Spink in Race Row

[Elok]

Yes, race is a factor, insofar as black people in our society may have different material circumstances from white people and thus may have higher incidences of single mothers/economic factors/whatever. Said factors are not intrinsic to the race, or a sign that "black people are criminals," only a statistical note that being black increases the likelihood of one's being a criminal in some way not otherwise defined. The disparities may have their root in racism, and probably do, but remarking on the disparity doesn't make us Klan members.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Lactose tolerance has nothing to do with race either, it's a cultural phenomena.

Doesn't mean the correlation with race doesn't exist.

Correlations exist, I'm not arguing against that. The problem is you cannot use correlations without making implications as to why you use them. My initial statement was about use of correlations "like this", in which these racial correlations are promoted as evidence of causation.

To be technical, the complete lack of racism is being unaware of race altogether. Just viewing everyone as humans. To make any correlation based on race requires the conscious acceptance of racial differentiation.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Elok
The disparities may have their root in racism, and probably do, but remarking on the disparity doesn't make us Klan members.

I don't pretend that racism is an all or nothing thing. Everyone is a racist to some extent most likely. To what extent depends on how much weight you give race as a factor.

[Barnabas]

Whats wrong in acknowledging non europeans are most often lactose intolerant?
Even if it is a racial difference, I dont see anything wrong with it

[Snotty]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

The problem in London is the sheer disparity between the rich and the poor which has continued to worsen. A working class young man in London must feel absolutely hopeless in the face of the sheer cost of living in this city.

It was tough, but not crippling to be young and working class, but I guess you would say greater london is not quite as expensive

does anyone know if spink was quoting a statistic? if so, then what statistic?

[Az]

brilliant title.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


Correlations exist, I'm not arguing against that. The problem is you cannot use correlations without making implications as to why you use them. My initial statement was about use of correlations "like this", in which these racial correlations are promoted as evidence of causation.

To be technical, the complete lack of racism is being unaware of race altogether. Just viewing everyone as humans. To make any correlation based on race requires the conscious acceptance of racial differentiation.

Where is your evidence that races are all 'the same under the skin'? Without concrete proof either way, neither assumption is morally wrong, yet you use the 'racist' tag to attack those who assume differences, or merely question the underlying cause of the differences that everyone can see.

[Arrian]

I think part of the trouble is that we talk of race sometimes when we mean culture.

Forget skin color, one could argue that there are cultural reasons for certain crime statistics in the United States (or elsewhere). People often look at stats like this that lump all "black" people together... but it seems to me that there is a significant cultural difference between an "African American" born & raised here and a black person who recently moved here from, say, Barbados.

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think part of the trouble is that we talk of race sometimes when we mean culture.

Forget skin color, one could argue that there are cultural reasons for certain crime statistics in the United States (or elsewhere). People often look at stats like this that lump all "black" people together... but it seems to me that there is a significant cultural difference between an "African American" born & raised here and a black person who recently moved here from, say, Barbados.

-Arrian

For sure. In my experience, black immigrants from the Carribean or Africa are more hardworking than black Americans. Neither do they have such a chip on their shoulder.

I have no doubt that there is a significant cultural factor, but I'm not going to discount a possible genetic factor either. After all, there are very few places on the planet with a majority black population that don't have the usual social problems, and you can't blame everything on whitey.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Caligastia
and you can't blame everything on whitey.

Sure we can. After all, whitey is so domineering that he tells black folk who they are and aren't allowed to blame everything on. What more proof do you need? Cracker.

[Caligastia]

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Where is your evidence that races are all 'the same under the skin'?

My brothers and I aren't the same under the skin, certainly my sisters and I differ under the skin, even though genetically they are my closest relations. In fact, my skin tone is somewhat darker than their's. It doesn't mean we must be from different races.

There is genetic variation within humanity. No one is claiming we are all the same genetically. I don't have to prove we are all the same to say we are all humans. I don't even claim to have genetic proof that people from all backgrounds are humans. If you wish to counter my belief that we are all human even in absense of genetic proof, feel free to make a mockery of yourself.

Without concrete proof either way, neither assumption is morally wrong, yet you use the 'racist' tag to attack those who assume differences, or merely question the underlying cause of the differences that everyone can see.

What morals you accept are an individual choice. I have my own moral view on it, you have yours. I'm not going to worry about it because I know there's nothing either of us will say to change the other's moral viewpoint. If you wish to read moral implications into my statements, feel free. I understand that when using a term there will be implications made to others (much as I am arguing that by using correlations implications are made), and quite honestly, that's part of the fun of it.

Racism as i was using the term is defined: (dictionary.com)

"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

If you feel, without genetic proof, that race is a factor in crime, then that is a belief on your part that there is an inherent difference between the races that impacts "cultural or individual achievement". (And before you go and try to argue based on the second part of that definition, remember the term "usually" is not "always" and I made no claims as to whether it was being used to apply to such conclusions in any case.)

My use of the term racism applies in absense of proof for the assumption or insinuation that race is a factor in crime. The term "racism" does not need genetic disproof of racial differentiation to apply.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


My brothers and I aren't the same under the skin, certainly my sisters and I differ under the skin, even though genetically they are my closest relations. In fact, my skin tone is somewhat darker than their's. It doesn't mean we must be from different races.

There is genetic variation within humanity. No one is claiming we are all the same genetically. I don't have to prove we are all the same to say we are all humans. I don't even claim to have genetic proof that people from all backgrounds are humans. If you wish to counter my belief that we are all human even in absense of genetic proof, feel free to make a mockery of yourself.

Nobody is denying we are all human.

What morals you accept are an individual choice. I have my own moral view on it, you have yours. I'm not going to worry about it because I know there's nothing either of us will say to change the other's moral viewpoint. If you wish to read moral implications into my statements, feel free. I understand that when using a term there will be implications made to others (much as I am arguing that by using correlations implications are made), and quite honestly, that's part of the fun of it.

Racism as i was using the term is defined: (dictionary.com)

"1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

If you feel, without genetic proof, that race is a factor in crime, then that is a belief on your part that there is an inherent difference between the races that impacts "cultural or individual achievement". (And before you go and try to argue based on the second part of that definition, remember the term "usually" is not "always" and I made no claims as to whether it was being used to apply to such conclusions in any case.)

My use of the term racism applies in absense of proof for the assumption or insinuation that race is a factor in crime. The term "racism" does not need genetic disproof of racial differentiation to apply.

The problem is that the term 'racism' has far more meaning attached to it than what the dictionary definition states. When you call someone a 'racist', you are not just calling them a 'person who believes that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others', you are calling them an evil, bigoted person. Surely the question of inherent racial differences should be considered entirely seperate from issues of morality - no?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Nobody is denying we are all human.

The acceptance that we are all human is thus the baseline. Meaning that in the absense of proof for race, or against it, the only supportable statement is that we are all human.

The burden of proof is on those who want to make further distinctions amongst humans.

The problem is that the term 'racism' has far more meaning attached to it than what the dictionary definition states.

Which is exactly my point my dear Caligastia. When you make a statement it carries implications with it, regardless of whether that was your conscious intent or not.

When you state a correlation between race and crime, you are making an implication that there is a reason to state a correlation between race and crime. (And technically, you have already determined that there is a reason to state the correlation as well.) It is technically racist to do so if you want to try to stick to technicalities. (The technicality I am referencing here being that correlation != causation.)

When you call someone a 'racist', you are not just calling them a 'person who believes that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others', you are calling them an evil, bigoted person. Surely the question of inherent racial differences should be considered entirely seperate from issues of morality - no?

I've thoroughly explained my position on how I used the term racist. I will further point out that I have not called anyone racist, in spite of your insinuations to the contrary. I have identified a type of action as racist, and even gone so far as to say that probably everyone is to some extent racist in that light. That itself should have made things clear as to how I am using the term.

"Everyone" being a set which includes myself. Do you really think that in light of such a statement on my part that I am "attacking" everyone including myself? I am using the term in a technically correct manner to help illustrate the implications of what we say. I make no argument that such a term carries no derogatory implication with it, and only ask that those who make correlations between race and crime accept that those claims have similarly derogatory implications.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
ghetto´s dont look bad to me (I mean the infrestructure, houses, streets with asphalt, they have tvs, cable tv, bathroom, kitchen etc)

That would be middle class in most of latin america, they (black americans who live iun ghettos) should realize that they arent really poor

Most of them aren't. There are a few neighborhoods (mostly in the rural South, what do you expect) that are comparable to the shanties and slums of the third world, but they're not common.

I think that just as shameful as the poverty itself is that you can drive a few miles down the road and see sprawling, well-manicured lawns and mansions. The most prosperous country in the world should not have any locales that compare to sights in the least prosperous countries.