? And then answer Vels question about what is the result of their interaction?

yest the fact based on looks... if you are of "white" origin you have some certain physical things incommon, color being the most dominant but so are facial and body features, as do people from "black" background, or those from "yellow" etc... and so what? we people love to categorize... as we do with all things... however it is just a historical conincidence that people from mainly "black" origin - (there were slaves from other "racial groups too" but not in such number) were used as slaves 300-150 years ago, and you get all the racial halabaloo that persists to this day... the only reason that people from Africa that were from black origin were most readily available as slaves during the last slave trade period... in ancient times everyone could be a slave, so noone cared to categorize...

there is nothing wrong with it (races as categories), however it is wrong when someone abuses someone else on "racial" base when he loses the plot - and it is wrong when someone abuses me as "bloody foreigner that should **** off" even I am white but have "continental accent" when you get accross some drunk fool... and??? is it true that I am from the continent ? - it is , and so what? bloody drunken morons ... that is the fact too...

the "racial" abuse is most likely color based as opposed to what you sound like and it should be estinguished too... even worse when such abuse becomes institutionalized... that should really be taken out, but it is even harder... and culture should change as all those idiotic ideas of "white superiority" etc.. based on religion ...

fortunatly British superiority over us continental folk is not institutionalized, just some morons now and than - BNP voters and such

[Flare]

We are all related in some way or another. Just go back long enough to find out great, great, great, great, great,... (Ad nausiumn) ..., great grandfather & grandmother.

[Velociryx]

See...the funny thing about "race" is that, once you convince yourself it exists, then suddenly, it's extremely important to categorize *yourself*. If there are races, what group to I belong to?

And you gotta belong to a group...after all, there's those government and employment forms to consider. You only get to check one block (of course, "multi-racial" folks could just check "other" I suppose, but then, everybody would be checking "other" and it would render the whole game pointless!). That's why the whole "multi-racial" notion doesn't work. You're either in a group, or not-in a group. Can't claim both.

So where are the lines? If I'm 1/32'd black, does that make me "more black" than if I'm 1/86th? (and what if the fellow who is 1/86th black happens to have darker skin coloration than the fellow who's 1/32nd? Does that magically change his race or make HIM "more black" percentages notwithstanding? For that matter, if I get a honkin' good tan this summer, can I become a "Native American" for the summer and then switch back?).

All sorts of funny things start to happen when you ask a racist to really identify and quantify what it is, exactly, that makes up "race." Even funnier that none of the proponents of "race" can come up with a globally agreed upon standard to judge by, which is further evidence that it's just so much hot air.

-=Vel=-

[Japher]

Racism is a social construct, it exists but only in the minds of those who decide to be racist.

Race, on the other hand, it prbably a bad word to call, I like ethnicity too. Yet, I do feel that there a genetic differences between different ethnicities. In the same way that there is bulldog genes, dalmation genes, and cocker spaniel genes. Pretty much today, however, we are all mutts... We are all dogs, but are different breeds, and as any breeder will tell you, there are traits associated with different breeds, not just in appearance, but in attitude, personality, mentality, etc... Luckily for us, mutts are generally the smarter of all dogs.

I have mutt (German Shepard/Chow). GS are territorial and Chows are hyper and can be protective. She is territorial, hyper, and protective. This is her nature. She still barks when someone knocks on the door and she will stand between anyone and my wife... Yet, we were able to train the hyperness out of her. What does this say? It says that there is the ability to change. It is this change that leads to the evolution of different breeds, and these changes that led to the evolution of other ethnicities...

IMO

[GePap]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
yest the fact based on looks... if you are of "white" origin you have some certain physical things incommon, color being the most dominant but so are facial and body features, as do people from "black" background, or those from "yellow" etc... and so what?

I am sorry, but this very "explination" shows the wholly unscientific basis of your belief in race, which is the point of the thread:Cali sugest that there is genetic evidence to porve significant "racial" difference.

we people love to categorize... as we do with all things... however it is just a historical conincidence that people from mainly "black" origin - (there were slaves from other "racial groups too" but not in such number) were used as slaves 300-150 years ago, and you get all the racial halabaloo that persists to this day... the only reason that people from Africa that were from black origin were most readily available as slaves during the last slave trade period... in ancient times everyone could be a slave, so noone cared to categorize...

Categorization by 'race' is ancient (there is some in the Bible itself) and preceeds any notions of the slave trade. The problem is that skin color has little to do with "race" once people begin to try to make it into a scientific notion. After all, no Nazi doctor of eugenics would have ever placed "white" slavs with "white" Germans. In fact the very category "white" is secondary to the category "black" (as in, whites are those who aren't black)

People may love to categorize, but thier love of it does not mean every category made is valid or usefull, nor that it should be preserved and enshrined.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GePap


I am sorry, but this very "explination" shows the wholly unscientific basis of your belief in race, which is the point of the thread:Cali sugest that there is genetic evidence to porve significant "racial" difference.



Categorization by 'race' is ancient (there is some in the Bible itself) and preceeds any notions of the slave trade. The problem is that skin color has little to do with "race" once people begin to try to make it into a scientific notion. After all, no Nazi doctor of eugenics would have ever placed "white" slavs with "white" Germans. In fact the very category "white" is secondary to the category "black" (as in, whites are those who aren't black)

People may love to categorize, but thier love of it does not mean every category made is valid or usefull, nor that it should be preserved and enshrined.

OK... i do not claim any scientific base for this categorisation, it is purely subjective and based on the physical features of certain groups... I view "race" as such, not on some scientific level etc...

and that is true that not every category is useful... especially not this one as so much evil has been done in its name... so that was the end of my conclusion above -

Well at least it is an attempt to change the society on the better... facing the problems straight on should be the best, but how do you do that?

but anyway it is so apparent that it's not going to go away... still some people should learn that it makes no difference where you come from to for an opinion about your "abilities" or similar... most likely the differences are cultural and that's the whole deal... but hey a little tolerance can go a long way for having a better life with those around you, not only with those from diffecent cultures but with those from your own culture who are a "little annoying" too... give a little understanding and you will get some respect back... that should be preached

[lord of the mark]

i am a member of the O postive race.

All people with o positive blood are members of this race whatever the color of their skin.

all attempts to focus on skin color are malicious attempts to break up the identity and purity of the O positive race.

I hope that helps to explain what is meant when it is said that 'race' is a social construct.

There are many heritable charecteristics. from a given population you can show greater or lesser frequencies of particular charecteristics and genes. (thus its not to hard to tell a random sample of Norwegians from a random sample of Nigerians) But the focus on certain charecteristics as markers of relationship is arbitrary and socially determined.

For example in the case of the Jews there is DNA evidence of links among groups of different national origin - groups that differ dramatically in skin color.


BTW - one consequence of this - it is QUITE POSSIBLE that intelligence is heritable, and is the basis for most social inequality, even IF race is a myth. IIRC the authors of "The Bell Curve" did not deny this - their own data showed as more variation on IQ within "races" then between them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara



Two, South African "race" was legislated. A Black person from the US who went to SA was legally white. Indians were considered Coloreds, even though many Indians are very white looking (generally upper class Aryans who kept their bloodlines relatively free from indigenous Indians).

In fact, race only exists in places where it is legislated into existence. If the old race laws still applied, many white Americans would not be considered white under the law there. If you had one drop of colored blood (Indian, Black, Asian, etc) you were colored, not white. Of course, if you look white, you can pass, no one cares. So, many Black people in the US were legally white.

and in the 1890s many in the US did not consider (south ) Italians or Jews "white" - as they assimilated and rose socially, they "became" "white" .

[Japher]

i am a member of the O postive race.

Ppl with O positive blood or so inferior. Every time I see on I feel so sorry for them. I mean, what are they good for? Blood Donors? I tell you, I don't want thier blood in me!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Japher




Ppl with O positive blood or so inferior. Every time I see on I feel so sorry for them. I mean, what are they good for? Blood Donors? I tell you, I don't want thier blood in me!!!

say it long, say it loud, im o pos and im proud!!