"Is Race Real?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and2000x,

Really explain that to me would you? I used the word group to imply race, race does not exist but I need to use the word to describe it do I not? I demonstrated that people with their group or races as described by racial theory have more variation then people outside of their race. Hence race cannot measure genetic diversity.

Do you deny there are "Blacks" with light skin?
Do you deny that there are tall asians?

There are exceptions to the norms in rather larger percentages, hence race does not accurately describe a people and is obsolete as a classification of people biologically.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fetus:

This is ridiculous. The fact that there are exceptions to the norm necessarily implies that there is a norm.

Or rather, the fact that there are chartreuse blades of grass and viridian blades of grass doesn't mean that the grass isn't green.

Who gives a flying fuck whether it exists "physically" or not? "Blue" doesn't exist physically, does this mean that there are no blue objects?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Come on again I used norm in reference to race, how am I suppose to criticize it if I cannot define it?

Blue exist as a object that reflects in only that visible spectra of light, there is no objects that are blue in color that can not be said of being blue, but there are "black" people that would not pass for “black” race.

 

A propagation of this insanity

Some here are arguing that race can be defined as a set of hereditary traits and that the classification holds true regardless of blurring (euphemism).

So here, I define these some races, with traits that are hereditary:

The classification below assumes adulthood: over 18 years. Children will eventually grow into the classification.

Tall: 6 feet and up
Normal: 5"0 - 5"11
Short: under 5 feet

---
Tall people with black hair
Tall people with blond hair
Tall people with red hair
.....


Normal people with black hair
Normal people with blond hair
...

Short people with.....

Height is hereditary and so is hair color.

LMAO.

I am reading conflicting thoughts here about the existence of a defined Black, Asian, White, or Hispanic race. Surely only a fool who has no knowledge of the Bantus and Senegalese would group the two together as one race, simply because of skin color. So if it is accepted that the current defined 'races' is too generalized and better/more classification is needed, then what do we end up with? Italians? Americans? Germans? Japanese? Chinese? Senegalese? Nigerians? Those are nationalities. Or do you prefer Africans, Asians, South Americans, North Americans, Aussies, Antarticans??, LMAO.

Or do you prefer Manchurians, Akans, Yebos, Eskimos, ... I am stumped as how to group those in Europe and those in America. Add Russians, Brazilians, etc and fuck we are heading back to nationalities.

The fact of the matter is this: There are no definable traits, no matter how many, that can classify humans into distinct groups. And you cannot delve into the biological--genes, because that too is impossible.

Therefore, if people must be classified, and we do classify people because it is necessary, then we must use classifications that are more compact and have been studied. For example,
culture, ethnicity, nationality, age group, income bracket, education level, etc etc. These classifications are of import sociologically and anthropologically.

Sickle cell anemia: Not all African populations exhibit this. You can however see that it is more prevalent in certain cultures or ethnicities in Africa-- check regions with malaria. Not all 'African Americans' exhibit sickle cell anemia although it is relatively higher in that population. It must be about individual histories.

Intelligence: LMAO

Strength: LMAO

Height: LMAO.

 

That's how it's classified pal, so go look it up yourself. I think it goes a bit deeper than hair color/height. Go to a crime lab and ask a forensices expert and they can tell you what race a person is just by looking at a skeleton. That's why there is such a tremendous debate between geneticists and antrhopologists, because of this. The anti-race assumption goes by the same logic of fetus: that exceptions to a rule break the theory. They don't, as it is obvious that each race evolved from the same damn species: humans.

Race has evolved as a concept past simple terms of mongoloid, causcasoid and negroid, just as all theories evolve. For example, a white european can be broken down into alpine, nordic, aryan, etc...There is no way to refute these classifications because that what race is: a classification.

Furthermore, a exception to the rule don't count as debunking evidence Fetus. I can have a deformed mutant child but he is still a human being. There are some 107 types of woodpeckers in the world, but they are all unique. Even though they all came from the same root species, the woodpecker, they do not inter-mixing (some do, but they either die off or become a new group of woodpecker) You'd be hardpressed to tell me that they are all the same group. Nature endows ever being with various traits and adaptations, so it would be naive to reject it.

 

Please, Oh please. A link. A reference. So I can debunk this amazingly stupid and incorrect statement.

LMAO.

 

fountainhed:

This is inane.

Not perfectly distinct groups, no. I don't see either and2000x or I arguing that this can be done.

WCF:

Depending on your definition of "black".
Really, I give the hell up.

 

and2000x,

Race is a means to classifying people but it is not full proof not even exceptional accurate, hence I call in question its physical existence. Deformer freaks are not the exception I am talking about here: there are millions of people of pure African decent that have light skin.

The difference between a species is in fact that they do not breed, what are you getting at with your woodpecker example anyways?

Xev,

Most claim that "black" means of African decent, though some us it for aborigines.

 

And2000x said:

Wow... you're right!

I propose a new classification of my own:

Apples ARE oranges!

That's right, so much for your taxonomic classifications. That's my new assertion - apples are oranges. I can prove it, too! Try to find an exception to my new classification! Just try to bring me any apple that isn't an orange. If you do, I shall dismiss it as some kind of monstrous, non-orange freak. After all, if you bring me such an apple that doesn't mean that I have to reconsider my theory, it means that YOU'RE STANDING IN THE WAY OF SCIENCE! APPLE PROFFERING JERK!

And2000x also said:

That's right! Screw you again, you counterexampling losers! If you want to mess with my theory you're gonna have to mess with Nature! And she's a Mother! Try it again and I'll call you naive some more! Nyah!

 

BigBlueHead:
Have you completed grade school yet?

Fetus:
But simply being of African descent does not mean that one is "black" and I don't see why anyone would claim that. Africa is a rather large country.
Certainly someone descended from, say, a group that lived Soulthern Africa is going to have different traits than someone descended from a North African group.

I've never said that race is a precise classification. I'm obviously "white", but whether I'm Slavic or Caucasion is not obvious. Does this mean that there are no Slavs? No. No Caucasions? No.

I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. Race is merely a classification defining certain "overextended families". It is not a precise classification either.

 

Here is just a small example of races being classified within Europe.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/racesofeurope.htm

Aborigines are a different race Fetus. Features are not ALWAYS isolated to particular groups, for example there are naturally blonde Arogines that never had any association with whites at all, it's simply what their genes determined them to have.

Let's take a modern example: Michael Jackson (if you consider him human) is a mullato who got it on with a white chick. His children are fairly European looking with blonde and brown hair and fair eyes, as well as european facial features. Though they now carry african blood they now qualify as strictly white because of the heritage of their makers. You see, racial traits are very distinct and usually define that race. Is it no surprise that certain traits are more dominant or recessive than others and go together?

Notice how all white children are born with blonde hair and blue eyes: as they develope with age they will either keep these colors or they will change color. Africans on the other hand are born without blue eyes or blonde hair. This shows some quantifiable difference does it not?

 

To the racists

The idea of race starts off with family and bloodline. When a Greek wants to insult another Greek and he says, " Fuck your race!" He is referring to the recipients bloodline, not his ethniciticy.

Here in the Mediterranean basin where I happen to live, there is a universal expression that many people use and that is, "Una raca, una faca", it means, one race, one face and it refers to all caucasians, from Portugal to Lebanon, Morocco to Syria... they all supposedly have this, look. I guess you could call it the Latino but not quite look.

There might have been a time when this assertion might have been accurate, especially in the more isolated areas. And I will concede that there may be a predominant Med 'look', which is actually pretty hard to quantify

But the truth of the matter is that this one race, one face thing is pure fiction. Take away the suntans and dodgy hairstyles and you see the diverse types of white people that you might see just about anywhere. Granted, you will see less obviously Nordic types, but even they are in the mix too.

The key to races, is in that diversity, in those certain features that are shared by so many. Certain features that developed and began from interbreeding families. Now, all those features are mainly mixed up of course; the original races have been wiped out. Because the original race was the family.

Racism progressed, it used to be directed at the family living 2 doors up from you; now that there are no real families, or more precisely, now that your average family doesn't pose an immediate threat to another's survival and well being, the racist hate, which is borne out of ignorance and fear, is directed at groups of people who may share no more in traits than simply the colour of their skin, shape of their nose or inclination of their hair. It is a stupid form of racism, as it doesn't take into account the recipients bloodline, his true race.

The racist now generalises, puts people in huge pigeonholes and puts his colour first and foremost. Never mind that your average racist may be ignorant, stupid and incapable of thinking in any balanced objective manner. To him, he is part of the master 'race'; the achievers and go getters of this planet, the originators of anything of importance.

He is of course, deluding himself.

 

Xev,

you know very well that I am not the one defining race here, I need to use the definition of race to describe it and criticize it, how can I criticize it if I cannot use the definitions they gave it?

and2000x,

I did not know all white children where born with blonde hair and blue eyes, in fact I am quit sure you wrong on that and there are white child that are born with brown eyes and black hair.

 

By Xev: Africa is a rather large country.

LMAO. That is perfection. This is the epitome of your knowledge.


Xev: This is inane.

Since you miss the point, I will simplify. Race attempts to classify or categorize humans according to shared traits. The currently defined races are too "generalized", you all agree on this. If you try to further classify, you delve into preexisting classifications such enthinity and culture. You cannot group a Senegalese and a Bantu together into a race. If you try to further classify said groups, you end up with Senegalese and Batu--enthicities. Get it?

 

Xev said:

Xev, get off your high horse.

If you were not consumed with being snooty you might have noticed that I made a few important points. I shall repeat them in a less creative manner, to help you compensate for your supposed maturity.

You see,

And2000x said:

Actually exceptions do break the theory. If your theory cannot explain all instances of the real phenomenon then you need to rethink it, not defend it rabidly like a fanatic.

He also said:

In this he is correct. A classification is a NAME; it has no truth, and so it cannot be refuted. And2000x is claiming, however, that the name that he gives to a group of people has some kind of scientific meaning that implies a genetic brotherhood to that group. That is, he is saying that his viewpoint shapes the real world; when there are exceptions to his theory he claims that they don't matter.

He ALSO said:

Which is a rather brutal kind of appeal to authority, because the authority in question is only a personification of a series of independent circumstances. This might as well be an appeal to the divine.

All in all, I think I have a right to fly off the handle a bit when dealing with And2000x. So far in this forum he has taught us that:

1) It is all right to hate people who are different than you, as long as they are poor or disadvantaged

2) All of the people in Africa deserve to die because they have a genetic tendency to be the victims of violence

3) The Unabomber was a hero and his act of blowing people up was a good act and step towards progress

4) None of us should talk about being nice to other people until we have read the Unabomber manifesto and learned about "the Dangers of Oversocialization".

He has been spewing garbage since day 1 on this thread, which I suppose is his right - that's what Sciforums is for (some of the time at least). I believe that he is arguing for the physical existence of race (which he is, by the way) because he wants a justification for the bad attitudes he already has about people who are different from him.

I refuse to let him say unchallenged that he has a scientifically proven right to hate other people because of what they look like. He can say it if he wants, but I think he is wrong and I think his argument is poor. I do not think I will convince him that he is wrong, but it may be that other people will learn something from this discussion.

And what have you done? You broke into the middle of an argument to imply by your comments that I am immature or uneducated, when apparently -

- you don't know what this argument is about. To clarify, we are arguing about whether RACE EXISTS PHYSICALLY. (Furthermore, trucking out an old metaphysical saw about whether colours are real or not is not helping anyone. However, in this case we are talking about whether race has a genetic basis, which is definitely physical.)

So before you accuse me of acting like a grade school kid, go back and figure out where you went wrong. And next time, read the post before you criticize.

 

Whow calm down BigBlueHead, I think your exaggerating And2000x position here... but you also greatly under-exaggerated Xev's position (Xev is secretly referred to on this forum as “Bitch God” ALL HAIL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Well it's damn true so accept it. I DIDN'T know this was true until a few years ago a teacher told me when discussing children. I thought it over and asked a preschool staff, and they agreed.

Any white children with brown eyes or black hair at birth must be a product of mixing.

THIS WAS A RIOT:

I did come off as sounding like that, but you have to ask the question: why is this person poor and disadvantaged in the first place? Why are they in this situation? Only then should you pass judgement. The 'poor' have only themselves to blame. Should I pray to god and beg he'll forgive me for saying that? HA HA! You all sound like Christians.

Excuse me? Victims of violence? More like the cause of violence. Hell, why don't you try living there for once? My friend is a pure bred African straight from Nigeria and says that it's the worste place on earth, so don't take my word for it.

More self-congradulatory moralization from a closet Christian. You wouldn't have a country if people didn't have the balls to stand up and kill in the name of a cause.

There is a difference between being nice and being parasitic.

 

A: The "race is not real" theory is in deep shit then. Many things that appear to be contradictions are often not - this is why Socratic logic is a failure.

B: "Hate" is not the term. Wish to be isolated from, definitely. They are of a different evolutionary strata and should be left alone.

C: Don't moralize - it's dumb. The unabomber's ideas and methods are two separate categories. Fact is, if you're into environmentalism, you will be forcing people to do things, because naturally - if not trained otherwise - they are selfish.

Based on your logic above, Xev's comments regarding your educational level are dead on. Can you state your educational resume here to disprove it?

 

To those who believe race is real....What are the various races of the World? How do we determine what race a person is?