When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[Last Conformist]

Jaguar Warrior: Why of the two types do you belong to?

[Solly]

"There are two types of people here."



Can't say that!

It's racist!

We're all the same and any differences between thoseon either side of the debating divide are greater than the actual divide!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
OK, this thread really really really annoys me.


There are two types of people here. The majority are people who are obsessed with showing how w00tacularly un-racist they are, even if they have to resort to complete logical fallacies and incredibly stupid rhetorical questions to do so. "Why isn't race defined by eye color?"

Then there are the people who are even more oddly obsessed with "proving" differences between races even though they come off looking like *******s every time.

That's because they're the ones who care about the issue strongly. IMHO, there are general differences between ethnic groups. The mens 100 metres hurdles final at this years Olympics will almost certainly be made up entirely of black men. Generally, they find it easier to build muscle, and have more 'fast twitch' muscles, and so the very pinacle of sprinting is dominated by black men.

Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a height requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

That's because they're the ones who care about the issue strongly. IMHO, there are general differences between ethnic groups. The mens 100 metres hurdles final at this years Olympics will almost certainly be made up entirely of black men. Generally, they find it easier to build muscle, and have more 'fast twitch' muscles, and so the very pinacle of sprinting is dominated by black men.

Statistically you are probably correct. What you could have equally said that is that all racers will be human, but that would of course be facetitious and uninformative, or that all runners will be from a particular subset of black people, which then implies that not all subsets of black people have the talented sprinter gene. Which is true, for I doubt there will be any Ethiopans in the final. Its far more likely that they'll be appearing in the marathon competitions, which too will probably be dominated by black people, but a different kind of black person to the 100m sprint - when was the last time you saw black African American men competing for a marathon title?


An analogy- if all persons in the 100m final were likely to be white Germans from Bavaria- would you say the final will likely be an all white final due to reason X, Y, Z, or an all European, or an all German or all Bavarian final? It doesn't matter too much which you choose until inferences are drawn by people on the terms you are using.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drogue
That's because they're the ones who care about the issue strongly.

Not really. I just don't like it when people say stupid things like "all races are inherently equal", even when I agree with them

[Bosh]

not all subsets of black people have the talented sprinter gene.

Interestingly enough, there is more genetic variation between the different "sub sets" of black people than between all the different non-african races...

[Kuciwalker]

That's not quite correct - more accurately, there are in fact three different races native to Africa.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Drogue
Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a heigh requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
That's not quite correct - more accurately, there are in fact three different races native to Africa.

The non African races have a relatively recent set of common ancestors (due to bottlenecks in the migrations out of Africa and whatnot) while to get a common ancestor for Africans you have to go back quite a bit farther.

[MikeH]

"But the question still stands- If a child has one "white", "black", "Asia" and "Indian" grandparent each- what race is the child?"

The Future.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH


The Future.

Is there some kind of mass inter-racial breeding program I'm unaware of?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Statistically you are probably correct. What you could have equally said that is that all racers will be human, but that would of course be facetitious and uninformative, or that all runners will be from a particular subset of black people, which then implies that not all subsets of black people have the talented sprinter gene. Which is true, for I doubt there will be any Ethiopans in the final. Its far more likely that they'll be appearing in the marathon competitions, which too will probably be dominated by black people, but a different kind of black person to the 100m sprint - when was the last time you saw black African American men competing for a marathon title?

Very true, it is not because of skin colour, but genetic origin. The amount of fast twitch muscles is genetic, as seems to be the efficient muscles and lung capacity of East African long distance runners. That is not to belittledthe effort they put in at all, which is considerable, but someone like myself, however hard I trained, would be unable to compete with them. I simply don't have the genetics.

Originally posted by Big Crunch
An analogy- if all persons in the 100m final were likely to be white Germans from Bavaria- would you say the final will likely be an all white final due to reason X, Y, Z, or an all European, or an all German or all Bavarian final? It doesn't matter too much which you choose until inferences are drawn by people on the terms you are using.

All very true. It would be about their genetics, which also decides your skin colour. Somatype, muscle type, etc, is all genetic, and so while skin colour does not cause it, the same thing that causes skin colour causes the potential for a certain type of athletic performance. Therefore, in your analogy, it is not because they are white that they can run fast, it is because of their common genetic origin. However it wouldn't be down to nationality or place of birth at all, since neither of those are genetic traits. The only way you can get all members of the final to be from one relatively small geographic area, is inbreeding, as in the Kenyan villiage that produces so many Kenyan long distance runners, and keeping the genes for thier particularly efficient/fast muscles in that geographic area.

[Solly]

Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a heigh requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination.

So you'd agree that "positive discrimination" is racism in action?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
So you'd agree that "positive discrimination" is racism in action?

Yes, and more importantly, it's still discrimination. I don't see a difference between positive and negative discrimination, they're both discrimination based on race/religion/gender/sexuality. I'd rather there was no discrimination on any of those, in the short term by it not being known, on forms etc, and in the long term by education, so that people see people as individuals, and not members of their group - ie. they don't discriminate personally on it.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Drogue

Very true, it is not because of skin colour, but genetic origin. The amount of fast twitch muscles is genetic, as seems to be the efficient muscles and lung capacity of East African long distance runners. That is not to belittledthe effort they put in at all, which is considerable, but someone like myself, however hard I trained, would be unable to compete with them. I simply don't have the genetics.


All very true. It would be about their genetics, which also decides your skin colour. Somatype, muscle type, etc, is all genetic, and so while skin colour does not cause it, the same thing that causes skin colour causes the potential for a certain type of athletic performance. Therefore, in your analogy, it is not because they are white that they can run fast, it is because of their common genetic origin. However it wouldn't be down to nationality or place of birth at all, since neither of those are genetic traits. The only way you can get all members of the final to be from one relatively small geographic area, is inbreeding, as in the Kenyan villiage that produces so many Kenyan long distance runners, and keeping the genes for thier particularly efficient/fast muscles in that geographic area.

But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans.

And THAT is why it is racism.

It is a lie.

You look at a non-random subset of people, and choose to associate a trait you SELECTED those people for with another obvious trait they happen to have.

Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting).

It is a lie.

It can only lead to differing expecatations, which can only lead to different treatment.

Stop before you start.

Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well.

(Can't control themselves, poor dears. Don't have the tools. Not their fault they commit crime, its because they can't keep up. Look, their marks are lower, numbers don't lie.)