Race

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag Person A: Whites are superior to blacks in intelligence.
"Unbiased" observer: You are a racist, white supremacist, Nazi SC*M!!!

Person B: Blacks are superior to whites in basketball.
"Unbiased" observer: You're right, man. Whites REALLY suck at basketball.

Of course, that's not a hypocrisy, is it? One is called white supremacy, the other "realism"... Racism, from what we understand, of course, is "feelings of antagonism and disrespect towards non-whites." I have never seen a black person being called a racist for dissing a white person, for example. Instead, that is labelled as "justified anger for years of slavery."

"Racism" is a stupid smear term invented by Communist Jews who have taken on the race cause as a means to an end. After all the founder of the NAACP was Jewish.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
I have never disputed that there are physical differences between humans, but that is treated on individual bases as well. Regardless of the race, we can take two men of the same ethnicity and age but of different physical attributes. One maybe short and physically not as developed as the other. Thus the one who is more physically fit can excel at athletics, while the one lacking an exceptional physical ability may excel at academics. In that case one exemplar may score higher on his IQ test than the other. You can no longer base such distinctions on race, but rather than on environmental, biological and social factors.

This is only obvious, if it were luck of the draw, arbitrary. But overall, when a general pattern forms, one can only conclude that as a general rule, with exceptions to it.

Originally posted by anileve Overall there are supposed 4 racial groups differentiated by genetic and physical characteristics Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. But then again, Caucasians can also be of different genetic and physical characteristics. Since we differ so much in our appearance: different hair color, body structure, blood type and eye color but that wouldn't make us a different race from each other would it? No. Different skin color one might say? Well let's examine skin color.

You forgot differences in intelligence, culture ( since culture is an outward manifestation of race ), creativity, physiological differences such as diseases and susceptibility to disease,i.e. blacks have Sickle Cell Anemia, due to mixing that occured in Britain and is still occuring, the disease that was virtually unknown in that area, is now common.

Originally posted by anileve Did you know that we all have basically same skin color? The only difference is a shade, just like you sit in the sun for a long period of time and it changes its shade. Whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to different shades of one color, melanin. Our shade is a result of a environmental and geographical determinants. Nature has equipped us with adaptability, our bodies adapt to numerous environments and climates, our behavior is also affected by those variants.

Yes, I knew about melanin, thankfully. Your statement following it is untrue though. Your suggestion of environment would have us believe that anyone can turn "white" or "black" depending upon where they live. Do you seriously believe this nonsense? So a Negroid can live in Sweden and somehow magically not only change his MELANIN, but his whole morphological and physiological differences? That assumes that we all evolved, or that somehow evolution is true.

Originally posted by anileve Now we can agree that there are Africans that have Caucasoid features, such as Ethiopians and Eritreans. Ethiopians are predominantly a Christian nation in addition their alphabet is almost identical to Armenian. However one can see the darker color that distinguishes them from Caucasians. Many of South Africans are also more white than you and I with Caucasian features, yet they are of Negroid race. Now a person who lives in a very hot climate develops a darker shade which in the effect makes him more susceptible to skin cancer and other skin diseases, thus you notice that people living in cool climate have lighter skin which is due to the efficient production of vitamin D for healthy bones to protect them from the harshness of the cold. In summary when one speaks of color many factors have to be taken into consideration. It is not as simple as Black and White.
Let us redefine the terms “race” and “ethnicity”. Dictionary definition.

"African" or "Africa" is a geographic term. A "white" from south Africa is technically an African. Ethiopians are not "caucasoids", and I never never seen any Ethiopan that has features of such, they are most definitely the result of mixtures and Blacks.

Originally posted by anileve Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.
While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal afilliation, religious faith, shared language or cultural or traditional origins and backgrounds. Whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. "Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race", or as a synonym for minority group.

Thank you for defining that we needed clarity.

Originally posted by anileve Race is a type of classification used to group living things based on such elements as common descent , heredity, physical attributes, behavior, economic and academic achievement, and even language. Although the term is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), this article is primarily concerned with "race" as the term has been used to designate groups of humans, whether or not the groups are mutually exclusive, and whether or not the classification purports to be objective.

Thank you for defining this as well as it is important for the topic.

Originally posted by anileve The practice of dividing humans into races emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities.

While the classification of race began with the European enlightenment, it is a documented fact that the ancients understood race and differences. I don't need to bring out Edward Gibbons, the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to show you how that society was conscious of differing groups.

Originally posted by anileve [B]In summary a race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and eye shape. Race, based on scientific proof is a cultural creation and realistically far from biological. We are 99% genetically identical and most of the biological variation is more evident in women and men and in our personal traits.

Despite similarities, there are differences, even in that 1% there are so many differences you wouldn't even begin to know. In fact, one can say that most of the differences we are talking about are in that 1%. In fact, it could be that it is because of that 1% that no one is equal.

[Darorinag]

Anon, where did you get that post from? I don't see it anywhere in this thread??

Now a person who lives in a very hot climate develops a darker shade which in the effect makes him more susceptible to skin cancer and other skin diseases, thus you notice that people living in cool climate have lighter skin which is due to the efficient production of vitamin D for healthy bones to protect them from the harshness of the cold.

I don't see Australians' skin colour changing... Moreover, there are a lot of white people who have lived in Brasil for extended periods of time, yet they are still white...

Race, based on scientific proof is a cultural creation and realistically far from biological.

So far, you have only made claims, nothing more... Racial differences exist. Physical differences between races exist. How you can say that it's "realistically far from biological" is beyond me...

We are 99% genetically identical and most of the biological variation is more evident in women and men and in our personal traits.

Any similarities between what you just said and what Mr. Clinton said, by any chance?

In his State of the Union address in January 2000, President Clinton attempted to allay people's fears about the dangerous and unethical potential of recent advances in genetic science. "We are all, regardless of race, 99.9 percent the same," he declared.

Nobel Laureate James Watson, the man who discovered the double helix structure of DNA in the 1950s and started the international Human Genome Project in 1990, sparked outrage when he suggested that there could be biochemical links between skin color and sex drive.

Watson referred to an experiment in which male subjects (rats and humans) were injected with melanin and immediately developed erections. Although the esteemed scientist claimed that his findings were the product of documented research, many in the scientific community and beyond were appalled by Watson's remarks.

Theories of genetic differences between races have a long and troubling history and are unsettling to many today. And the political implications of such ideas are, of course, incendiary.

More recently, this perspective informed the work of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, whose notorious The Bell Curve, which examined 80 years of data on human intelligence, concluded that although every American ethnic group showed the same distribution in IQ, their averages were different, with African Americans possessing an IQ average 15 points lower than whites. Murray and Herrnstein stated that this difference could not be explained by environment alone, that African Americans' genetic constitution also played a role.

But while conservatives and liberals alike have argued against the very idea of genetically-dictated racial differences, some scholars feel that the "politically correct" emphasis on the genetic similarities between people of different ethnic groups has stifled potentially useful research into actual distinctions that do exist between and within genetic populations.

"In effect, he [President Clinton] was implying that there are no meaningful differences between populations. That belief is wrong and dangerously so," wrote Jon Entine in the San Francisco Examiner. "We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. Only one chromosome determines if one is born male or female. There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador retriever, yet their inbred behavioral differences are immense. Clearly, what's meaningful is which genes differ and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate into huge functional differences."

Entine, author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, makes a similar point. "Although we share a common humanity, we are different in critical ways such as our genetic susceptibility to diseases," he says. "For instance, blacks are genetically predisposed to contracting colo-rectal cancer; Eurasian whites are genetically prone to multiple sclerosis -- and Asians are by and large victims of neither. The problem with Clinton's pandering to political correctness is that it threatens confidence in the life-saving aspects of the genetic revolution."

"Why do we readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell, Jews of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other groups to fall victim to the degenerative mental disease Tay-Sachs, and whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that blacks of West African ancestry have evolved into the world's best sprinters and jumpers and East Asians the best divers?" Entine asks rhetorically.

Geneticists, says Wells, do not subscribe to the concept of a biology of race. "You can find more genetic differences between two Africans than between an African and commoner from the Outer Hebrides," says Wells. "To me, race is a cultural construct. I put it another way: there is genetic variation among geographical groups." Wells speculates that the characteristics generally associated with race, such as skin color, account for no more than a tenth of the variation between humans, which is 0.01% of our genetic make-up.

Experts argue that differences in skin color — the most obvious difference between population groups -- developed as people migrated from Africa to colder environments, with paler skins developing in colder regions to "allow more efficient production of vitamin D from sparse sunlight," while people near the equator developed dark skin to protect them from the sun's harmful effects.

While recent genetic research has appeared to undermine the notion of "race" as a biologically-defined category, concern that scientific inquiry will be used to justify racism has proven an obstacle to popular acceptance of the study of the human genome. "If we do not welcome the impending genetic revolution with open minds, if we are scared to ask and to answer difficult questions, if we lose faith in science, then there is no winner; we all lose," says Jon Entine. "The question is no longer whether genetic research will continue but to what end."

In fact, recent research has actually debunked theories of a genetic racial hierarchy. In one study, James Flynn of the University of Otago in New Zealand forcefully exposed The Bell Curve's shoddy reasoning, arguing that the IQ scores of today are significantly higher than those of previous generations and that IQ test scores are influenced by environment as much as any genetic factor. "An environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap need only posit this: that the average environment for blacks in 1995 matched the quality of the average environment for whites in 1945. I don't find that implausible," Flynn says. According to his findings, when other measures of intelligence are taken into consideration, results are spread out more evenly across ethnic groups, suggesting that there is a cultural bias in IQ tests that works against certain ethnic groups.

Sound familiar?

--

To quote Entine himself:

[T]here is something of a bandwagon of publicly expressed sentiment that we should get rid of the idea of "human differences" altogether, even in medicine where researchers have identified dozens of population-specific diseases.

--

Also, isn't using different "racial" categories in experiments to prove that there are no races a fallacy of "begging the question"?

---

Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans.

Scientific American, Dec. 2003

[anileve]

What I find very interesting is that Dan is so clearly against multiculturalism, yet he is only half Armenian. Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure.

For everyone else, please refrain from making personal insults and turning a discussion into a fight. It is not meant to be so.

[Sip]

Originally posted by anileve ... Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure.

Isn't any "Armenian" (one whose Armenianness coeficient is larger than 0) in the diaspora such a product?

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse It is not "unsupported" nor is it "innacurate" that blacks committ most crimes. I already documented it.

Anon, I don't just make assumption all my information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the thoughts and the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/usacrime.htm

White Supremacist site with your statistics, of course promoting their agenda to display the superiority.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-4.xls

Real and unbiased statistics directly from FBI.

Also I am in no way basing my assumptions on race or ethnicity factors. I strongly believe that the choices people make are not based on their ethnicity or race, but rather on individual bases. That is the individualists point of view, which I thought you are, but as I can see I was wrong. We see what we want to see, our views are influenced by what is fed to us by media and our personal experiences. I tend to stay clear of fabricated fallacies and tend to filter though the thick layer of crap, to stay unbiased and objective.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Seapahn Isn't any "Armenian" (one whose Armenianness coeficient is larger than 0) in the diaspora such a product?

Exactly, a belief in "purity" of cultures and races is a myth, a fabrication of the mind which strives to elevate itself to justify its superiority.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Anon, I don't just make assumption all my information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the thoughts and the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/usacrime.htm

I figured I can post the statistics by just mentioning the source itself but then I would have to post every information in the brackets. That a "hate site" promotes it makes no difference, they will sport the same information U.S. government statistics will sport. Am I supposed to feel "guilty" or "bad" somehow?

Originally posted by anileve White Supremacist site with your statistics, of course promoting their agenda to display the superiority.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-4.xls

Real and unbiased statistics directly from FBI.

Yes, yes, yes they have the same information available to all, but since the only chart posted was on that site, and I did not get it from that, I was concluded in posting the chart. I still don't see your point in trying to invalidate the source simply because a site will associate statistics with it. That is just a logical fallacy you keep driving at which one gets tired of constantly.

Originally posted by anileve Also I am in no way basing my assumptions on race or ethnicity factors. I strongly believe that the choices people make are not based on their ethnicity or race, but rather on individual bases. That is the individualists point of view, which I thought you are, but as I can see I was wrong.

I never said I am not an individualist, when did I condone any violence or hatred? Since when does stating things amount to condoning violence or hatred? I am not going to pretend these things don't exist simply to appeal to my ignorance of "equality" and "utopia" like in John Lennon's Imagine. If you are going to associate me as a hater based on things, then that is your own flaw. For you and Fadix are the type that in order to make "more equality" and make ths world a better place", will support government insanity such as affirmitive action, more government, and more legislation, to make things "equal", and force "assimilation" and "equality" and "multicultural education" down the throats of people. In other words, mold peoples' thoughts, but not let people come to their own conclusions. You and Fadix are simply a product of the egalitarian culture that pervades academia where all things are "senitive" and we cannot discuss this because it is "racist". What would you and Fadix have to say to all the black rap lyrics that show hatred and racism towards whites? I am only exposing this fallacious view to its logical limit, in no way condoning hatred.

Originally posted by anileve We see what we want to see, our views are influenced by what is fed to us by media and our personal experiences. I tend to stay clear of fabricated fallacies and tend to filter though the thick layer of crap, to stay unbiased and objective.

I disagree, we see only what is there, looking the other way in light of obvious facts is when we want to look and see what we want to see, not see the truth for what it is. But yes

Ahh well, soon Fadix will be here, and yes, yes, I'm a hater, a racist, a bigot, you are right, I am wrong, you win. Apparently, trying to lay the facts straight is something anathema to egalitarians. Trying to have a cordial discussion is impossible with preconceived minds and emotional approaches to "sensitive topics". I already made my point, I wasn't here to justify hatred, merely to be objective, but yes "it's all subjective", and "all relative", and by that I close my participation in this discussion, since I am "biased" because I am here to foster "hatred". I see no more point in continuing this discussion with preconceived minds of the way the world ought to be, that if just maybe we were blind to these facts we too can live in an harmonious utopia.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Exactly, a belief in "purity" of cultures and races is a myth, a fabrication of the mind which strives to elevate itself to justify its superiority.

No one said anything about "purity", and yes some are superior over others despite what you like to believe. Sorry.

[Anonymouse]

Ahh this is hilarious. The absurdity of "hate crimes" based on the The FBI Uniform Crime Report. What isn't "hate" these days?