Tweet
Originally posted by winoman
-
if u were smart u would know the hilter youth liked blond haired BLUE eyed boys lol. -
That is untrue.Originally posted by winoman
Culture is an outward manifestation of race. Culture is determined by race. It doesn't work the other way around. No one mentioned "white culture" for you to state that "there is no such thing as white culture". You are shadow boxing with an invisible enemy.Originally posted by winomanAchkerov kute.Comment
-
there is no such thing as white culture. Please define it if you really think that there is.
Race is a largely arbitrary categorization (for convienice sake that suffers in the smae way that all approximations do) that at best only works in an extreme macro sense as any attempt to break it down in comparison of individuals of different cultures tends to uncover more exceptions then support any particualr rule.Comment
-
Race and the Human Genome
Researchers definitively trump the notion of race with DNA research.
"We're more alike than we are different" is a common catch phrase among those promoting the importance of celebrating diversity. It turns out that statement is 99.9 percent true.
Scientists studying the human genome announced recently that the their investigation of the human genome data concludes that the DNA of human beings is 99.9 percent alike, meaning that no matter what the color of our skin, when you look at humans on the genetic level, we are indistinguishable from one another.
This comes as good news to skeptics who worried that studies of the human genome would provide fuel to the fire of racists who contend that biological differences make some races inferior to others. Arguments about intelligence and genetic inferiority of minority groups have been widely adopted by white supremacist. The human genome research reinforces long-held beliefs that race has no biological foundation and is a notion of societal evolution. The American Anthropological Association recommended in 1997 that the U.S. government scrap the term "race" on official forms because it holds no "no scientific justification in human biology."
Harold P. Freeman, M.D., a researcher with Celera, the company who released the results of the study, wrote in a prologue to the protocol, "Race as used in the United States is a social and political construct derived from our nation's history. It has no basis in science. The biologic concept of race is now believed to be untenable."
Diversity itself played a key role in the genome project. The DNA of five subjects was utilized in the sequencing of the human genome, male and female volunteers who identified themselves as white, African-American, Latino and Chinese. Exactly whose genomes were used in the study shall remain a mystery, however. Members of Celera's Institutional Review Board (IRB), a board created to ensure the integrity of the study and its compliance with established U.S. guidelines governing research involving humans, agreed early on in the study that the identities of the participants must not be revealed. Even within the company itself, the identities of the volunteers are protected by a coding system.
Fast First Steps in a Long Journey
The potential implications of studies of the human genome are just beginning to be realized. Though scientists caution it will take "a long time" before studies of the human genome can lead to treatments-- even cures-- for diseases like diabetes, cancer, asthma and others, the research is moving along quickly and scientists are excited about the possibilities.
Researchers originally predicted that the discovery of the recently released findings would occur sometime in 2005. "These revelations arrive almost five years early from the original predictions of not having this information until 2005, and here we are. We have the first draft of our own book of life and we've read it from cover to cover, and we've discovered some pretty amazing surprises," Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Institute in Washington told CNN recently.
"We are that much closer [to fighting and curing diseases] having this foundation now in front of us," Collins said.
The effect of the findings on race and racism in contemporary society could be just as profound. As Dr. Freeman of Celera's IRB stated in his assessment of the importance of diversity in the study of the human genome:
"The power of science can be used to eliminate public perceptions of racial superiority and inferiority, which are the basis of racism itself. In this way, the mapping of the human genome could be pivotal in promoting the concept of one race, the human race."
Full details of the recent findings appear in the journal, Science which is featuring a special issue on the human genome this week with free access to all users.Comment
-
And an appropriate comment (to our discussion) from an individual participating in a forum commenting on a website dedicated to the history of the "white race":
Honestly? This website is a load of hooey. Complete hooey. First of all, I have to immediately call into question any so-called scholarly effort to document the history of a "White race". What race would that be?
This "white race" has been around 35,000 years, eh? 35,000 years! The classic Chinese of today have not been dated to be even as old as 20,000 years (closer to about 17,000) and they have been determined to older than this "white race". Hence, I would find even a 20,000 year old "white race" to be wholly incredible.
Then this site talked about the genetic link of these "whites". What genetic link would that be? The same goes for the fact that they lumped the Masai in with the pygmies! Huh? Does it take a genius to see that these are clearly 2 separate peoples? A true genetic check would reveal that none of these peoples termed "white" are related to one another and none of them termed "black" are either. In fact, some termed "black" and some termed "white" are genetically closer to each other! What does that mean? It means there is no such thing as race: white, black or otherwise. It is an illusion! No one who knows what the hell they are talking about when it comes to anthropology would do anything but laugh when they read this garbage. To make it accurate on that count, this site should be called "The History of a Disparate Group of Peoples That We Have Arbitrarily Chosen to Call 'White' So That We Can Lump Ourselves In With Them and Regard Ourselves As Somehow Superior". There would be no other reason to make a site like this.Comment
-
Did I state there is white culture? In fact if you read what I wrote, it stated that no one stated there is such a thing, and you are shadow boxing with yourself.Originally posted by winoman
As far as race. It is very real and very non-arbitrary. Please refer to the following link as this topic has been discussed to death.
Achkerov kute.Comment
-
Thank you for insisting that my thread go off topic, winoman.Comment
-
i remember arguing with anony about this a long time ago, WINOMAN stop while you havent gone insane... anony is not a real human being, therefore he cant comprehend simple human argument pertaining to science, theory, logic, tc...
he is much younger then I am, he hasnt got a degree in any credible social science, and really has only read rubish... i argued the same point about race and culture and of couurse he has more time then i do, so i quit, or maybe we agreed to disagree...
anywho, about armenians: there are several scholars that say we are indo-european, and there are several who say we are mediteranian... i say we have influence from all corners of the world because of your strategic positioning on the globe...
FOOD does matter... for example, when the mangolians invaded the armenian plataeu, what did we get? we got what is known as WONTONS in asian culture, but we dont call it that, we call it something else, and then there were the italians with their ravioli, but according to prominent armenian cooks, the recipe is MUCH more like the Asian style, the look is like the italian... when russians got armenia to be in the soviet union, what did we get, more food, this time RUSSIAN food, and when i make that food, i dont know what to call it, and my relative from lebanon dont know what it is either, but they LOVE IT... all i know is that it is russian, but Armenianized...
race was theorized a long time ago, because we didnt have the resources to do the type of research we can do now... SO now that we can measure the "genetics" which makes up the argument of "race", and see that we arent different at all... we are the HUMAN RACE! and thats the only race we are... it leaves the other differences which are culture and environment based...
when someone is hairy, it means they lived somewhere where they had to have more hair to survive. when someone has less color in the tone of their skin, it means there was less sun in that area of the globe, etc...
so are armenians "white" or "black" or are we "gray"? that is a question that shouldnt even be asked, it is like asking are armenians "paper" or "plastic" it doesnt have an added value, it doesnt describe anything... after all we are all from the HUMAN RACE.
so now i want to restate somethiing i said in this thread: we say the words "white people" because thats the social understanding of what some people are referred to in this country. go to armenia, and there is no such understanding, for that matter, go to europe and there is also NO such understanding, because for exmaple, the french and english dont like each other, right? well they dont want to be refered to as the same "race" if you will, as the other... so there is no such understanding of "white peopel" outside of the US. this was created by people, and it can either go away, which would require that we grow up, mature, and accept intelligence, or we can live like anonymouse in the mystical world of deniel, regress, and artifical "racism"...Comment
-
Nune, we live in the US and simply accept the fact that this is done. We didnt create this notion nor do we help it survive by buying into it - unlike those of us who use the term "white people".Comment
-
This is the stupidest line of reasoning I have ever come across. Since when has having a "credible social science degree" a prerequisite for an internet discussion forum. Since when has someones age been a determining factor in a discussion? It sounds to me like you are full of yourself and cannot stand the fact that I pop the bubbles of egalitarian illusions you abide by. Therefore, since I do not agree with you, like winoman, you must resort to ad homenims. Thus, since I do not agree with you, and even offer evidence for my arguments, I therefore "can't comprehend simple human argument".Originally posted by nunechka
I do not understand what the purpose of this is, but if you are suggesting there have been cultural influences from other cultures, then that is not a subject of dispute. You and winoman constantly jammer about this point as if it makes or breaks things. It does not. The point of dispute is with regard to race and culture. I stated that culture is a product of race, for how else could culture develop? For any given culture to have come out, there had to have been a certain people to create that culture, since culture is only an outward reflection of a people. Armenians are a distinct people, that have created their own culture as well as absorbed others. This is true for any people, since no one lives in absolute isolation. Therefore, interactions are the rule and cultural borrowing and spread is therefore prevalent. Does this somehow mean that we are "mixed"? No it does not. While mixing has occured in every peoples, mixing occurs in degrees, and not in kinds. Those peoples and civilizations which have mixed not in degrees, but in kinds, have disappeared.Originally posted by nunechka
As far as culture and the cultural absorption that has occured, that is the only thing which you and winoman drive at, forgetting that it is the people that produced that original culture.There is an onion theory of culture proposed Sir Richard Winstedt. Specifically it is the "onion theory of Malay culture". The idea behind this is that if you peel off all the successive layers of cultural influence over the years, you will reach the core culture of that people. This theory was also used by John Whitmore, and he applied this to Vietnam, and its history. This can be applied to any people at given time and we can always come across to the core culture of a given people. As John Whitmore stated,
"Thus, for Malaya, off goes Islam, then the Hindu-Buddhism, before we reach the indigenous nature of Malay. This however assumes an unchanging process of cultural accretion, such that original cultural elements are untransformed as they move across the centuries. Instead, we need to consider, in a linguistic sense, constant change and transformation taking place as the culture develops, whether or not it is influenced from the outside. Yet, while this temporal change is taking place, a continuity still exists that allows us to recognize the culture as that culture, despite its changes. The question then is, what kind of transformation has taken place, and to what degree."
I am anxiously waiting for the day when a study of this theory can be written about Armenians and if I didn't plan to attend law school, I would have most earnestly chosen history to get the chance to research this. Thus, when we repeal the layers of your Asiatic influence, of Russian influence, we are left with the "indigenous nature" of Armenians.
Race was not theorized a long time ago. How long is a "long time"? Be specific. Race became empirical only during the enlightenment, because of advance in science. However, to suggest that prior to this race did not exist is foolish and a gross retardation of history. The world of antiquity is riddled with literature that note the differences between human population groups. Just becuase they did not designate those differences with the modern term "race", does not mean that they were not aware of these distinctions between peoples. I do not want to go further off topic by bringing evidence of these things. Genetics can be measured in both ways, the ways in which they were measured was biased. Gene frequences and allele patterns exist in all peoples. There are frequencies that are similar in peoples and there are ones that are different. It can be that whoever measured them only chose to measure the similarities of human populations and not the differences and given the fact that the modern academia is steeped in egalitarian fiction, and ideological bias, there is all the more evidence of how science has been manipulated.Originally posted by nunechka
This is the sort of assumptions that egalitarians are left with. Do you seriously suggest that if a sub-Saharan black African were to live in Norway that he would become "white" or "hairy"? Moreover, your above argument assumes that evolution is true or something that has already occured.Originally posted by nunechka
That is untrue. Humans belong to the human species. It is within that human species that there exist varying races of people, with genetic variations.Originally posted by nunechka
I am glad that you constantly need to mention me because I quake the bedrock of your Disney-life beliefs. Living in denial, as you so aptly put it, of the reality of race, doesn't change the fact that race is real.Originally posted by nunechkaAchkerov kute.Comment
Comment