Racial controversy

[GeneralTacticus]

Excuse me? I have to establish something? I didn't come up with this idea, of there existing races. I have heard about it from many many places. So there are no different races? Is that what you are saying? You're the one providing the evidence now, since I believe that goes too much against general opinion. Gl hf gm gogo

Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true. You're the one arguing that there are (biologically) sperate races; the burden of proof is on you.

[chequita guevara]

Public opinion counts for squat. Biologically there is only one human race. Social races, of which most people think when when they hear the term race, are arbitrarily determined. For example, a person who would be considered Black in the US goes to Apartheid South Africa. Under the laws of the regime, he is legally white. In 19th century California, there were legally three races: white, Black, and Indian. Mexicans were legally considered Indians and Chinese were legally Black. A White man in Haiti would most likely be considered Black in the US.

[tinyp3nis]

It's clear that people with certain genes have different infants than other people with other genes. I understtand the word species, and there is only one human species. The word race describes every human being? Ok fine, HELP me people! What is the word I am looking for? Please.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tuberski


I think it should be changed to this:

Anyway, "racist" government policy combined with social "racism" has historically, denied people equal opportunity based on race, and it still continues today. Companies discriminate based on "race", but are not caught, because they invent a false, trumped up reason.

"racist" discrimination perpetuates poverty, due to lack of opportunities to improve one's livliehood. Poverty, in turn, increases the possibility of impoverished people to turn to criminal activity, regardless what "race" you are.

So, fundamentally, "racist" discrimination has caused many individuals within the minority groups to turn to criminal activity, not "race" itself.


At least according to others in this thread, since we are all the same "race".

ACK!

[tinyp3nis]

Still no help. Ok I try to make this easier. The persons who didn't understand the following, or did but think that it could and should be expressed in different way, help me out. What word to replace the word race here to make people understand me? I really prefer not to use lists or anything like that:

There is not enough evidence for me to decide if all races are equal. They seem to be pretty much the same, but pretty much doesn't cut it here, because that is not the point here right? Believing something just because it seems so nice and fair is just lame.

Come on! Or is there no way to say things like this and not hear complaining? If the problem is at my end, I can do something about it.

edit: thing-->think

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


No they don't. They show that different climates select different physical traits. That's all they show, nothing more.

Different climates select not just for physical traits. If that is so then there wouldn't be such a thing as animal behavior.

I haven't asserted that. I was merely showing that there is absolutely no valid reason to think so, and flies in the face of scientific evidence. I can't show you there's no invisible pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, so does it warrant evistigation?

If it can be shown that there are blue, green, and orange unicorns there, then yes, pink unicorns warrant investigation.

Similarly, if there are differences in terms of skin color, skeleton structure, etc etc, then other differences should be investigated.

There are very few genotypic traits that most Africans share, and most Europeans share, but are mutually exclusive between the two groups.

How is important or useful?

The main "trend" is skin color, and there's no point in investigating that. There are a few other trends which pertain to disease resistances and the like, but they generally don't follow the "racial" groupings very well.

Science is based on such trends. Human beings are complex animals and hence there are no absolutes. But nevertheless there is strong correspondence between dark hair, dark skin, brown eyes, thick lips and a slightly higher instance of sickle-cell anemia. That's the trend. And we term such trends "race".

How are you going to stop that?

That's beside the point. You're confusing what is true and what should be known. Just because something shouldn't necessarily be known by the public doesn't mean it's false.

That may be cultural. Simply, if humans don't continue drinking milk past childhood, they might lose the ability to tolerate milk. It's hard to know whether lactose intolerance causes avoidance of milk or vice versa. The truth is likely both, as we are the only animal that regularly drinks milk past infancy. Mongols drink mares' milk, btw, so lactose intolerance isn't an Asian universal. Many Africans also have lactose intolerence, but there are also nations like the Masai who practice cattle-husbandry and live off of milk products. And there are also many caucasians with lactose-intolerence.

See the previous discussions about trends.

Public opinion counts for squat. Biologically there is only one human race. Social races, of which most people think when when they hear the term race, are arbitrarily determined. For example, a person who would be considered Black in the US goes to Apartheid South Africa. Under the laws of the regime, he is legally white. In 19th century California, there were legally three races: white, Black, and Indian. Mexicans were legally considered Indians and Chinese were legally Black. A White man in Haiti would most likely be considered Black in the US.

I think you mean "species", not race.

Race refers to the trends that you find among people from different continents/regions. The very reason why you can even talk of "blacks", "Mexicans", "Chinese" etc is because there are certain features that blacks, Mexicans and Chinese tend to have. This is termed "race", and is purely a scientific term, in the same way we talk of "strains" or "breeds".

In a way, you're right, such classifications are arbitrary. But then, so is most of the rest of scientific classification.

[chequita guevara]

Biologically, ranskaldan, the term race is used to differentiate different members of the same species that cannot interbreed. This definition does not apply to human beings. There is only one biological race among humans.

The scientific term for what people very think of as race is phenotype. However, because there are no clearly demarcated races, but rather a continuous spectrum of human beings from the fairest Icelandics to the darkest sub-Saharan Africans, it cannot be exactly determined where one phenotype begins and other ends.

[Ramo]

Different climates select not just for physical traits. If that is so then there wouldn't be such a thing as animal behavior.

You're not reading what I wrote. Different climates select certain physical traits in humans implies just that. Not anything else.

If it can be shown that there are blue, green, and orange unicorns there, then yes, pink unicorns warrant investigation.

Similarly, if there are differences in terms of skin color, skeleton structure, etc etc, then other differences should be investigated.

That's silly. There's absolutely no reason to think so since there is no concievable differential in selective pressures on these traits. On the other hand, there are differentials between various environments in selective pressures for certain melanin densities, and the like.

[quote]Science is based on such trends. Human beings are complex animals and hence there are no absolutes. But nevertheless there is strong correspondence between dark hair, dark skin, brown eyes, thick lips and a slightly higher instance of sickle-cell anemia. That's the trend. And we term such trends "race".[/qutoe]

che has addressed this well.

That's beside the point. You're confusing what is true and what should be known. Just because something shouldn't necessarily be known by the public doesn't mean it's false.

That's precisley the point and I'm not confusing anything. I was explaining why I wouldn't want to know or don't think anyone ought to know if what you propose were true. Such information is morally outrageous given such an its likely consequences.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
See the previous discussions about trends.

I am asserting that lactose intolerence hasn't been proven to be genetically determined. In other words, lactose intolerance may be an acquired trait. All humans across the globe have the ability to digest lactose at birth.

The fact that Mongols drink milk seems to argue against the idea that Asians are genetically unable to digest milk. Rather, they simply stop drinking it once they reach a certain age, and lose the ability to drink milk since they are no longer needing those enzymes. It might be that Mongols who were lactose-intolerant were outbred by lactose-tolerant Mongols. Lactose tolerance is a handy trait in a culture that is highly dependent on milk. Of course, if your people were lactose-intolerant to begin with, you have to wonder why they developed a culture based on milk.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Biologically, ranskaldan, the term race is used to differentiate different members of the same species that cannot interbreed. This definition does not apply to human beings. There is only one biological race among humans.

The scientific term for what people very think of as race is phenotype. However, because there are no clearly demarcated races, but rather a continuous spectrum of human beings from the fairest Icelandics to the darkest sub-Saharan Africans, it cannot be exactly determined where one phenotype begins and other ends.

Go look it up in a dictionary. A race refers to groups within the same species that are phenotypically different but can interbreed. Two organisms that cannot interbreed belong to different species.

Hence, race = group displaying trends in phenotype.

That's silly. There's absolutely no reason to think so since there is no concievable differential in selective pressures on these traits. On the other hand, there are differentials between various environments in selective pressures for certain melanin densities, and the like.

But why wouldn't different environments select for different hormonal levels, for instance?

That's precisley the point and I'm not confusing anything. I was explaining why I wouldn't want to know or don't think anyone ought to know if what you propose were true. Such information is morally outrageous given such an its likely consequences.

The same can be spoken of atheism. Atheism is repugnant because it removes the carrot-and-stick that keeps human beings morally in line.

On the other hand, that does not make atheism more or less true. Whether atheism is true depends on scientific observation, not moral judgements.

The fact that Mongols drink milk seems to argue against the idea that Asians are genetically unable to digest milk. Rather, they simply stop drinking it once they reach a certain age, and lose the ability to drink milk since they are no longer needing those enzymes. It might be that Mongols who were lactose-intolerant were outbred by lactose-tolerant Mongols. Lactose tolerance is a handy trait in a culture that is highly dependent on milk. Of course, if your people were lactose-intolerant to begin with, you have to wonder why they developed a culture based on milk.

I'm still talking about trends. Even if 2% of Europeans are lactose-intolerant, and 5% of Asians are, that's still a trend.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Go look it up in a dictionary. A race refers to groups within the same species that are phenotypically different but can interbreed. Two organisms that cannot interbreed belong to different species.

I don't use dictionaries to define scientific terms. I use science courses and books to do that.

[ranskaldan]

If so, then whichever book you're using has just equated race and species. In that case, race is a meaningless term.

But as far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, race refers to subspecial groups displaying trends in phenotypes. That's what you're arguing against.

[Ramo]

But why wouldn't different environments select for different hormonal levels, for instance?

Why would they? The burden of proof is on you.

The same can be spoken of atheism. Atheism is repugnant because it removes the carrot-and-stick that keeps human beings morally in line.

Atheism is morally righteous because it liberates people from the authority of doctrine, to seek a morality rooted in compassion for other human beings. Atheists are no less "in line" (by that, I mean they don't committ more murders, etc.) than theists.

Morality can be either good or bad. Just because it's rooted in a religious doctrine doesn't make it good, and just because it isn't doesn't make it bad.

On the other hand, that does not make atheism more or less true. Whether atheism is true depends on scientific observation, not moral judgements.

Again, that post wasn't addressing the truthfulness of your claims. Just whether anyone has any business investigating them.

[Ramo]

But as far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, race refers to subspecial groups displaying trends in phenotypes. That's what you're arguing against.

But the phenotypic trends often run counter to racial classifications.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
If so, then whichever book you're using has just equated race and species. In that case, race is a meaningless term.

It is a meaningless term as far as humans are concerned. Other species do have races, however. The term, therefore has meaning in relation to biologists.

BTW, in some cases, members of different species in the same genus can interbreed (horses and donkeys, lions and tigers). Races aren't incapable of interbreeding, they simply won't interbreed. (My previous use of can't was an overstatement.)

But as far as I and the rest of the world is concerned, race refers to subspecial groups displaying trends in phenotypes. That's what you're arguing against.

As I pointed out twice before in this thread alone, there is a biological term and a social term. What is happening, is that biological traits are being ascribed to social catagories. This is what I am arguing against. You might as well assert that there are biological differences between the rich and poor. It makes as much sense.

And don't assert you stand for the rest of the world. That the general public might use a word one way doesn't mean that the word isn't used scientifically another way. And the general public, as a whole, doesn't use the word that was as there is a strong push to use only the scientific definition.