Another important "race" question

[Zeno]

Are Texans a 'race'?


-Zeno

[Gamblor]

of course not.

it's a geographical, artificial construct.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

So is race. Humans are humans. We're all the same species.

[Gamblor]

We're all the same species.

Sometimes I wonder.

In the same way that Poodles are different from Pit Bulls are different from Terriers, are different from Golden Retrievers...

Are we really all the same?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Are we really all the same?

Last I checked, all humans are Homo sapiens

What we call "race" are just differences in adaptation, primrily to climate. These adaptations occurred over hundreds of thousands of years.

In the same way that Poodles are different from Pit Bulls are different from Terriers

No. Most modern differences in dog breeds are purely man-made. Cultural differences are no more innate than language. Put a Swedish infant in a Bantu village and he will grow up acting like a Bantu. Place a Bantu infant in Sweden and he will grow up behaving like a Swede (maybe playing poker). A human child will learn *any* language to which it is exposed regardless of his or her origin.

[Gamblor]

Those are more a function of a complex brain than universal instincts.

But point taken, nonetheless.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Kurns,
I go along with this to some extent as humans are probably the most adapatable of species.

But I still believe races and breed are similar concepts and that each may have some statistically significant genetic predispositions that show themselves as culture.

Consider a flaming homosexual. Did they not find a gene that tends toward that behavior?

I suspect as the genome gets more well known, this question will be answered. But perhaps not in our lifetimes.

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Both races of people and breeds of dogs can mate within thier respective species. So even at that level there's a parallel.

[ACPlayer]

Is bigotry the result of a mutated gene or the result of environmental adaptation?

[AmericanAirlines]

It's the result of repeated experiences. In which case I wouldn't even call it bigotry, but "playing the odds".

For a group of people devoted to objectively playing a financial game, you all have a hard time getting past you Political Correctness programming.

You seem to find it impossible to see that maybe blacks and whites really are different in some ways. As well as Jews and Arabs etc.

Yes, we're all humans, we all have the same number of chromosomes and can mate. But there are different clusters of traits.

If it were not so we couldn't even give the races names.

And what's to say various traits aren't more common in one cluster than the next?

Can you not tell when you are talking to a black person on the phone, without even seeing them?

Sincerely,
AA

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Consider a flaming homosexual.

As opposed to a non-incendiary homosexual?

Did they not find a gene that tends toward that behavior?

I do not believe a specific gene has been isolated for either the homosexual part or the flaming part.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Humans are xenophobes by nature. Education helps us overcome that.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Kurns,
Don't have time at the minute to do the research but
here's at least one link or two.

http://www.meta-library.net/genetics/orient-body.html

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/guest.htm

Sincerely,
AA

[elwoodblues]

Just because we have different clusters of traits doesn't lead me to the same conclusions that you come to. You seem to come to an us versus them conclusion based on the different traits, I tend to come to an us and them conclusion. There's nothing "Politically Correct" about not assuming that because someone is different than you that they must be against you.

Perhaps you are playing too much poker and therefore see everyone at the table as an opponent.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Elwood,
The truth lies in how "they" see it. Given that there are organizations with "Black" or "Jewish" in the titles it would appear there is an "Us" v. "Them" mentality out there, and it's not all from the non-black side.

I agree assume = ass + u + me... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But, the fact still seems to be, if I recreated the very same organizations with "White" or "Caucasian" in the title, I'd be labeled "Nazi", "Klansman", "Bigot"... as many in here have done.

Seems one sided to me. And thus I conclude the tide of racism today is turning Anti-white.

Granted this situation has it's origins in the atrocities of Nazi Germany. But seems to me I shouldn't have to pay for that. I wasn't even born yet. Heck even my father was just a kid at WWII. And I'm getting into middle age here.

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Where ever there are identifiable differences and conflicts over resources an "us v. them" mentality arises...
"Battle of the Sexes", "Black v. White", "Jew v. Arab" and so on.

[elwoodblues]

The reason there isn't a white caucus is that there doesn't need to be one. When you are in the majority you don't need to have a special group looking out for your interests -- the fact that you are the majority suffices. This is similar to the notion that the protections of the bill of rights are there to protect the minority. While it is true that they protect the majority (as an ancillary benefit), the majority doesn't need to have free speech protection because by their numbers they elect people who agree with their speech.

[ACPlayer]

Is it possible to acknowledge the existence of other "races" without assigning stereotypes?

Is it possible to acknowledge differences between the "race" groups without automatically assigning the differences to genetics?

Is it possible to acknowledge the differences between the "race" groups without recognizing that the major share of blame for the lack of your success may be your own abilities?

Is it possible to look at statistics and find causes other than race to explaing the statistics, rather than assigning the "blame" to race?

Is race the main variable in your analysis of where you are in your life?

[Ray Zee]

to even function in the world you have to generalize things. same with race stuff. you tend to see traits or things that are common with a particular group. whether its by color speech looks or whatever. nothing wrong with that. as long as you judge each person individually by their own actions. if you dont do that than maybe it is bigoty or whatever for that situation.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Elwood,
True... but the point is... just try to start any group with "White" or "Caucasian" in the title and see what happens.

At one Fort 500 I worked at they actually did have a forum for "White Males" to go along with all the other groups.

Was cancelled for lack of interest.

I believe the concensus was no one wanted to be *automatically* labelled "Racist, Nazi, or Klansmen".

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi ACPlayer,
I've worked hard all my life. Multiple job and/or higher education at times. And been very honest and non-schmooz, non-machiavellian.

That alone is why my financial situation isn't what I'd like it to be. Not lack of effort or race.

I've never said, "My lack of success is because of blacks".

I have said, "It's because of the engineering of working life and rewards by the rich elite". And firmly believe it. Well... along with the fact that the adults and educators in my early life were lame about the subject of success. Artifact of the era I believe.

I also believe there are classes, despite the "classless America" myth. Having lived very near the most powerful families on the planet, while being a working person has proven it to me. Perhaps you haven't been in a place to see it.

Nothing I say in these posts is pulled from the air. Seriously.

As for stereotypes, they arise when there's a pattern. Using patterns to save survival energy is likely also a genetically built in trait, for better or worse. I.E. "I see tigers eat people again and again... better avoid tigers." Simple as that.

I agree... race may or may not be a cause for something. But if there's a correlation, that may be good enough to base judgement on.

But, I also agree that one needs to assess the individual as well.

But, since I'm uncomfortable with certain groups at an almost biological level, why should I go against those feelings if I don't hurt anyone?

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

Is it possible for someone to say, "Hey, I'm just averse to some groups and see that these groups appear to be proliferating" without being equated to Nazis, Klansmen, and the like.

Hey, I'm not about killing people and ovens and the like.

It's just about not having governmental sanctions to cram these other groups up my nose whether I like it or not.

Sincerely,
AA

[daryn]

being averse to "some groups" is basically what racism is all about. (assuming that the groups are groups of a single race)..

now if you had said, "i don't like to be around thieves", that would be totally understandable, but i think we can all see the difference with a guy saying "i don't like to be around black people"


now... if you really don't like to be around black people, well hey, that's your business, and it doesn't make you a bad guy necessarily , but i think it does make you racist.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
But, since I'm uncomfortable with certain groups at an almost biological level, why should I go against those feelings if I don't hurt anyone?


[/ QUOTE ]

But you're not racist. LOL.

[MMMMMM]

elwoodblues: "This is similar to the notion that the protections of the bill of rights are there to protect the minority."

The protections of the Bill of Rights are there to protect THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority, not the minority, not any group at all. THE INDIVIDUAL.

elwoodblues: "While it is true that they protect the majority (as an ancillary benefit), the majority doesn't need to have free speech protection because by their numbers they elect people who agree with their speech."

This is even scarier than the first misunderstanding.

The individuals who comprise the majority sure as hell do need the protection of the right to free speech.

Furthermore, they don't all agree on everything and don't manage to elect officials who agree with everything they think. And even if they did, they would still need the right to free speech because they might have something DAMN IMPORTANT TO SAY.

[ACPlayer]

Is it possible for someone to say, "Hey, I'm just averse to some groups and see that these groups appear to be proliferating" without being equated to Nazis, Klansmen, and the like.
No.

It's just about not having governmental sanctions to cram these other groups up my nose whether I like it or not.

Who is cramming anything up your nose against your will? You are the one who is singling out groups and are saying that they are causing your failures -- with statements like -- because of AA or the black bro or the female AA type or whaever outher excuse you can find you could not get rich or get some promotion or what ever.

Fortunately for the rest of us the only person you are harming with these thoughts are yourself (assuming you dont have any kids).

[brad]

'The reason there isn't a white caucus is that there doesn't need to be one. When you are in the majority you don't need to have a special group looking out for your interests -- the fact that you are the majority suffices.'

so youre saying california can now have a caucasian caucus?

(no majority anymore in CA)

[MMMMMM]

Also note that in the Bill of Rights, the Amendments repeatedly use the word "person" not "group" -- as in "No person shall be denied" or "No person shall be deprived..." I'm not looking at them as I type but you get the idea. The individual is protected--not any majority or minority, or group of any kind. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about--protecting the rights of the individual.

[Rushmore]

Remember a couple of years back, when Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson said that he WOULD cross the street if he saw a large group of African-American males walking toward him on the street at night? He caught hell.

So, he caught hell for utilizing common sense based on experience and observation.

Conclusion: If you make a rational, yet unpopular decision based upon experience, observation, and deduction, just be smart enough not to say anything about it.

Just act upon it.

[elwoodblues]

My point is that an individual who holds a viewpoint consistent with the majority need not worry about the government stepping in and censoring his/her speech. Only individuals who hold minority viewpoints need to worry about this.

[ QUOTE ]
The individuals who comprise the majority sure as hell do need the protection of the right to free speech

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you think of an example where this is actually true -- i.e. a situation where someone who is speaking in a way consistent with the majority would be in danger of having their speech censored?

[elwoodblues]

You are correct, I incorrectly used the short-hand "minority" to express "individual in the minority" and "majority" to express "individual in the majority".

[elwoodblues]

Of coarse they can. Anyone can create a caucus. Do they need one? I don't know, but if they feel they do, go right ahead.

If anything, I think the discussions that this group has been having over the past few weeks about race illustrate why there is a need to have a black caucus (and not just so they can figure out how to invade the territory and take it over due to their "africanized" nature).

[Chris Alger]

No he's not, he's making a distinction without a difference in order to give lip service to the conservative fetish for "individuality" as a counterpoint to the merits of collective action. Originally, the Bill of Rights was never designed to protect individuals or groups but states and their citizens from federal, but not state, rights infringements. The Bill of Rights generally didn't even apply to state laws until the 14th Amendment's due process clause "incorporation doctrine" (the 14th Amendment being ratified only after the Civil War) took off beginning in the 1920's. Even now the doctrine doesn't apply to the entire Bill and to this day states can still pass laws that violate some Bill of Rights prohibitions (although they might be restrained by their own constitutions).

Constitutional rights generally are understood as being most important because they protect minority groups, often very large ones, not just not because they protect random individuals with no group affiliation: the criminally accused, smaller religions, pregnant women, political dissidents, etc. The cases arise on an individual basis because of the justiciability doctrine, not because "individualism" is enshrouded by the U.S. Constitution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
he's making a distinction without a difference

[/ QUOTE ]
I know...I was just seeing if maybe by using his language he'd actually respond to the substance of the argument instead of the semantics. We'll see.