Is Racism about appearance?

THANK THE GODS!!!

Please -oh please -oh please... keep me there, forever.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So 'biological laws' don't constitute a scientific basis?

Why would anyone choose to be blind?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Being that you started with an ad-hominem proves you have no facts to back your clueless opinion.

I've already posted evidence for every statement I've made on this site. Feel free to search through my posts and refute all you want. You're right, it would be futile, you wouldn't stand a chance debating me kid.

Your ignorance is boundless. To bad there's not an ignore function, by that very statement you proved you're not worthy of any serious debate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that is not Ad Hominem.
I Did not attack your personal character, I attacked your Ideas, such as the Moon Hoax etc.

You don't know what the word, "proves" means do you?

<cough!> Bullshit!

Wanna put your money where your mouth is?
I'll take you up on the Moon Hoax.
Prove me wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you dare...

And you talk about ad homs?

Needless to say, the above commentary sounds like a Quick Fix back out for you.

Since you cannot reasonably debate me, you will just claim ahead of time that I'm a worthless opponent and not worth your time.
If this is true, you should have no fear in a proper debate with me.
Start a thread on the Moon landings and let's test your hypothesis.

 

You will never see another moon landing as long as you're living! You know why? Because we never went there in the first place. And since we'll never return, not even 50 years after we landed, proves my point beyond a reasonable doubt. When do postulate that we'll actually return to the moon, in the next 10, 20, 30 years?

 

There are two mutually entangling things going wrong here.

One problem is that "biological laws" "dictate" the appearance of progeny: the biology of human reproduction provides a range of possibilities for the appearance of progeny, strongly influenced by environment (such as height) and the luck of the draw in genetic recombination.

The other is that such inheritance, however "dictated", provides a scientific basis for the validity of the sociological races. It provides a scientific basis for the validity of the sociological family, possibly, with suitable demurrals and recognition of the variety of "families" both existent and possible, but it does not support the division of the human population into the races established in US society.

You might as well classify everyone with blue eyes as members of the same family, as classify everyone with strongly melanistic skin and curly hair as members of the same race - if your standards require "scientific" support from biology.

 

racism is, a negative attitude towards someone different then you, either colour, language, sex, being fat, skinny, so in a way yes appearnce is one kind of racism.

 

I agree that some don't.

White people is a misnomer. Caucasian is more accurate, which is why any medical or genetics textbook will use such a word when discussing genetic diseases.

Because they aren't. However, there are many diseases which are peculiar to Caucasians. Such as cystic fibrosis. Indeed, it has been postulated that carriers of the cystic fibrosis mutation are so common amongst Caucasians due to their ancestors being exposed to the bubonic plague.

Once again, biogeographic descent can be simplified to racial or ethnic heritage, and then used to roughly predict an individual's genetic susceptibility to a disease.

No. However, there are many studies which suggest difference in prevalences of disease suspectibility genes in various Asian ethnicities, including the Japanese, Han Chinese, and Koreans. Once again, biogeographic descent (simplified to race) allows one to make rough predictions regarding susceptibility to certain genetic diseases.

Those whose ancestors once resided in malaria prone areas of Africa (ie. African Americans) do. Naturally, Australian aboriginals don't have a genetic vulnerability to sickle cell anaemia.

It depends on context. If you live in America, it's pretty safe to make certain assumptions about biogeographic descent regarding black people based on appearance. If they look black, they are probably African American, and *not* Australian aborigines.

Correct. Environmental factors must always been taken into consideration. However, this does not negate the genetic factors common amongst a racial/ethnic group that predisposes them to disease.

Correct. The use of race and ethnicity as a predictor of disease is not perfect. I've stated so many times now.

Careful, you're coming close to misrepresenting me, which I consider intellectually dishonest. I have never once claimed that environmental factors are not important causes of health disparities between races. However, I think it is ridiculous and politically correct (ie. typically liberal) to dismiss the genetic component.

Is race a perfect indicator of susceptibility to disease? Hardly. Does it have predictive value? Yes. Is part of this predictive value due to genetic traits that tend to be shared by individuals with a particular biogeographic history? Yes.

 

Not really. Ever studied genetics? Dominant genes, dominant alleals and all that guff?

You twit. You can't disprove racial origins by observing the results of mixed breeding.

 

Again my question: Can classic races be validated genetically? Do the classic races make sense genetically, or does a ethnic group model fit better, or is a new model required?

"To ask the question is the know the answer"

 

Fraggles has already given you the answer. In black text, not white.
Races are disappearing. And to say that, one must acknowledge that they once existed.

Lucysnow recently posted a thread on some new discoveries with regard to the genealogy of humanity. There have been a few lately - and they have had a tendency to throw more confusion on the subject rather than light.

We don't know the full picture yet. There is a possibility we may never know.
But where we breed animals to fulfill some purpose of ours, there is no limitation or control on our own breeding. We're mongrels now; in the future, we'll be even more so and the concept of race will be history.

I suppose the only real concern is whether or not we'll all be wearing grey jumpsuits, following the only political party remaining and worshipping the same god - with a nod in the direction of the hell that would be.

 

I disagree, many here advocate scientific racism, Fraggles neutral general history of it all post did not cover this... I want them to put there proof down in front where their mouths are.

 

What are the classic races? Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid?

 

Yes.

 

The relationship between several of the African groups classified as "negroid" under the classical system, is also more distant genetically than the relationship between some of them individually and the classical "mongoloid" and "caucasoid" groups.

The only way to group humans into the "classical" negroid race (or mongoloid, for that matter) is by appearance. You can't do it genetically. You can't do it geographically (the Australians are not the only ringer in that arrangement). The classification is based on dark skin mainly, curly hair and flattish noses secondarily and optionally, and these features do not correlate well with genetic relationship.

You would not be discussing the racism of real life. Racists don't bother with that model. In the US, Obama is black: period. His "ethnic group" is completely irrelevant - that backstory will simply be invented at need, if any need arises, by the racists in the "discussion". Illustrations: Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Court Justice Sotomayor. Court Justice Alito.

The ethnic groups are as likely to be creations of racism - as in the US black cultures - as foundations of it. The racial classifications blow right over the ethnic group stuff, if it conflicts with appearance - not the other way around.

Caucasian is a misnomer. The classification is not based on genetic relationship with the inhabitants of the Caucasus, and any "genetics textbook" that overlooks the actual geographic spread of the genetic complex usually identified by light skin, straight noses, and no epicanthic fold, is going to misinform its readers.

And in point of fact, they don't. Genetic diseases of white people are invariably identified with actual genetic groups - such as Ashkenazi Jews - rather than the racial classification, "classical" (another word for "mistaken" and "historical" and "scientifically embarrassed") or otherwise.

And if they look yellow, and have epicanthic folds, they are probably Eurasian in origin, along with the Finns and Russians and Poles and and Swedes and Italians and Siberians. Continent level specification of biogeographical origin is not nearly sufficient for medical genetics, and in the case of Africa is downright foolish - the genetic variation on that continent is extreme.

 

Racism is about appearance because that's what makes it fun and easy

Racism is essentially about appearance, with a few variations, because its criteria are so superficial. Underneath, it's about the same things as any other petty greed. One need not learn, or express themselves intelligently and rationally, if the reason another is wrong is because he is Jewish, or black, or gay, or Christian, or atheist, or what the hell ever.

It's just a lot easier to stay on the surface. I mean, sure, I can't begin to describe the body odors carried by some Mexicans and Russians I've met in my day, but (A) that doesn't mean they're bad people, and (B) that says nothing about some of the hideous perfumes and colognes Americans choose to wear. At least when it's an overdose of chorizo and eggs and onions, I can tell what the hell it is that's making my sinuses bleed. And, frankly, if I absolutely must attach some personal value judgment, well, yeah, it's true: I'd probably enjoy the company of chorizo and onions and eggs better than the nosebleeding, overpriced toilet water with an unpronouncable faux-French name.

And I think one of the key indicators that racism really is so superficial is that none of its justifications are any deeper.

 

Well that is there too, if you take the time to look for it. Differing muscle structure, resistance to diseases, all of that. It's all out there.

It just seems odd that most people can't quite make the leap from physical differences to those which may or may not exist in the brain. Is it so difficult a concept?
We don't even know how the brain really works, let alone map it's functions in any real detail. The possibility is there that there are differences, leaving aside interbreeding now slowly nullifying them. Taking the side of one idealogy or another is foolishness at this point.

 

its not a matter of a few alleles, I'm asking for validation of the classical races with genetics.

Genetically what separates a negroid from a caucasoid from a mongoloid?

How related are people within a race?. How do you deal with the fact that some Negroids are less related to each other then some are to mongoloids are to caucasoids?

What genetic differences define a race? Are Ashkenazi jews a separate race from say Sephardi Jews, are they separate a race from slavic people?